3.8 Proceedings Paper

Is Ratio Even Worth Experimenting? A Conceptual Review in a Blended Ecosystem

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3306500.3306511

关键词

Ratio; blended learning; technological intervention; experiment; pedagogical approaches

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The contention of technological integration in the context of teaching and learning has indisputably gained immense and legitimate considerations in the past decade. The advances in technological interventions and Web 2.0 have impelled numerous educational institution to experiment with and implement invigorating pedagogical models to support the online portion of the instructions. With these developments, innovative aims and trajectories are adopted by institutions to align and position themselves as being more competitive and relevant to the millennial learners. More significantly, the diffusion of technology in this circumstance - the blend of both conventional approach and technology - has rendered the chalk and board method as rather irrelevant to the current teaching and learning context. In spite of the growing reputation and establishment of blended learning amongst the stakeholders, there exists a few pressing issues to address. For instance, much of the disquisition revolves around the equivocal and incongruent dichotomy of the blend between traditional and technology which is evidently attributed to the nebulous allotment of ratio for the respective approach. Nonetheless, not much of the current research on blended learning has dedicated a clear focus or attempted to define, describe, and map the notion of ratio and its peripheries. Thus, this study aimed at conceptualizing the concept of ratio in the context of blended learning by synthesizing the existing and pertinent literature. The implication of the synthesized literature would offer novel means to conceptualize the allotment of ratio pragmatically. The study concluded by advocating fundamental tenet for future researches in the context of blended learning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据