Tranformational Learning in Hybrid Instructional Environments

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


Hybrid learning is an instructional method that can likely support students in attaining active engagement and learning transformations. Course designers can likely support learning transformations when the course is designed in a way to direct students to independently guide their own learning experience. Student learning outcomes are improved when students can apply the course content to real-world settings.


<ul><li> 1. Hybrid Learning Environmentsin Higher Education:Can Transformational Learning OutcomesBe Achieved? Regina Henry Cohort 8</li></ul> <p> 2. Quote </p> <ul><li> The illiterate of the 21 stcentury will not be those that cant read and write but rather will be those that cant learn, unlearn, and relearn.</li></ul> <ul><li>~Alvin Toffler </li></ul> <p>06/02/09 3. Research Purpose </p> <ul><li><ul><li>To understand whether the hybrid instructional setting can empower students to achieve transformational learning outcomes when the course is designed to encourage independent learning, social interactions, and revised meanings of how the content can be applied in the real-world. </li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 4. Research Questions </p> <ul><li>How do adult students perceive the learning experiences in terms of student preparedness for the use of the learning tools? </li></ul> <ul><li>What are the requirements needed to equip students to direct their learning experiences in a hybrid course? </li></ul> <ul><li>What are the components and features of a hybrid instructional model? </li></ul> <ul><li>In what ways does hybrid instructional delivery transform student learning?</li></ul> <p>06/02/09 5. Significance of the Project </p> <ul><li>Instructional design could empower adult learners to direct learning outcomes with proper supports from course facilitator.</li></ul> <ul><li>Learners could examine course content and ideas of the instructor and peers to be guided to examine their world views. </li></ul> <p>06/02/09 6. Significance of the Project </p> <ul><li>Student could engage in reflective practices to arrive at new understandings of how the content can be applied in the real-world. </li></ul> <ul><li>Hybrid instructional model could be developed to encourage students to explore current knowledge and purposefully engage in discussions that lead to transformational learning. </li></ul> <p>06/02/09 7. Review of the Literature From Distant Learning to Hybrid Learning </p> <ul><li>Kupczynski &amp; Hooper (2006); Morabito (1999) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>1873, Illinois Wesleyan University offers distant degrees</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>1873, Female correspondences courses </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>1881, Bible based correspondence courses </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Jefferies, n.d.</li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Instructional design include fax, e-mail, audio, and video in 1970s </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Garnham &amp; Kaleta (2002) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Four University of Wisconsin-College campuses introduced hybrid instruction in 1999. </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Blend of class seat time and internet based instruction </li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 8. </p> <ul><li>Buzzetto-More &amp; Sweat-Guy (2006) &amp; Lindsay, 2004 ) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Increase in discourse, reflective practices, and course satisfaction </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Riffell and Sibley (2003 ) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Students indicate design supports engagement and self-motivation </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Kritskaya and Dirkx (2000) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Learning model more likely to support transformative learning </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Students explore content, examine and share beliefs, guided to new meaning schemes through dialogue and discussion. </li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 9. Review of the Literature Transformative Learning </p> <ul><li>Mezirow (2000), King (2005), Cranton (2006) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Examination of beliefs, reflections, discourse, change in paradigm </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>King, (2005) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Education designed within scope of the students life </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Critical Reflections </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Mezirow &amp; Associates (2000) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Learner autonomy, disoriented dilemma, Self-assessment </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Recognition of need for change, plan course for change; Implement </li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 10. Review of the Literature Technology Supported Learning Environments </p> <ul><li>Knowlton (n.d.) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Enhance student learning </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Expanded resources, active role in learning, in depth discussions </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Riffell &amp; Sibley (2003), King (2005) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Increased Interaction and course satisfaction </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>More opportunities for everyone to participate, time for reflections </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Lin, Pluck, &amp; Bichelmeyer (2003), Biggs (2006) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Students reported preference for hybrid learning </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Increased interaction, supported reflective practices, and self-directed learning </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 11. Methodology Population and Research Sample </p> <ul><li>Christian university </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Two groups </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Second year doctoral students </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Group A </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>31% Age: 30 39 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>23% Age: 40 49 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>46% Age: 50 59 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Group B </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>7%Age: 20 29 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>33% Age: 30 39 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>33% Age: 40 49 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>20% Age: 50 59 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>7%Age: 60 69 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Group A </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>31% Age: 30 39 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>23% Age: 40 49 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>46% Age: 50 59 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Age </li></ul> <ul><li>Group B </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>7%Age: 20 29 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>33% Age: 30 39 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>33% Age: 40 49 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>20% Age: 50 59 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>7%Age: 60 69 </li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 12. Methodology Population </p> <ul><li>Race </li></ul> <ul><li>Group A </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>69% Caucasian </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>23% African American </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>7%Other </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Group B </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>80%Caucasian </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>13%African American </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>7%Other </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Profession </li></ul> <ul><li>Group A </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>46% K-12 Education</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>38% Administration </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>08% Nursing </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>08% Insurance</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Group B </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>60% K-12 Education </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>13% Higher Education </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>27% Administration </li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 13. Methodology Data Collection </p> <ul><li>Convenience Sampling </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Intact Groups </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Internet Survey</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Likert Scale Survey </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>4 response choices </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Descriptive quantitative data </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Open-Ended Questions </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Qualitative data </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Self-report experience </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Interviews </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Data were synthesized and analyzed to expand on emerging trends </li></ul></li></ul> <p>06/02/09 14. Methodology Analytical Methods </p> <ul><li>Nonparametric test Chi Square </li></ul> <ul><li>Descriptive statistics </li></ul> <ul><li>Independent samplesttests </li></ul> <ul><li>Telephone or Video Interview </li></ul> <p>06/02/09 15. Limitations </p> <ul><li>Time</li></ul> <ul><li>Variety in hybrid course designs </li></ul> <ul><li>Changes in academic personnel </li></ul> <ul><li>Research questions changed</li></ul> <p>06/02/09 16. Research Question #1 Perception of adult learners preparation to use instructional tools </p> <ul><li>Q3I felt prepared to use the learning tools </li></ul> <ul><li>Independent samplesttest</li></ul> <ul><li>Group A(M= 2.83 , SD =.94 ) </li></ul> <ul><li>Group B ( M= 2.64 , SD =.84) </li></ul> <ul><li>t (24) = .07,p</li></ul>


View more >