Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model combining Web-based and classroom components

Computers and Education

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 261-269

  Tuckman, Bruce W ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer mediated instruction; Pedagogical issues; Post secondary education

Indexed keywords

E-LEARNING; EDUCATION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; TEACHING;

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE; CAMPUS COMPUTER LABS; CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION; GRADE POINT AVERAGE; PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES; POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; TRADITIONAL APPROACHES; TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 31244436383     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00045-3     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2000). Distance education: A reflective action research project and its systemic implications for higher education. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13, 587-612.
2. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2). A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2). A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Lago, M. E. (2000). The hybrid experience: how sweet it is!. Converge, 3(11), 32-34, 36.
5. Mayer, R. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2). A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Murphy, P. K. (1999). Modeling the multifaceted persuasion process: learner and text interactions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
7. Passerini, K., & Granger, M. J. (2000). A developmental model for distance learning using the internet. Computers & Education, 34, 1-15.
8. Perkins, D. N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructionaldesign theories and models (Vol. 2). A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 91-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Seidel, S., & Walters, J. (1994). The "things" children make in school: disposable or indispensable. Harvard Graduate School of Education Bulletin, 39(1), 18-20.
10. Simmons, R. (1994). Dusting the television: teaching for understanding. Harvard Graduate School of Education Bulletin, 39(1), 13-16.
11. Simmons, R. (1995). The horse before the cart: Assessing for understanding. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 22-26.
12. Tuckman, B. W. (1985). Evaluating instructional programs (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
13. Tuckman, B. W. (1999a). Conducting educational research (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Publishers.
14. Tuckman, B. W. (1999b). A tripartite model of motivation for achievement: Attitude/drive/strategy. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
15. Tuckman, B. W. (2001). The effectiveness of the strategies-for- achievement approach for teaching "study skills". Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
16. Tuckman, B. W., Abry, D., & Smith, D. R. (2002). Learning and motivation: your guide to success. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. US Department of Education. (2001). The condition of Education 2001. National Center for Educational Statistics (2001-072). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.