From face-to-face to Distance: Towards Flexibility in five Dimensions of Blended Learning: Lessons Learnt from the Covid-19 Pandemic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.4.2201Keywords:
Blended learning, distance education, place, time, class size, technology, pedagogyAbstract
In the rapid switch from contact to distance learning in response to the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic lecturers had to adapt their teaching in relation to five distinct areas – place, time, class size, technology, and pedagogy. This autoethnography reflects on the implications of each of those dimensions, as well as the extent to which lecturers worked either at the extremes or the dimension, or in a way to incorporate elements of both extremes. From the narratives of how lecturers cope I derive a matrix for the selection of technologies and pedagogies in blended learning.
References
Asanov, I. et al. (2021) ‘Remote-learning, time-use, and mental health of Ecuadorian high-school students during the COVID-19 quarantine’, World Development, 138. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105225.
Bonk, C. J. (2020) ‘Pandemic ponderings, 30 years to today: synchronous signals, saviors, or survivors?’, Distance Education, 41(4), pp. 589–599. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1821610.
Borup, J., West, R. E. and Graham, C. R. (2013) ‘The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence: a narrative analysis of four cases’, Distance Education, 34(1), pp. 48–63. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.770427.
Chan Kent, A. S. (2020) ‘An Autoethnography of my Journey through Autoethnography’, Emerging Perspectives, 4(2), pp. 79–88. doi: 10.4324/9780429022753-4.
Clark, R. E. (1994) ‘Media will never influence learning’, Educational technology research and development, 42(2), pp. 21–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088.
Cronjé, J. C. (2006) ‘Paradigms Regained : Toward Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Sciences’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), pp. 387–416. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9605-1.
Duffy, T. M. and Jonassen, D. H. (2013) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. doi: 10.4324/9780203461976.
Elander, K. R. and Cronjé, J. C. (2016) ‘Paradigms revisited: a quantitative investigation into a model to integrate objectivism and constructivism in instructional design’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), pp. 389–405. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9424-y.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E. and Bochner, A. P. (2011) ‘Autoethnography : an overview Autoethnography : An Overview’, Historical Social Research, 36(4), pp. 273–290. doi: https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.36.2011.4.273-290.
Eyal, L. and Gil, E. (2020) ‘Design patterns for teaching in academic settings in future learning spaces’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 51, pp. 1061–1077. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12923.
Gous, I. G. P. and Roberts, J. J. (2015) ‘About time: a metacognitive view of time and workload created by technological advancements in an ODL environment’, Distance Education, 36(2), pp. 263–281. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1056334.
Graham, C. R. (2006) ‘Blended learning systems’, in The handbook of blended learning. Pfeiffer San Francisco, CA, pp. 3–21.
Kozma, R. B. (1994) ‘Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), pp. 7–19. doi: 10.1007/BF02299087.
Livesey, P. V. and Runsen, G. (2018) ‘Autoethnography and theory testing’, Construction Economics and Building, 18(3), pp. 40–54. doi: 10.5130/AJCEB.v18i3.6139.
Lowenthal, P. R. and Dunlap, J. C. (2020) ‘Social presence and online discussions: a mixed method investigation’, Distance Education, 41(4), pp. 490–514. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1821603.
Pleines, C. (2020) ‘Understanding vicarious participation in online language learning’, Distance Education, 41(4), pp. 453–471. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1821605.
Rehn, N., Maor, D. and McConney, A. (2016) ‘Investigating teacher presence in courses using synchronous videoconferencing’, Distance Education, 37(3), pp. 302–316. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2016.1232157.
Russell, T. L. (1999) The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries and papers. North Carolina State University.
Sheail, P. (2018) ‘Temporal flexibility in the digital university: full-time, part-time, flexitime’, Distance Education, 39(4), pp. 462–479. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2018.1520039.
Spector, J. M. (2005) ‘Time demands in online instruction’, Distance Education. Taylor & Francis, pp. 5–27. doi: 10.1080/01587910500081251.
Vanichvatana, S. (2020) ‘Who uses home as informal learning spaces: A bangkok private university case study’, World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 12(1), pp. 37–47. doi: 10.18844/wjet.v12i1.4416.
Veletsianos, G. and Houlden, S. (2019) ‘An analysis of flexible learning and flexibility over the last 40 years of Distance Education’, Distance Education, 40(4), pp. 454–468. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2019.1681893.
Walker, U. (2017) ‘Discursive construction of social presence and identity positions in an international bilingual collaboration’, Distance Education, 38(2), pp. 193–215. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2017.1324742.
Wang, M. et al. (2020) ‘Does group size influences middle school students’ interaction in online forums?’, Journal of Computers in Education, 7(1), pp. 29–49. doi: 10.1007/s40692-019-00141-9.
Yu, J., Vermunt, J. D. and Burke, C. (2020) ‘Students’ learning patterns and learning spaces in higher education: an empirical investigation in China’, Higher Education Research and Development. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1775557.
Zuhir, A. et al. (2021) ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Using e-Learning in University Education : Analyzing Students ’ Perspectives’, Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 19(2), pp. 107–117. Available at: https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/2168.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Johannes Cronje
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access Publishing
The Electronic Journal of e-Learning operates an Open Access Policy. This means that users can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, is that authors control the integrity of their work, which should be properly acknowledged and cited.
