Developing Hybrid Instruction of Creative University during the Flood Crisis and Normal Situations
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study has two objectives: 1) to study hybrid implementation and the effectiveness of the hybrid instruction during the flood crisis and 2) to explore the development of the hybrid instructional prototype and its results of the model implementation during the normal situation. This is a longitudinal study. The respondents were divided into 4 groups: 1) teachers, 2) executives and supporting staff, 3) undergraduate students, and 4) university executives. Data were collected from a questionnaire survey, interviews and a focus group interview. Data analysis was carried out using frequency, percentage and content analysis. The findings revealed that during the flood crisis the hybrid instruction model comprised 4 activities – 1) classroom lectures, 2) small group review sessions, 3) online teaching, and 4) self-study – attracted learners’ attention, reduced pressure from confrontation, and enhanced learning effectiveness and life skills of the learners. While in the normal situation, online learning was integrated with regular classroom instructions in some weeks. Moreover, student leaders were invited to design the classroom activities and arrange hands-on learning activities. The outcomes included the ability to apply knowledge gained from real practice and success in employment.
Article Details
ลิขสิทธิ์ของบทความ
ผลงานที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของมหาวิทยาลัยหอการค้าไทย ห้ามมิให้นำเนื้อหา ทัศนะ หรือข้อคิดเห็นใด ๆ ของผลงานไปทำซ้ำ ดัดแปลง หรือเผยแพร่ ไม่ว่าทั้งหมดหรือบางส่วนโดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรจากมหาวิทยาลัยหอการค้าไทยก่อน
References
Ahmad, R., & Nisa, M. U. (2016). The significance of educational technology in teaching learning process. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 4(1), 164-170.
Akbar, M. (2016). Digital technology shaping teaching practices in higher education. Frontiers in ICT, 3, 1-5.
Branoff, T. J., & Mapson, K. (2009). Large course redesign: Moving an introductory engineering graphics course from face-to-face to hybrid instruction. Proceedings of ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved from http:// http://se.asee.org/proceedings/ASEE2009/papers/PR2009024BRA.PDF
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2009). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Web 2.0, second life, and STEM share the spotlight. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds), Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 7–23). New York: Springer.
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2011). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Lean times, shifts in online learning, and increased attention to mobile devices. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 67–80). New York: Springer.
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 90-100.
Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20-34. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
Harrison, D. J., Saito, L., Markee, N., & Herzog, S. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of a hybrid-flipped model of learning on fluid mechanics instruction: overall course performance, homework, and far-and near-transfer of learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 712-728.
Majumdar, S. (2015). Emerging trends in ICT for education & training. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from http://www.stthomascollegebhilai.in/wp -content/uploads/2016/10/emergingtrendsinictforeducationandtraining.pdf
Marsh, G.E., McFadden, A.C., & Price, B.J. (2003). Blended instruction: Adapting conventional instruction for large classes. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(4), 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/distance/ojdla/winter64/marsh64.htm
Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18-23.
Masrom, U. K., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Asshidin, N. H. N. (2019). Understanding learners' satisfaction in blended learning among undergraduate students in Malaysia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7, 2233-2238. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2019.071023.
Murati, R., & Ceka, A. (2017). The use of technology in educational teaching. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(6), 197-199.
Powell, A., Rabbitt, B., & Kennedy, K. (2014). iNACOL blended learning teacher competency framework. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561318.pdf
Saltan, F. (2017). Blended learning experience of students participating pedagogical formation program: Advantages and limitation of blended education. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(1), 63-73.
Sickel, J. L. (2019). The great media debate and TPACK: A multidisciplinary examination of the role of technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(2), 152-165.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in asynchronous communication. Language, Learning, and Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Spring, K. J., & Graham, C. R. (2017). Thematic patterns in international blended learning literature, research, practices, and terminology. Online Learning, 21(4), 337-361. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.998.
Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535181.pdf
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning.pdf
Wongwanich, S. (2005). Alternative strategies for developing research and evaluation culture and capability of professional teacher. Journal of Research Methodology, 18(2), 193-211.