Blended Learning in Higher Education: Different Needs, Different Profiles

Abstract The use of technology can be seen as an innovative challenge to restructure the teaching-learning process and integrate ICT in independent, collaborative and interactive work. The thoughts of 32 teachers and 36 students vis-a-vis a Course Management System from five undergraduate courses were analysed. A systematic content analysis was merged with a multivariate analysis. The results seem to reveal 4 profiles of teachers (i.e., activities-oriented, interaction-oriented, assessment-oriented, and collaboration-oriented) and 3 profiles of students (i.e., interactive learning environment-oriented, teacher's beliefs-oriented, training-oriented). A proficient LMS seems to require human resilience and versatile to the needs of all users.

[1]  J. B. Arbaugh,et al.  Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[2]  S. Selcen Guzey,et al.  Teaching Science with Technology: Case Studies of Science Teachers' Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) , 2009 .

[3]  Steven R. Malikowski.  Factors relted to breadth of use in course management systems , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[4]  Beate List,et al.  An evaluation of open source e-learning platforms stressing adaptation issues , 2005, Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'05).

[5]  Michael Simonson.  Trends in distance education technology from an international vantage point , 2005 .

[6]  J. W. Gikandi,et al.  Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge , 2006, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[8]  Peggy A. Ertmer.  Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration , 1999 .

[9]  Yves Punie,et al.  Learning 2.0: the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe , 2009 .

[10]  Axel Bruns,et al.  Building collaborative capacities in learners: the M/cyclopedia project revisited , 2007, WikiSym '07.

[11]  Lisa Bosman,et al.  Revitalize Your Teaching: Creative Approaches to Applying Social Media in the Classroom , 2011, Social Media Tools and Platforms in Learning Environments.

[12]  Ezio Lefons,et al.  Design of an e-learning environment for teaching databases and information systems , 2008 .

[13]  Michael Simonson,et al.  Trends and Issues in Distance Education: International Perspectives , 2005 .

[14]  Peggy A. Ertmer,et al.  Increasing Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs for Technology Integration , 2004 .

[15]  James D. Klein,et al.  Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration , 2008 .

[16]  Ronald J. Bonnstetter,et al.  Examining Congruence among Teaching Objectives, Classroom Behavior, and Student Learning: Feedback for University Professors , 1994 .

[17]  James D. Klein,et al.  Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration , 2008 .

[18]  Eunjoo Oh,et al.  How are Universities involved in Blended Instruction? , 2007, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[19]  Atsusi Hirumi,et al.  A Framework for Analyzing, Designing, and Sequencing Planned Elearning Interactions. , 2002 .

[20]  Eugene G. McGuire,et al.  Knowledge representation and construction in hypermedia environments , 1996 .

[21]  Brian Shackel,et al.  Usability - Context, framework, definition, design and evaluation , 1991, Interact. Comput..

[22]  Charles Juwah,et al.  Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature , 2004, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[23]  Dowming Yeh,et al.  What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Dorit Maor,et al.  Interactivity in professional online learning: A review of research based studies , 2007 .

[25]  Miky Ronen,et al.  Adopt & Adapt: Structuring, Sharing and Reusing Asynchronous Collaborative Pedagogy , 2006, ICLS.

[26]  Sofie M. M. Loyens,et al.  Investigating effects of problem-based versus lecture-based learning environments on student motivat , 2011 .

[27]  Camille Johnson-Yale,et al.  Academic work, the Internet and U.S. college students , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[28]  D. Gash.  E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online , 2012 .

[29]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test , 1995, MIS Q..

[30]  Adem Karahoca,et al.  Roles of teachers in e-learning: How to engage students & how to get free e-learning and the future , 2010 .

[31]  Niall Sclater,et al.  Web 2.0, personal learning environments and the future of learning management systems , 2008 .

[32]  Andrew Cram,et al.  Using LAMS to structure and support learning activities in virtual worlds , 2010 .

[33]  Iain Doherty,et al.  Developing ICT and e-learning capacity in a medical and health sciences faculty , 2007 .

[34]  J. M. Cerezo,et al.  Web 2.0 , 2010 .

[35]  K. Miller,et al.  Connected and culturally embedded beliefs: Chinese and US teachers talk about how their students best learn mathematics , 2008 .

[36]  Dirk Ifenthaler,et al.  States and Processes of Learning Communities. Engaging Students in Meaningful Reflection and Learning , 2011, Social Media Tools and Platforms in Learning Environments.