Create A Working Definition Of Hybrid Instruction

Create A Working Definition Of Hybrid Instruction Should Be New In

Create a working definition of “hybrid” instruction that is new in 2018. It is also called “blended,” and there may be other names for it. Determine whether these names refer to the same concept or different ones. If they are the same, specify exactly what that concept entails. If they differ, explain the distinctions. Recognize that defining hybrid instruction may be complex due to its multidimensional nature. This complexity allows for the selection of a particular form, thereby narrowing the scope of the concept for specific applications.

Paper For Above instruction

In 2018, the term "hybrid instruction" emerged as a nuanced educational approach that combines traditional face-to-face classroom methods with online learning modalities. While traditionally referred to as "blended learning," variations in terminology—including "hybrid," "flipped classroom," "blended," and "mixed-mode"—highlight the diversity in instructional design and delivery methods. This paper aims to propose a comprehensive, yet adaptable, working definition of hybrid instruction that reflects its multidimensional and evolving nature.

Hybrid instruction, particularly as articulated in 2018, can be understood as an instructional model that integrates both in-person and online educational experiences, allowing for a flexible, student-centered approach that leverages the benefits of both modalities (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Unlike purely traditional instruction, which relies solely on face-to-face interactions, or fully online models, hybrid instruction seeks to structure learning environments where face-to-face and digital components are intertwined intentionally to enhance engagement, comprehension, and skill acquisition.

Distinct from the umbrella term "blended learning," which is often used synonymously with hybrid instruction, the nuance lies in the specific implementation and pedagogical intentions. "Blended" may denote various ratios of online to face-to-face time, different technological tools, or varied levels of student autonomy (Norberg, Dziuban, & Borchardt, 2011). In contrast, "hybrid" instruction, especially as newly conceptualized in 2018, emphasizes a seamless integration where the online and traditional elements are functionally interconnected, not merely juxtaposed. This distinction underscores the importance of design and intent in defining the approach.

The multidimensional nature of hybrid instruction involves several key components. First, it encompasses modality (synchronous/asynchronous online and face-to-face sessions). Second, it involves pedagogical strategies that optimize the strengths of each modality, such as flipped classrooms where content is delivered online, replacing traditional lectures (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Third, it considers the technological infrastructure that supports diverse learning activities and assessments (Graham, 2006). Fourth, it emphasizes the flexibility provided to learners in terms of time, place, and pace, encouraging a personalized learning experience (Means et al., 2014).

Furthermore, the conceptual flexibility inherent in hybrid instruction allows for the creation of specific models tailored to different educational contexts, such as higher education, K-12, corporate training, or professional development. For instance, a university course might combine weekly face-to-face seminars with asynchronous online discussions and assignments, thus exemplifying a specific form of hybrid instruction. By recognizing its multidimensionality, educators and institutions can tailor hybrid models to meet particular pedagogical objectives and learner needs (Lewis, 2017).

To conclude, the working definition of hybrid instruction as proposed here is: a multidimensional educational framework that intentionally integrates face-to-face and online learning components, designed to enhance engagement, flexibility, and personalized education through pedagogical strategies and technological integration. Recognizing its fluidity and scope allows stakeholders to adapt and refine hybrid models suited to diverse learning environments and objectives.

References

• Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE National Conference Proceedings, 30, 1-18.
• Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
• Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of Blended Learning (pp. 3-21). Pfeiffer Publishing.
• Lewis, L. (2017). The evolution of blended learning models: From hybrid to personalized. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 1-4.
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2014). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education.
• Norberg, A., Dziuban, C., & Borchardt, V. (2011). A Time-Based Study of the Effects of Blended Learning on University Students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(2).