D4 S4: A Four Dimensions Instructional Strategy For Web-Based And Blended Learning

Year 2012, Volume: 13 Issue: 4, 220 - 235, 01.12.2012

Hamdy A. Abdelazız

Abstract

Web-based education is facing a paradigm shift under the rapid development of information and communication technology. The new paradigm of learning requires special techniques of course design, special instructional models, and special methods of evaluation. This paper investigates the effectiveness of an adaptive instructional strategy for teaching and learning through the Web and blended learning environments. The central theme of this strategy is that instructional strategies give instructors and students a conceptual as well as a practical mode of delivery from which to teach and learn. Considering and applying new instructional strategy can help instructors to understand the uses of pedagogical content knowledge, as well as to reflect the role of technological content knowledge that can be adapted and/or adopted in teaching in all educational levels and environments. The main objective of this paper was to develop a holonomic instructional strategy for Web-based and blended learning. This strategy is guided by the non-linear and interactive features of learning environments. The strategy is consisted of four dimensions: designing, developing, delving and distributing. In this new instructional strategy, learning is holonomic and adaptive. Learning occurs in an open learning environment, in which instructors are designing a shared vision, developing a sharable e-learning task, delving students’ learning through scaffolding and salvaging students’ knowledge. The expected outcome of this instructional strategy is that each learner will develop a cognitive schema to be used to organize and construct knowledge and meaning in similar context of learning which may increase the generalizability, trustworthiness and transferability of learning. The results of applying this new strategy showed that this strategy is effective on developing both achievement and deep learning levels among a sample of graduate students.

Keywords

Web-based learning, Blended learning, Instructional models, Instructional strategies, Adaptive learning, Deep learning, holonomic learning.

References

• Bailey, M., & Hahn, L. (1999). Using participatory action research to investigate the process of designing and developing Web-based instruction. In R. Torraco (Ed.),
• Proceeding of the 1999 Academy of Human Resource Development (pp. 195-302). Arlington, VA.
• Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
• Colletta, L. (2002). Integrating technology: Making successful change happen in schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(05), 1683. (UMI No. AAT 3056135)
• Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology: Technology report. MA: BBN Labs, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 331 465)
• Dede, C. (2000). A new century demands new ways of learning. In D. Gordon, (Ed.),
• The digital classroom: How technology is changing the w ay w e teach and learn (pp. 174). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Letter. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). NY: Longman.
• Driscoll, M. (2002). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In Robert A. R. &
• John V. D. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 57-69). NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Driscoll, M. (2008). Hype versus reality in the boardroom. In S. Carliner & P. Shank
• (Eds.), The e-learning handbook: Past promises, present challenges (p.53). CA: Pfeiffer. Gillani, B. B. (2003). Learning theories and design of e-learning environments. NY:
• University Press of America, Inc. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models
• (4th ed). New York: Syracuse University. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. Heide, A., & Henderson, D. (2001). Active learning in the digital age classroom.
• Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Horton, W. (2008). Knowledge management: From the graveyard of good ideas. In S.
• Carliner & P. Shank (Eds.), The e-learning handbook: Past promises, present challenges (p. 105). CA: Pfeiffer. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
• Merrill, M. D. (2008). Converting e3-learning to e3-learning: An alternative instructional design method. In S. Carliner & P. Shank (Eds.), The e-learning handbook: Past promises, present challenges (pp. 359-397). CA: Pfeiffer.
• National Research Council (NRC) (2001). How people learn: Brian, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded Edition).Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
• Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
• Rhodes, E. (2011). Learning, teaching, and technology: A short literature review.
• Retrieved November 17, 2011 from http://www.aacte.org/Research/lit_20review- revised.htm
• Schuyler, G. (1997). A paradigm shift from instruction to learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414961)
• Thomson, D. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics,21(4), 662-712.
• Thornburg, D. (1996). Campfires in cyberspace. San Carlos, CA: Thornburg and Starsong Publications.
• Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008).Computer-mediatedinstruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology and Research Development, 56, 101 - 124.
• Webster, R. (2002). Learning styles and design:The use of ASSIST for reflection and assessment, in Quality Conversations. Paper presented at the 25th HERDSA Annual
• Conference, Perth, Western Australia.