Dimensions and factors to manage an hybrid classroom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32043/jimtlt.v2i1.21Parole chiave:
Distance teaching; Inclusive Hybrid Classroom; organizational, methodological and technological dimensions; thematic analysisAbstract
In this study, a possible scenario cantered on the concept of “Hybrid Learning Space” is presented and discussed as a solution to support inclusive solutions for students unable to attend regularly school due to health problems.. In the Italian context, an Inclusive Hybrid Classroom model is developed and tested following three dimensions: 1) the methodological dimension, 2) the technological dimension and 3) the organizational dimension. During the TRIS project, 43 semi-structured interviews have been conducted and recorded with the teachers involved; the analysis of their content was carried out with the aim of identifying which conditions support a hybrid environment for distance learning with the students.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Benigno, V., Chifari, A., & Chiorri, C. (2014). Adottare le tecnologie a scuola: una scala per rilevare gli atteggiamenti e le credenze degli insegnanti. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 59-62.
Benigno, V., Caruso, G., Fante, C., Ravicchio, F., & Trentin, G. (2018a). Classi ibride e inclusione socio-educativa: il progetto TRIS. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Benigno, V., Fante, C., Ravicchio, F., & Trentin, G. (2018b). L’effetto inclusivo delle classi ibride su studenti con patologia cronica impossibilitati alla normale frequenza scolastica. Cadmo. 2, 79-94 2/2017, pp. 79-94. DOI:10.3280/CAD2017-002009
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, science and technology education, 5(3), 235-245.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Stefani, L. H. (1986). Ecologia dello sviluppo umano. Bologna: Il mulino.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. + International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8(1).
De Souza & Silva A. (2006). From Cyber to Hybrid: Mobile Technologies as Interfaces of Hybrid Spaces. Space and Culture, 9(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331206289022
Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449.
Huang, R. H., Liu, D. J., Tlili, A., Yang, J. F., & Wang, H. H. (2020). Handbook on facilitating flexible learning during educational disruption: The Chinese experience in maintaining undisrupted learning in COVID-19 Outbreak. Beijing: Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban education, 38(1), 77-133.
Pang, I. W. (2011). Home-school cooperation in the changing context–An ecological approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(1), 1-16.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. From On the Horizon. ìMCB University Press, 9(5), 1-6.
Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2019). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. OECD. Retrieved April, 14, 2020.
Saadiah Y., Erny A.A., & Kamarularifin A.J. (2010). The definition and characteristics of ubiquitous learning: A discussion. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 6(1), 117–127.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of educational research, 83(3), 357-385.
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555-575.
Trentin, G. (2017). Connettività, Spazi Ibridi e Always-on Education. AEIT, 5(6), 14–21.
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., & Turunen, H. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 6(5), 100- 110. doi:10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers' internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Computers & Education, 118, 70-81.
Wang, Z., Wu, Y., & Liu, S. (2020) Online learning promotes teaching model reform. Chin Edu Daily, 02-22.
Zydney, J. M., McKimmy, P., Lindberg, R., & Schmidt, M. (2019). Here or there instruction: Lessons learned in implementing innovative approaches to blended synchronous learning. TechTrends,ì 63(2), 123-132.
##submission.downloads##
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2022 Vincenza Benigno
Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale.
