ELearning/Course design/Delivery mode

1. Delivery modes and their hybrids

Delivery mode refers to the physicality and synchronicity of teaching and learning:

• Face-to-face
• Stand-alone
• Asynchronous online
• Synchronous online
• Hybrid: utilizing a combination of two or more

Face-to-face teaching and learning take place live in a classroom, workshop, or work site. This approach is time and place bound.

Stand-alone courses, tutorials, etc. are self-contained computer programs that lead and interact with the learner to achieve a learning objective. They are programming intensive and each new function adds complexity to the programming task. Especially in business situations, adding complexity is hampered by financial considerations which often results in learning programs focused on the lower half of Bloom's Taxonomy.

Asynchronous online learning takes place in instructor-led or moderated programs. This approach is time and place independent, in that learners and instructors alike can login anytime they wish for minutes or hours. MOOCs (massively open online courses), most online college courses, and many professional development programs are forms of asynchronous learning.

Synchronous online learning is time bound but place independent and takes place live in virtual classrooms, webcasts, instant messaging, chat rooms, online office hours, and coaching sessions.

This article examines asynchronous MOOCs, synchronous online, and hybrid approaches most thoroughly.

Research

The parity between online and classroom environments has been well-established (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Even a large majority (77%) of academic leaders rates the learning outcomes in online education as the same or superior to those in face-to-face classes (Babson Surveys, 2012). Student satisfaction, performance outcomes, and grade distributions are all equivalent, leading to the conclusion that course design is far more important than modality in determining course outcomes. One area in which online does lag behind the classroom is dropout rates, with online courses averaging 10-15% higher attrition than the classroom (UNLV, 2012). Much of this has been attributed to the higher proportion of non-traditional students (above age 24) online (Patterson & McFadden, 2009), and lack of student services and support for online students (Rovai & Downey, 2010). Research results on the hybrid format are similar to or better than online and classroom:

• Hybrid courses result in equivalent or superior performance outcomes in comparison to classroom or entirely online courses (Fishman, 2012).
• Hybrid courses have equivalent or lower attrition rates in comparison with classroom or online only (Keller, 2009).
• Hybrid courses are effective across different models, content areas, and learner types (U.S. Department of Education metanalysis, 2010).
• First-time students often do not appreciate the hybrid format, but come to favor it with experience (Hoch & Dougher, 2011).
• Success of any course is dependent on effective instructional design and support, not delivery method (Dzubian, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004).

Overall, Rodriguez and Barbour (2011) found that synchronous approaches relied more on teacher-centered pedagogies while asynchronous teaching supported andragogy and more independent and self-paced learning activities.

A comparison

Each interactive mode has its advantages and disadvantages as well as "best uses". We summarize them in Table 1.

Table 1. A comparison of advantages, shortcomings and best uses.
Advantages
Face-to-Face	Synchronous Online	Asynchronous Online
Immediacy: Responses can be immediate and not delayed; synchronous communication.	Provides the economy of distributed learning while maintaining the human element of the F2F environment	Flexibility: Students can integrate other priorities with their education, such as work, family, etc.
Class progression: Everyone moves at the same pace and is at the same progression in the class.	Class progression: Everyone moves at the same pace and is at the same progression in the class.	24 Hour Access: The flexibility to go online whenever convenient.
Non-Verbal Communication: Tone of voice, body language, gestures, reading people.	Geographical freedom: No need to be near the instructional location; especially helpful for rural students and instructors alike.	Geographical freedom: No need to be near the instructional location; especially helpful for rural students and instructors alike.
Quick Adaptation: Instructor can adjust the course/pace based on student needs.	Quick Adaptation: Instructor can adjust the course/pace based on student needs.	Progression: Within limits established by the course, students are able to move as quickly or slowly as needed.
Social Interaction: Participation enhances learning, increases communication skills, and promotes critical thinking .	Social Interaction: Participation enhances learning, increases communication skills, and promotes critical thinking.	Self-directed learning: Rather than direct instruction where the student gains all the information from the instructor, students also learn independently as well as from each other.
Course development and revision can be accomplished just in time.	Course development and revision can be accomplished just in time.	Increased student confidence: Students who would normally be shy and quiet during a face-to-face class have the opportunity to "speak up" more during an online discussion.
For colleges, the campus milieu promotes social development and exposure to diversity.	Students experience a sense of equality: Each individual has the same opportunity to "speak up" without typical distractions such as seating arrangements, volume of student voices, and gender biases.	Students experience a sense of equality: Each individual has the same opportunity to "speak up" by posting messages without typical distractions such as seating arrangements, volume of student voices, and gender biases.
Students develop organization skills such as arriving on time, being prepared, and prioritizing.	Sessions can be recorded as an accounting of student participation and performance.	Record of student participation, accomplishments.
		Course design is more student-centered, encouraging active learning.
		Students think before “speaking”: Rather than saying the first thing that comes to mind, students are able to formulate their thoughts before responding.
Challenges
Face-to-Face	Synchronous Online	Asynchronous Online
One study showed that, on average, classroom discussions last a little over one minute and only 25% of students actually participate (Nunn, 1996). Rocca (2010) and Caspi, et al. (2008) cite additional research confirming the phenomenon.	Most course elements must be created well in advance, requiring extensive upfront preparation.	Most course elements must be created well in advance, requiring extensive upfront preparation. Course content, especially lectures, can become more rigid due to advanced videotaping.
Learning in lock-step: Material is uniformly taught for all students regardless of need.	Learning in lock-step: Material is uniformly taught for all students regardless of need.	Students bear more personal responsibility for keeping up, without the advantage of the regularly scheduled classroom appearance.
Boredom: Few lecturers are able to keep students engaged for an hour, inviting distractions.	Boredom: Few lecturers are able to keep students engaged for an hour, inviting distractions. The problem is exacerbated in the online environment, leading to learner multitasking.	Lack of immediacy, spontaneity.
Lectures, discussion cannot be made up after absences.	Technical difficulties can hinder access.	Technical difficulties can hinder access.
Course design tends to be more teacher-centered, encouraging passive learning.	Webcasting design tends to be more teacher-centered, encouraging passive learning.	Cheating on assessments is easier.
Male students disproportionately participate in classroom discussions (Caspi, et al., 2008).	Utilizing online tools live can be stressful for the uninitiated. A moderator is essential.	Female students disproportionately participate in classroom discussions (Caspi, et al., 2008).
	Prior to class, the hosts, facilitators, and technical staff must review and practice the timing and execution of the activities in the environment.
Best Uses
Face-toFace	Synchronous Online	Asynchronous Online
Course content is highly dynamic, requiring frequent updates.	Course content is highly dynamic, requiring frequent updates.	Content is relatively stable over time.
Activity to lecture ratio is 60:40.	Activity to lecture ratio is 60:40.	Learners need a lot of flexibility due to life circumstances.
Courses that take a lot of give-and-take between instructor and students.	Geographically dispersed learner population.	Geographically dispersed learner population.
Discussion of intensive topics that require spontaneous interaction of ideas, points of view, etc.	Relatively small groups of learners.	Small to very large groups of learners.

Asynchronous MOOC

• Massive (theoretically unlimited)
• Open (allowing anyone to participate)
• Online (typically over the web)
• Course (structured around a set of learning goals in a defined area of study)

The advent of MOOCs has prompted a reexamination of the role of faculty and institutions of higher education, accreditation, and criteria for awarding credits (Educause, 2013). How does faculty manage hundreds or even thousands of students? Should MOOC completion be formally recognized, and if so, how? Should a college degree reflect an amalgam of learning experiences, or just those awarded by accredited institutions? What type of institution deserves accreditation? Should higher education be unbundled? These are not simple questions and will likely take a decade or more to answer.

MOOC versions

Although the public face of MOOCs looks a lot like the typical college course on a massive scale, there are two approaches reflecting different philosophies: the xMOOC and the cMOOC. The xMOOC reflects the traditional educational course with syllabus, readings, video lectures, assignments, and online discussions (Dolan, 2014). Assessment is either computer-graded or crowd-sourced to peers within the course. Learners may also pay a fee for proctored exams and certificates. Lectures, viewed an average of 1.7 times, may be interspersed with questions for students to answer as they proceed. Regardless, there is minimal interaction between faculty and learners. This lack of meaningful interaction appears to discourage course completion, with an average 90% attrition (programming courses do better). As discussed below, many view this attrition as a reflection of “learner intent” and not necessarily a vote of no confidence.

The cMOOC designates the original connectivist MOOC created by George Siemans and Stephen Downes (see Connectivism in Learning theories). This MOOC is designed specifically to connect people and relies on person-to-person exchanges to promote learning. There are typically scheduled live sessions with course leaders presenting and explaining concepts – more as a conversation than a lecture. These sessions are typically recorded for later access. Learners are encouraged to form groups by interest or location using Twitter, discussion boards or local gatherings, and to communicate their groups thoughts, applications, and conclusions through a central discussion board (perhaps several). A Twitter hashtag is established so learners can access entire conversations they may have missed. The next live session then addresses big issues brought forth by the groups, along with additional content. We see that the cMOOC is less formal and less focused on specific learning objectives than the xMOOC.

A more diverse audience

To addresses the issue of MOOC retention, we begin by examining 2012 Coursera statistics (Koller, 2013). Between 40,000 and 60,000 people enroll in a typical MOOC, with 50-60% (20,000-36,000) viewing the first lecture. Fifteen to 20% of those (3,000-7,200) submit at least one assignment. Of those, 45% (1,350-3,240), or 5% of the original number complete the course.

“The vast majority of students who enroll in traditional university courses enter with the explicit intent of earning a credential. MOOCs cater to a substantially more diverse audience.” Koller (2013) arrived at a set of classifications for MOOC enrollees, with each successive group smaller and smaller.

• Browsers – those with a “burst of interest” which fades within a couple of weeks.
• Passive participants – watch video lectures but participate minimally, if at all, in discussions or attempt assignments and quizzes.
• Active low-intensity participants – do quizzes and short assignments, and participate in some discussions but do not devote large blocks of time.
• Active high-intensity participants – do the assignments and quizzes, participate in discussions and complete courses and earning a Statement of Accomplishment.

A survey of MOOC enrollees (Educause, 2013) revealed that, of those who stated upfront they intended to complete the course, 24% actually did compared to under 2% for all others. Coursera has instituted a “Signature Track” offering a more official credential for a fee, of which members completed at a rate of 74% compared to 9% for all others. We can conclude, at least tentatively, that commitment on the part of enrollees greatly increases their likelihood of actually completing their courses. As for non-completers, Koller (2013) suggests at least three possibilities. MOOCs offer risk-free opportunities to explore a topic of interest. High-schoolers can test their mettle for attending college, and explore possible majors. Thus far, however, there is little evidence that employers are embracing MOOCs as legitimate professional credentials (Heath, 2017).

Doorway to connectivist learning?

Stewart (2013) believes that even xMOOCs may serve as a “Trojan horse for the development of new literacies for the digital age” based in networks.

Synchronous online approaches

Though not used as much as the others (except with webinars), the synchronous online mode offers the most variety of useful approaches. Hyder et al., (2007) make the distinction between webcasts (webinars), conferencing, and virtual classrooms, all of which utilize web conferencing tools like Webex, Adobe Connect, and Blackboard Collaborate.

Webcasting

They define webcasts as essentially one-way audio/video streams where the presenter broadcasts a lecture accompanied by presentation slides, text chat, polling and file downloads. Webcasts are most often intended for large audiences and interaction is generally limited to polling and viewer-submitted text-based questions. Producing webcasts resemble live broadcasting in many ways as there is a need for a moderator to instruct learners on the use of the conferencing tool, introduce the program, field questions for the presenter, handle technical issues behind the scene, and close the session.

Conferencing and virtual classroom

Conferencing is essentially an online meeting, and the virtual classroom combines features of the webinar and conference. Conferencing and virtual classrooms utilize more features of the collaboration tool like audio and video feeds from instructor and students alike, screen and application sharing, whiteboarding and markup tools, breakout rooms, quizzing, hand-raising and emoticon responses. Virtual classrooms get learners active through learning activities, group presentations and projects. Both are most useful for small groups where a more egalitarian sharing of responsibilities is possible.

Tips & tricks

Bahr (2012) offers several tips and tricks for use in synchronous webcasts and virtual classrooms:

• Host and facilitator preparation and practice in the distance environment are critical in maintaining learner engagement. This preparation enables the class to flow at an appropriate pace and allow facilitators to focus on content delivery and learner engagement.

• Although the distance environment has drawing and text tools for team presentations, it is easier for learners to use familiar tools, such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, and share their screens rather than use the tools within the online environment.

• A chat window should always be available and visible.

• Incorporate learner questions and answers into the presentation.

• Use knowledge checks employing diverse polling strategies, including multiple choice and multiple answer questions, chat/discussion (text and verbal), and use of status icons. This variety of interaction helps to maintain learner engagement (from Clay 2011).

• Practice is critical for moderator's and presenter’s success. Successful synchronous distance programs employ a talk-radio type of delivery with a producer, host, and "guest or SME" (producer and host may be the same person). The producer concentrates on the mechanics of managing the chat room, technical issues, and distributing handouts. The host focuses on energy, engagement, and collaboration. The SME focuses on content and provides instruction.

• In synchronous distance learning, delivery is critical and requires significant practice.

• Warden et al. (2013) advise against distributed control over the system and in favor of a single point of control, even in small groups. They found repeated conflicts, errors, and constrained interaction whenever control was distributed.

Text Messaging

Text messaging, including IM, texting, chat, and Twitter is most often used in education as an extension of face-to-face and asynchronous modes. It is most useful when specific instructions govern its use. Here we provide a few examples and research findings.

Argumentation. An especially imaginative use of synchronous tools, practicing scientific argumentation using templates, was shown by Yeh & She (2010) to result in significantly higher performance compared to a control group. Argumentation is the use of systematic reasoning in support of an idea, action, or theory. This study also examined argumentation as a method for fostering conceptual change. Students used a template to construct their arguments, with four components (claim, warrant, backing, and rebuttal) and three writing frames (I think/believe...because; The reason I agree with...is because of the evidence...; I do not agree with..., my reason is...). Pairs or small groups are provided a question from the subject content and construct arguments in real time, receiving prompt rebuttals and counterarguments on the screen, which supports their refining of arguments. Both quantity and quality of arguments increased significantly from topic 1 to topic 4 (p<.001).

To promote conceptual change, learners are taken through a series consisting of a driving question, an argumentation question, repeating the driving question and finally learning materials. The driving question is phrased to stimulate learners to synthesize different types of information and experiences. Students must arrive at a personal answer and then the argumentation question exposes students' differing views and conceptions on the matter. The driving question is repeated and followed by multimedia learning materials to see what actually happens and to directly encounter the dissonances. Mean scores of correct initial conceptions gradually increased from topic 1 to topic 4 and reached a statistically significant difference (p<.001).

Instant messaging between students working on group projects results in more interaction, use of higher thinking skills, and more effective problem solving according to a series of studies by Hrastinski, Keller & Carlsson (2010). The involved students tended to limit their IM use to their project groups while continuing to use email for communicating with the larger group. "The learners contributed more and reported stronger perceived participation in the synchronous discussions, especially in smaller groups. In the synchronous discussions, learners did not feel restricted to only discussing course content, which may explain why these discussions were related with a higher level of participation, contributing to higher levels of social presence."

Hrastinski et al. (2010) also examined the use of IM in larger groups and found that as the number of participants grew, several phenomena arose:

• "Chat confusion" arising out of several conversations occurring at the same time.
• More monologues rather than dialogues, possibly because of the urge for students to get their messages heard.
• Lower rates of reading and responding to messages from other learners and instructors.
• Lower participation due in large part to scheduling difficulties.

Chat rooms. Duncan, Kenworthy & McNamare (2012) compared synchronous chat and asynchronous discussion boards and their impact on student performance in online accounting courses. Their results found the quality and quantity of student participation predicted higher final exam and course grade outcomes. Additionally, they found student quality of participation to be most related to higher final exam scores while quantity of participation was related to course grades. As importantly, they found that synchronous participation had twice the impact on both grades compared to asynchronous participation.

The above findings suggest that chat and instant messaging are best used for (1) small groups working together on a common task or goal; and (2) for social support among learners.

Twitter. Concerned with helping students "make connections" between topics within the same course, between courses, and between course material and their lives outside the classroom, both Eyler (2013) and Lang (2013) tried, with great success, Twitter as the vehicle for making this happen. Twitter limits messages to 140 characters and uses a custom hashtag (a metadata tag, e.g., #LitMA320) to compile messages. Eyler assigns his literature students to post five tweets each week on any topic related to the current course material and to link the material with their own interests. Now in his second year of using Twitter, he states, "The level of student engagement in these classes is the highest I’ve ever seen, and–as a result–students have been performing exceptionally well." He also uses Twitter in lieu of traditional discussions for some topics:

1. Describe your overall interpretation of the Knight’s Tale. You can use up to 3 tweets for this, but no more. Concision is the key here! If you want to connect information from one tweet to the next, use the + sign at the end of a tweet.
2. In no more than 5 tweets, discuss the evidence (including line numbers) you would use to justify this interpretation.
3. Use an additional 5 tweets to comment on other colleagues’ arguments.

Following Eyler's lead, Lang created a hashtag for his course and asked students to post three tweets each week that related to the main topic or to any readings or discussions. Stakes were low, with 10 points earned as long as students posted the three required tweets. He begins each class period by taking a quick look at the tweets posted since their last meeting, ensuring that every class begins with a discussion of connections students are seeing and forging. Tweets consist of links between the readings and current events, news items about favorite musicians, actors and writers, story lines in TV shows and movies, plus links to blogs, newspaper articles, essays, and videos. Eyler reminds students from time to time that they are building a collective body of research for all to use, including himself.

Dogan (2013) investigated attitudes of undergraduate students using Twitter in computer literacy courses. Students worked in small groups and were assigned a topic to discuss and research. A hashtag was created for each group and one member was chosen to lead each discussion as follows:

1. General discussion around the topic.
2. Each member has to answer a question for the group.
3. Each member conducts quick research on the internet and reports back to the group.
4. Individual tweets are graded.

Dogan created similar procedures for discussion, polling, and quizzing activities. Features students liked about Twitter include the ability to post and view quick updates (32%), low clutter and simple interface(29%), ability to search hashtags (25%), and more privacy options than most other forms of social media (12%). A large majority (76%) disliked the 140 character limitation. Eighty-nine percent found Twitter to be more appropriate for classroom activities than other forms of social media. The following benefits received a mean score of 4 or higher out of 5 possible:

• Able to share my research results was a valuable use of Twitter
• The instructor was able to log my responses for adequate participation in group work.
• Using Twitter for discussions allowed me to be more creative as I was able to post my research finding through URLs, pictures, and videos.
• Online discussions through Twitter were easier to use on mobile devices compared to traditional discussion boards.
• Polling and voting with Twitter allowed me to review content in a more engaging way.
• I participate more in discussions and answering instructor questions using Twitter compared to the traditional show of hands.
• Overall, using Twitter for class activities engaged me more in the course.

Hybrid approaches

By definition, hybrid instruction blends two or more modes of learning. The most basic and essential idea is that hybrid does not mean add-on, as in web-supported classrooms that use the online component as a document repository and testing apparatus. Rather, hybrid is a thoughtfully constructed course structure that capitalizes on the strengths of each setting. As with online learning, hybrid courses demand more upfront planning and preparation. What will be accomplished in the classroom, and what will be accomplished online? "Everything ... laid out without any mystery" (Lin, 2008).

From the illustration in Figure 1, we see the following blends:

• Face-to-face and online asynchronous
• Face-to-face and online synchronous
• Face-to-face and both online synchronous and asynchronous
• Online synchronous and online asynchronous

F2F and online asynchronous

The most common hybrid approach combines the live classroom with asynchronous online activity. An important benefit of the approach is that students are able deal with part of the material on their own time and at their own pace, but there is the accountability and presence of an expert that comes with face to face instruction (Moore, 2013). This also allows instructors to select important topics out of the content and zero in on them for greater understanding through non-lecture techniques. Student interaction with the material before class allows the instructor to instead answer questions about specific sections or principles that students have questions on using examples, discussion and/or practice problems since the students have already been introduced to the material. This method also facilitates metacognitive development and self regulatory behaviors, thus moving the responsibility of learning from instructor to student (Li-Ling & Suh-Ing, 2011).

Here we see how flexibly hybrid courses can be designed (Cuyahoga Community College, 2011). Discussion follows.

2. Classroom and asynchronous hybrid variations

• The traditional model keeps the instructor front-and-center in the classroom and most other activities online, except for testing.

• Flipped classroom moves common face-to-face activities online and vice versa where information delivery is provided online and discussions and group work are accomplished in the classroom.

• Instructional split divides the course into time-specific segments with some portions conducted entirely face-to-face and some conducted entirely online.

• Online in the classroom takes place in a computer lab where students work individually while the instructor monitors and coaches as needed. Sensing common problems, the instructor can also gather students together for a common face-to-face teaching session. The Kahn Academy works with K-12 schools in this manner, equipping the instructor with a "dashboard" for monitoring student progress.

• With the cohort exchange students are first divided into groups that work together online to complete group projects. Once projects are completed, students are reorganized into face-to-face groups working together in the classroom. In other words, each student belongs to two groups, first online and then face-to-face.

F2F and online synchronous

Perhaps the most productive blend of face-to-face and synchronous online is to use synchronous tools like text messaging, Twitter, chat, and conferencing for paired and group learning activities, and for work group communication. Conferencing is also appropriate for long-distance guest speakers, meeting with international students, and other activities where live interaction is called for but participants are separated by distance.

F2F and online synchronous/asynchronous

This approach primarily relies on classroom and asynchronous online components with synchronous tools used selectively for specific activities as described above.

Online synchronous and asynchronous

Weave synchronous online events with asynchronous. The asynchronous learning assets provide both the means and opportunity for creating a pre-existing knowledge base. This enables synchronous event facilitators to focus on higher-order learning objectives, within a limited timeframe, in ways in which they were not previously able to do. Adding asynchronous events after synchronous events also provides a means to more adequately assess learning (Chrouser 2008).

Divide the class into non-consecutive days with asynchronous activities between synchronous sessions enabling learners to apply their learning and reflect on content. Blending the modes of delivery requires learners to be more accountable and pull the content rather than having it pushed to them. Asynchronous activities can include:

• Collaborating in small groups to create a mock work-product based on a case study
• Interviewing co-workers at their location, and organizing feedback to share with classmates in a synchronous session
• Researching answers to provided questions using organizational resources
• Preparing a presentation on a course concept to teach at the next synchronous session
• Performing a procedure taught in a synchronous session, and documenting the results and any clarifying questions to discuss at the next synchronous session.

Guiding questions

These questions offer a way to start thinking about hybrid design issues (University of Milwaukee, 2013).

1. As you think about learning objectives, which would be better achieved online and which would be best achieved face-to-face?
2. Hybrid teaching is not just a matter of transferring a portion of your traditional course to the Web. Instead, it involves developing challenging and engaging online learning activities that complement your face-to-face activities. What types of learning activities do you think you will be using for the online portion of your course?
3. Online asynchronous discussion is often an important part of hybrid courses. What new learning opportunities will arise as a result of using asynchronous discussion? What challenges do you anticipate in using online discussions? How would you address these?
4. How will the face-to-face and time out of class components be integrated into a single course? In other words, how will the work done in each component feed back into and support the other?
5. When working online, students frequently have problems scheduling their work and managing their time, and understanding the implications of the hybrid course module as related to learning. What do you plan to do to help your students address these issues?
6. How will you divide the percent of time between the face-to-face portion and the online portion of your course? How will you schedule the percent of time between the face-to-face and online portion of your course, i.e., one two hour face-to-face followed by one two hour online session each week?
7. How will you divide the course-grading scheme between face-to-face and online activities? What means will you use to assess student work in each of these two components?
8. What specific technologies will you use for the online and face-to-face portions of your course? What proactive steps can you take to assist students to become familiar with your Web site and those instructional technologies? If students need help with technology later in the course, how will you provide support?
9. There is a tendency for faculty to require students to do more work in a hybrid course than they normally would complete in a purely traditional course. What are you going to do to ensure that you have not created a course and one-half? How will you evaluate the student workload compared to a traditional class?

We recommend you view a useful slide presentation by Michelle Pacansky-Brock on the flipped classroom, Teaching in The Dark: Learning to Love What We Fear.

Conclusion

The internet and resulting technologies have opened a wide array of teaching and learning options to engage learners, make learning more convenient, more effective and more efficient. It is clear that the learning enterprise is forever changed, much of it for the better. Using technology demands an increased level of understanding and adaptability. Being able to use technology means the designer and instructor possesses the freedom to determine the right mix of delivery modes for the content, the learner, and the context.

Beyond the need to learn and use the technical tools, designers and instructors must also understand and appreciate the demand for more extensive planning and preparation that accompany their use. This is perhaps the biggest challenge in many settings, especially in higher education.

---

#top

⇑ Up to Instructional strategies

⇑ ⇑ Up to Course planning

⇑ ⇑ ⇑ Up to Course development

⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ Up to Home