What is, apart from the obvious time and space conveniences, so instantly appealing about a blended learning environment?
What does this question assume? What are its underpinnings?
- familiarity with face-to-face and online instruction (synchronous and asynchronous), and belief in the legitimacy (though not necessarily equal legitimacy) of both
- learning goals differ in kind and require different approaches to instruction
- learning is multimodal - it occurs within and on many fronts - and is enhanced as access to those fronts expand
- true assessment of learning requires that students be given multiple opportunities and venues to express what they’ve learned
- instructional theories are not religions, and a versatile environment(s) can accommodate their amalgam
- teaching requires bridging subject matter and student
- learning is most effective with that bridge in tact as well as others that connect student to teacher, student to student and student to community
- interconnections are more valuable than exclusivity
- tailoring instruction is beneficial
- synergies between the ways students live and the ways they can learn are worth exploiting
The question of how definitions of “literacy” change, given the kinds of changes that you are describing and reflecting on, seems a central problem. As I read, I also wondered how and why certain kinds of “skills” gain particular weight at specific times. (I think that “weight” here refers to the question of social value or institutional legitimacy.
Comment by Alan Mandell — February 11, 2005 @ 6:01 pm
comment is here: http://typingoutloud.blogsome.com/2005/02/06/literacy-print/#comments
Comment by eric feinblatt — February 12, 2005 @ 1:45 pm