Students' perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended learning environment

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 133-146

  Delialioglu, Orner ^a   Yildirim, Zahide ^a  

^a MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Blended learning; Effective dimensions of interactive learning; Hybrid instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250804686     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. rd Ed.), Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Co., Needham Heights, Mass.
2. Bandura, A. (1975). Social learning & personality development, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, INC: NJ.
3. Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D. Duffy, T. M. & Perry, J. D. (1998). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen (Eds.) Constructivism and technology of instruction: a conversation, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 17-35.
4. Berge, Z. L. (2000). New roles for learners and teachers in online higher education, retrieved May 16, 2007, from http://www.globaled.com/ articles/BergeZane2000.pdf.
5. Black, G. (2002). A comparison of traditional, online, and hybrid methods of course delivery. Journal of Business Administration Online, 1(1). Retrieved May 16, 2007, from http://jbao.atu.edu/old/Journals/black.htm.
6. Caladine, R. (1999). Teaching for Flexible Learning, Abergavenny Monmouthshire: GSSE.
7. Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11 (3), 267-286.
8. Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 54 (4), 445-459.
9. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 21-29.
10. Davidson, K. (1998). Education in the Internet-linking theory to reality, retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://www.oise.on.ca/~kdavidson/cons. html.
11. Dick, W. (1995). Instructional design and creativity: a response to the critics. Educational Technology, 35(4), 5-11.
12. Ehrmann, S. C. (1999). Technology in higher learning: A third revolution, retrieved May 25, 2007 from http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/ dthirdrev.html.
13. Garnham, C. and Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8 (6). Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm.
14. Gray, L. (1999). Preparing principals and superintendents - students and the instructor in struggle to balance the traditional classroom approach and a web-delivered approach, retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://naweb.unb.ca/ 99/proceedings/graylee/.
15. Gunter, G. A. (2001). Making a difference: Using emerging technologies and teaching strategies to restructure an undergraduate technology course for pre-service teachers. Educational Media International, 38 (1), 13-20.
16. Hall, R.H., Watkins, S.E., Davis, R., Belarbi, A., & Chandrashekhara, K. (2001). Design and assessment of webbased learning environments: The smart engineering project and the instructional software development center at U.M.R. in L.R. Vandervert, L.V. Shavinina, & R.A. Cornell (Eds.) Cybereducation: The future of long distance learning, New York: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Publishers, 137-156.
17. Hannafin, M., Land, S. & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 115-142.
18. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19. Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., and Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 31-39.
20. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-23.
21. nd Ed), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 651-660.
22. Liyoshi, T. (1999). Cognitive processing using cognitive tools in open-ended hypermedia learning environments: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, USA.
23. Liyoshi, T., Hannafin M. & Wang F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student centred learning: rethinking tools, functions and applications. Educational Media International, 42 (4), 281-297.
24. Marchionini, G. (1988). Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos. Educational Technology, 28 (11), 8-12.
25. Marques, O., Woodbury, J., Hsu, S., Charitos, S. (1998). Design and development of a hybrid instruction model for a new teaching paradigm. Proceedings of frontier in education conference, November 1998, Tempe, Arizona. Retrieved on May 20, 2007, from http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie98/ papers/1229.pdf.
26. nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
27. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1-11.
28. Oren, T. (1990). Cognitive load in Hypermedia: Designing for the exploratory learner. In S. Ambron & K. Hooper (Eds.), Learning with Interactive Multimedia: Developing and Using Multimedia Tools in Education. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.
29. Passerini, K. & Granger, M. J. (2000). A developmental model for distance learning using the Internet. Computers & Education, 34, 1-15.
30. Reeves, T. C. & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. H. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction, Englewood Cliffs: NJ, Educational Technology Publications, 59-65.
31. Reeves, T. (2002). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education, retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://www.educationau.edu.au/ archives/cp/reeves.htm.
32. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University. Retrieved May 20, 2007 from http://teleeducation.nb.ca/ nosignificantdifference.html.
33. Rowland, G. (1995). Instructional design and creativity: a response to the criticized. Educational Technology, 35 (5), 17-22.
34. Sanders, D. W. & Morrison-Shetlar, A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward Web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 251-263.
35. Sands, P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-to-face instruction in hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today. 8 (6). Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm.
36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 616-622.
38. Welsh, T. M. & Reeves, P. M. (1997). An event-oriented model for web-based instruction. In B. H. Khan (Ed), Web-based instruction, Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 159-166.
39. Yildirim, Z. (2005). Effect of technology competencies and online readiness on preservice teachers' use of online learning management system, retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol.