From face-to-face to Distance: Towards Flexibility in five Dimensions of Blended Learning: Lessons Learnt from the Covid-19 Pandemic

Abstract

In the rapid switch from contact to distance learning in response to the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic lecturers had to adapt their teaching in relation to five distinct areas – place, time, class size, technology, and pedagogy. This autoethnography reflects on the implications of each of those dimensions, as well as the extent to which lecturers worked either at the extremes or the dimension, or in a way to incorporate elements of both extremes. From the narratives of how lecturers cope I derive a matrix for the selection of technologies and pedagogies in blended learning.

Facilitating flexible learning: A study of students’ perceptions of synchronous and asynchronous blended learning

“…The findings of this study suggested the flexibility of synchronous and asynchronous blended learning without compromising learning quality (Müller & Mildenberger, 2021), thus supporting the previous research (Cronje, 2022;Howell, 2022;Moorhouse & Wong, 2022). The implementation of synchronous and asynchronous blended learning met the four aspects of flexible blended learning as proposed by Cronje (2022) and Veletsianos and Houlden (2019) including place, time, service, technology and pedagogy. Regarding the place, synchronous and asynchronous blended learning facilitated students to join courses and participate in the MBKM program at the same time.…”

“…4. The generated themes were classified under the conceptual framework of flexibility in blended learning, including place, time, service, technology and pedagogy (Cronje, 2022;Veletsianos & Houlden, 2019).…”

“…In general, flexible learning accommodates students' diverse needs and encourages learning self-regulation (Smith & Hill, 2019;Vanslambrouck et al, 2018). According to Cronje (2022), flexible learning has four dimensions: place, time, service, technology and pedagogy. Flexibility covers physical and digital learning environments and formal and informal learning spaces (Eyal & Gil, 2020).…”

“…The recommended learning strategy for optimizing the MBKM program is blended learning (Junaidi et al, 2020;Yamin, 2020). Blended learning combines online synchronous and asynchronous learning allowing students to learn according to their pace without sacrificing social interaction (Cronje, 2022;Müller et al, 2023). This strategy was chosen because the MBKM activities require students to be physically present at the location of the MBKM activities so that learning courses can only be conducted online.…”

Emotional fatigue, academic engagement, and satisfaction with studies during the return to post-pandemic university attendance

“…While the shift to virtuality was a necessary response to the global setting, it brought about significant challenges and insights into the student experience, such as motivational issues, feelings of isolation, and adaptation to new technologies (Caprara and Caprara, 2022). Now, as they return to face-to-face modalities, institutions need to consider integrating lessons learned during remote education and address students' concerns and expectations, who have undergone a significant transformation in their learning approach (Cronje, 2022;Singh et al, 2022). Returning to physical classrooms does not merely mean reverting to old practices but adapting to a new educational normal influenced by the virtual experience (Tilak and Kumar, 2022;Bridges et al, 2023).…”