You are here:

An Integrated Blended Model for the Contemporary Learning Environments ARTICLE

, A/Professor at Art University of Isfahan, Iran (Islamic Republic Of) ; , , Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 25, Number 4, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way (Bose, 2007). This study responds to this need by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative approach. The research aims to explore the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face (f2f) design studio as well as a virtual design studio (VDS) as experienced by architecture students and educators at an Australian university in order to find the optimal combination for a blended environment to maximize learning. The main outcome is a holistic multidimensional blended model being sufficiently flexible to adapt to various setting, in the process, facilitating constructivist learning through self-determination, self-management, and personalization of the learning environment (Saghafi, 2013).

Citation

Saghafi, M.R., Franz, J. & Crowther, P. (2014). An Integrated Blended Model for the Contemporary Learning Environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(4), 531-549. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Baecker, R.M. (1995). Readings in human-computer interaction: Toward the year 2000: Morgan Kaufmann.
  2. Bose, M. (2007). The design studio: a site for critical inquiry. In A. Salama & N. Wilkinson (eds.), Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (pp. 131-140). Gateshead: the urban international Press.
  3. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis: Sage.
  4. Cross, J. (2006). Forewards. In C.J. Bonk& C.R. Graham (eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs: Pfeiffer. Dennis, A., Bichelmeyer, B., henry, D., KCakir, H., Korkmaz, A., watson, C. Et al. (2006). The cisco networking academy: a model for the study of student success in a blended learning environment. In C.J. Bonk& C.R. Graham (eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 120-135): Pfeiffer.
  5. Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: a role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 119-133.
  6. Kilcrease, M. (2002). The link between buildings and learning, 2010, from http://www.ia-sb.org/Schoolfacilities.aspx?id=560 Riguet, J., general, S., Cox, L., Mejia, S., hyett, P., Koudryavtsev, A. Et al. (2008). Uia and architectural education reflections and recommendations.
  7. Rose, R., & Ray, J. (2011). Encapsulated presentation: a new paradigm of blended learning. The Educational Forum, 75(3), 228-243.
  8. Saghafi, M.R. (2013). A Holistic Blended Design Studio Model: Exploring and Expanding Learning Opportunities: laP laMBeRt academic Publishing. Salama, A.M., & Wilkinson, N. (2007). Introduction: legacies for the future of design studio pedagogy. In A. Salama & N. Wilkinson (eds.), Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (pp. 3-8). Gateshead: the urban international

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.