Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Denn sie wissen, was sie tun: Blended Learning in Großveranstaltungen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbuch Innovative Lehre

Zusammenfassung

Wer derzeit über moderne Hochschullehre nachdenkt, kommt am Begriff Blended Learning nicht vorbei. Die darunter gefassten Lernszenarien ergänzen und ersetzen Schritt für Schritt die klassischen Lehrformate an Hochschulen. Gleichzeitig entstehen viele der typischen Herausforderungen ausgerechnet für diejenige Veranstaltungsform, bei der Blended Learning die höchste Veränderungsdynamik verspricht: der Lehrveranstaltung mit großen Studierendengruppen. Dieses Kapitel beleuchtet zunächst die Bedeutung verschiedener digitaler Lernmedienformate für das Online-Studium. Es widmet sich danach ausführlich sowohl der Sicherung studentischer Vorbereitung während des Selbststudiums als auch der bestmöglichen Aktivierung der Studierenden während der Präsenzphase. Alle Empfehlungen werden um plastische Beispielen aus der Lehrpraxis in der Psychologie an der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz erweitert und mit vielfältigen Ergebnissen aus der Wirkungsforschung unterlegt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2000). Taxonomy of teaching and learning: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. In A. Woolfolk (Hrsg.), Educational psychology (S. 479–480). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor, and the tenured faculty. International Journal on ELearning, 7(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azlina, N., & Nik, A. (2010). CETLs: Supporting collaborative activities among students and teachers through the use of think-pair-share techniques. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 7(5), 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78,227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baleghizadeh, S. (2009). The effect of pair work on a word-building task. ELT Journal, 64(4), 405–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, D. (Hrsg.). (2006). Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A., & Trieber, R. H. (2009). Whose classroom is it, anyway? Improvisation as a teaching tool. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20(3), 29–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Hrsg.). (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brecht, H. D. (2012). Learning from online video lectures. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11,227–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., & Privman, M. (2005). Viewing comprehension: Students’ learning preferences and strategies when studying from video. Instructional Science, 33(1), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In: K. D. Vohs, & R. F. Baumeister (Hrsg.), Handbook of self-regulation. Research, theory, and applications (S. 13–39). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80,108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dringus, L. P., & Seagull, A. B. (2014). A five-year study of sustaining blended learning initiatives to enhance academic engagement in computer and information sciences campus courses. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Hrsg.), Blended learning research perspectives (Bd. 2, S. 122–140). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogarty, R. (1990). Designs for cooperative interactions. Thousand Oak: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Hrsg.), The handbook of blended learning (S. 3–21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotenbreg, G., & Wong, S. B. J. (2013). Using Pigeonhole® Live to elicit feedback, questions & reinforce learning during lectures. CDLT Brief, 16(2), 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handke, J. (2014a). Patient Hochschullehre: Vorschläge für eine zeitgemäße Lehre im 21. Jahrhundert. Marburg: Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handke, J. (2014b). The inverted classroom mastery model – a diary study. In E.-M. Großkurth & J. Handke (Hrsg.), The Inverted Classroom Model: The 3rd German ICM-Conference Proceedings (S. 15–34). Oldenburg: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. L., & Nelson, A. (2011). New technology, new pedagogy? Employing video podcasts in learning and teaching about exotic ecosystems. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk. Computers & Education, 54(3), 693–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homme, J., Asay, G., & Morgenstern, B. (2004). Utilisation of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38(5), 575–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10,371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaques, D. (2003). Teaching small groups. British Medical Journal, 326(7387), 492–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, W. B. (2014). Teaching large groups. In Huggett, Kathryn, W. B. Jeffries (Hrsg.), An introduction to medical teaching (S. 11–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenwright, K. (2009). Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends, 53(1), 74–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Murthy, S., & Iyer, S. (2013). Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement. In Icer 12 Conference Committee (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on international computing education research (S. 137–144). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141,5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, R., & Lightner, R. (2007). Games as an interactive classroom technique: Perceptions of corporate trainers, college instructors and students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., Kumar, P., & Basu, S. C. (2001). Student perceptions of virtual education: An exploratory study. In Information Resources Management Association (IRMA). (Hrsg.), Proceedings of 2001 Information Resources Management Association International Conference (S. 400–403). Hershey: IRMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C.-Y. (2000). Student motivation in the online learning environment. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 37(4), 367–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucius, K., Spannagel, J., & Spannagel, C. (2014). Hörsaalspiele im Flipped Classroom. In K. Rummler (Hrsg.), Lernräume gestalten – Bildungskontexte vielfältig denken (S. 363–376). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, H., Robinson, A. C., & Park, J. Y. (2014). Peer Grading in a MOOC: Reliability, validity, and perceived effects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, G. E. (2003). Blended instruction: Adapting conventional instruction for large classes. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? Internet and Higher Education, 18,15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C., Hartling, L., Campbell, S., & Oswald, A. E. (2012). The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21. Medical Teacher 34(6), e386–e405.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25,85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owston, R. (2013). Blended learning policy and implementation: Introduction to the special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 18,1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owston, R., Lupshenyuk, D., & Wideman, H. (2011). Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: Student perceptions and academic performance. Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 262–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sage, K. (2014). What pace is best? Assessing adults’ learning from slideshows and video. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 23(1), 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (Hrsg.). (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahasrabudhe, V., & Kanungo, S. (2014). Appropriate media choice for e-learning effectiveness: Role of learning domain and learning style. Computers & Education, 76,237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 51(4), 194–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Mind wandering and education: From the classroom to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychologisches Institut, Methodenlehre & Statistik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland

    Malte Persike

Authors
  1. Malte Persike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malte Persike .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Niedersachsen, Germany

    Simone Kauffeld

  2. Bereich Medienbildung, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Niedersachsen, Germany

    Julius Othmer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Persike, M. (2019). Denn sie wissen, was sie tun: Blended Learning in Großveranstaltungen. In: Kauffeld, S., Othmer, J. (eds) Handbuch Innovative Lehre. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22797-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22797-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-22796-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-22797-5

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation