Design principles for dual mode readiness in an uncertain future

References

• Ashraf, M. A., Yang, M., Zhang, Y., Denden, M., Tlili, A., Liu, J., Huang, R., & Burgos, D. (2021). A systematic review of systematic reviews on blended learning: Trends, gaps, and future directions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2021(14), 1525–1541. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S331741
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, L. (2022). Specifying hybrid models of teachers’ work during COVID-19. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211069399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, B. J.(2014). Hybrid courses with flexible participation – The HyFlex course design. In L. Kyei-Blankson & E. Ntuli Eds., Practical applications and experiences in k-20 blended learning environments IGI Global. 153–177. Ch 11
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, B. J. (2019). Values and principles of hybrid-flexible course design. Ch 1.3 In (B. J. Beatty), Hybrid-flexible course design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes (Chpt. 1.3). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex/hyflex_values
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22. https://www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-1
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013June2326). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 120th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 30(9), 1–18. https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6219/download
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., & Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/Assessment%202020_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G., Lee, M., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 2015(86), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S., & Sambell, K. (2020). Contingency planning: Exploring rapid alternatives to face-to-face assessment. https://sally-brown.net/2020/03/13/assessment-alternatives-at-a-time-of-university-closures/. Retrieved from Contingency-planning-exploring-rapid-alternatives-to-face-to-face-assessment-w.docx.
   Google Scholar
• Chirumamilla, A., & Sindre, G. (2021). E-exams in Norwegian higher education: Vendors and managers views on requirements in a digital ecosystem perspective. Computers & Education, 2021(172), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104263.
   Google Scholar
• Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, E., & McKay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and support of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Resources for Australian higher education. In . Office for Learning and Teaching, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. http://www.lowses.edu.au/assets/ALTC%20LSES%20Final%20Report%202012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Divjak, B., Rienties, B., Iniesto, F., Vondra, P., & Žižak, M. (2022). Flipped classrooms in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings and future research recommendations. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(9). https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-021-00316-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
   Google Scholar
• Geri, N., Winer, A., & Zaks, B. (2017). A learning analytics approach for evaluating the impact of interactivity in online video lectures on the attention span of students. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 13(1), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.28945/3875
   Google Scholar
• Jung, J. H., Postiglione, G., & Postiglione, G. A. (2021). Living in uncertainty: The COVID-19 pandemic and higher education in Hong Kong. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional distance among open university students: How does it affect the learning process? European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 17(1), 26–42 doi:10.2478/eurodl-2014-0002.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp, N., & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates’ opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 2014(5), 1278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278
   Google Scholar
• Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: Engaging students to maximize learning in an online course. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 107–115. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1141876.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malczyk, B. R. (2019). Introducing social work to hyflex blended learning: A student-centered approach. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39(4–5), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2019.1652226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moja, T. (2021). National and institutional responses – Reimagined operations – Pandemic disruptions and academic continuity for a global university. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning 2nd eds. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19, post vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 140–171 https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865.
   Google Scholar
• Slade, C., Lawrie, G., Taptamat, N., Browne, E., Sheppard, K., & Matthews, K. (2021). Insights into how academics reframed their assessment during a pandemic: Disciplinary variation and assessment as afterthought. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1933379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R., & Buchannan, T. (2012). Community collaboration, use of universal design in the classroom. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 259–265.
   Google Scholar
• Soesmanto, T., & Bonner, S. (2019). Dual mode delivery in an introductory statistics course: Design and evaluation. Journal of Statistics Education, 27(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1933379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Telli, O., Mountcastle, L., Jehl, B., Muoz-Osorio, A., Dahquist, L., Jayasekera, A., Dougherty, A., Castillo, R., & Miner, K. (2021). Impact of COVID 19 campus closure on undergraduates. Teaching of Psychology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283211043924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEQSA. (2017). Guidance note: Course design (including learning outcomes and assessment). Version 1.3, 11 October 2017. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/guidance-note-course-design-including-learning-outcomes-and-assessment
   Google Scholar
• UDL on Campus. (n.d.). UDL and Assessment. https://udloncampus.cast.org/page/assessment_udl
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, M., & Doo, M. Y. (2022). The relationship among motivation, self-monitoring, self-management, and learning strategies of MOOC learners. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, (2022(34), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09301-2
   Google Scholar