Advertisement

The Means to a Blend: A Practical Model for the Redesign of Face-to-Face Education to Blended Learning

  • Maren ScheffelEmail author
  • Evelien van Limbeek
  • Didi Joppe
  • Judith van Hooijdonk
  • Chris Kockelkoren
  • Marcel Schmitz
  • Peter Ebus
  • Peter Sloep
  • Hendrik Drachsler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11722)

Abstract

Learning design models provide guidelines and guidance for educators and course designers in the production and delivery of educational products. It is seen as beneficial to base learning designs on general learning theories, but these must be operationalised into concrete learning design solutions. We therefore present one such educational design model: the Design Cycle for Education (DC4E). The model has primarily been created to support the shift from traditional face-to-face education to blended learning scenarios. The cycle describes eight steps that can be used iteratively in the (re)design of educational products and provides educators and course designers with a flexible but clearly structured design model that enables them to reinvent traditional course content for blended learning with appropriate learning design tools.

Keywords

Blended learning Learning design Design model 

References

  1. 1.
    Bower, M., Vlachopoulos, P.: A critical analysis of technology-enhanced learning design frameworks. BJET 49(6), 981–997 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dick, W., Carey, L., Carey, J.O.: The systematic Design of Instruction, 8th edn. Pearson, Boston (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gagne, R., Briggs, L.: Principles of Instructional Design. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Göksu, I., Özcan, K.V., Çakir, R., Göktas, Y.: Content analysis of research trends in instructional design models: 1999–2014. J. Learn. Des. 10(2), 85–109 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller, J.M.: Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mishra, P., Koehler, M.: Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 108(6), 1017–1054 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mor, Y., Mogilevsky, O.: The learning design studio: collaborative design inquiry as teachers’ professional development. Res. Learn. Technol. 21, 22054 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peterson, C.: Bringing addie to life: instructional design at its best. J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia 12(3), 227–241 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van den Akker, J.: Curriculum perspectives: an introduction. In: van den Akker, J., Kuiper, W., Hameyer, U. (eds.) Curriculum Landscapes and Trends, pp. 1–10. Springer, Dordrecht (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Merriënboer, J., Kirschner, P.: Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. Routledge, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open UniversiteitHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Zuyd HogeschoolHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.DIPFFrankfurt am MainGermany
  4. 4.Goethe UniversitätFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations