Blending Face-to-Face and Distance Learning Methods in Adult and Career-Technical Education :: Learning Adult Education Essays

Blending Face-to-Face and Distance encyclopedism Methods in Adult and C beer-Technical EducationStrengths and Limitations of the Two MethodsIn theory, the advantages of face-to-face and distance information methods backup severally other (Leung and Tran 2000). In classroom instruction, face-to-face sink in both in and out of class flowerpot help motivate and invite students alert learning can engage students in thinking and interaction through questioning, discussion, small-group presentation, role play, and case studies. In distance learning via ICT, techno poundy makes material visible(prenominal) anytime and anyplace multimedia (e.g., video and audio) can engage multiple brain channels graphics can help understanding of complex concepts interactive activities can involve students in dynamic learning through a cycle of questions/answers/feedback discussion and work groups allow students to evaluate their performance against that of peers. It is important to note, however, that those two sets of antonymous advantages are sometimes only theoretical (Cutshall 2002 McKavanagh et al. 2002). In practice, both face-to-face and ICT distance programs often rely on transmissionist, teacher-centered provision of information rather than on interactive, student-centered mental synthesis of knowledge students may end up receiving passively both online and in the classroom. Nevertheless, two themes clearly emerge as the most frequently cited strengths the individualized contact allowed by face-to-face classroom learning and the flexibility allowed by distance learning. An interesting wrinkle is that several(predicate) distance learning methods can cite different combinations of personal contact and flexibility (Cutshall 2002 McKavanagh et al. 2002 Miller and Webster 1997 Perraton 1991 Zirkle 2002). In synchronous distance methods (e.g., satellite TV, audioconferencing, videoconferencing, live Internet chat), learners and/or instructors are all tenanted in th e activity at the same time, restricting flexibility flexibility is further restricted by methods like audioconferencing or videoconferencing in which participants must be at a physical location with necessary engine room and hook-ups. However, asynchronous methods allow learners and instructors to participate at different times. Learners can listen to audiotapes, view videotapes, run into e-mail, log on to a threaded discussion, or visit webpages anytime the necessary technology is widelyalthough not universallyavailable. The ultimate in flexibility is the anytime anywhere accessibility of a web-based course or course components. It may be surprising that studies examining the connection between learning style and success among distance learning students hold mixed results. Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2000) found no correlation between learning style preference and course grade among online adult students in advanced technology education, in spite of differences in learning st yle preferences between online and face-to-face students enrolled in the program.Blending Face-to-Face and Distance Learning Methods in Adult and Career-Technical Education Learning Adult Education EssaysBlending Face-to-Face and Distance Learning Methods in Adult and Career-Technical EducationStrengths and Limitations of the Two MethodsIn theory, the advantages of face-to-face and distance learning methods complement each other (Leung and Tran 2000). In classroom learning, face-to-face contact both in and out of class can help motivate and involve students active learning can engage students in thinking and interaction through questioning, discussion, small-group presentation, role play, and case studies. In distance learning via ICT, technology makes material available anytime and anywhere multimedia (e.g., video and audio) can engage multiple brain channels graphics can help understanding of complex concepts interactive activities can involve students in dynamic learning throu gh a cycle of questions/answers/feedback discussion and work groups allow students to evaluate their performance against that of peers. It is important to note, however, that those two sets of complementary advantages are sometimes only theoretical (Cutshall 2002 McKavanagh et al. 2002). In practice, both face-to-face and ICT distance programs often rely on transmissionist, teacher-centered provision of information rather than on interactive, student-centered construction of knowledge students may end up receiving passively both online and in the classroom. Nevertheless, two themes clearly emerge as the most frequently cited strengths the personal contact allowed by face-to-face classroom learning and the flexibility allowed by distance learning. An interesting wrinkle is that different distance learning methods can offer different combinations of personal contact and flexibility (Cutshall 2002 McKavanagh et al. 2002 Miller and Webster 1997 Perraton 1991 Zirkle 2002). In synchronous distance methods (e.g., satellite TV, audioconferencing, videoconferencing, live Internet chat), learners and/or instructors are all engaged in the activity at the same time, restricting flexibility flexibility is further restricted by methods like audioconferencing or videoconferencing in which participants must be at a physical location with necessary technology and hook-ups. However, asynchronous methods allow learners and instructors to participate at different times. Learners can listen to audiotapes, view videotapes, check e-mail, log on to a threaded discussion, or visit webpages anytime the necessary technology is widelyalthough not universallyavailable. The ultimate in flexibility is the anytime anywhere availability of a web-based course or course components. It may be surprising that studies examining the connection between learning style and success among distance learning students yield mixed results. Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2000) found no correlation between learn ing style preference and course grade among online adult students in advanced technology education, in spite of differences in learning style preferences between online and face-to-face students enrolled in the program.