Aiding Participation and Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment

1. INTRODUCTION Statistics is a required component of business curricula, but many students exhibit lack of interest and effort in business statistics classes. Through observations and solicited feedback from faculty members and students, we found that the lack of interest can be attributed to students having a negative perception of statistics, which translates into not doing their homework. Statistics courses have been traditionally lecture-based and students depend heavily on the teacher for their learning. The classroom meeting and office hours provide some student-teacher interaction, but the courses require students to be more active and engaged. This provided the motivation to examine anchored asynchronous online discussions as a potential creative solution. Several instructional theories predict that a course environment where teachers and students are able to co construct pedagogical practices in a participatory manner (Chickering and Ehrmann, 1996; Chickering and Gamson, 1987) will produce better learning outcomes. Williams and Chinn (2009) found that online assignments using Web 2.0 technologies increased student engagement and contributed to the level of connectivity. When students actively share ideas, information, and engage themselves in discussions using information & communication technologies (ICT), they can mutually benefit. A greater degree of student involvement can improve the asynchronous learning of the student (Stefanou and Salisbury-Glennon, 2002). Moreover, several researchers (Gunawardena et al., 2001; Pena-Shaff and Nicholls, 2004; Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001; Weinberger and Fischer, 2005; Sfard, 1998; Zhu, 1996) have proposed measures for assessing students' knowledge construction through posts in online discussions. The criteria these studies used are varied, but all of them considered understanding of concepts/terms to given topics/questions as parts of knowledge students learn. For example, Zhu (1996) considered knowledge that students built from their discussions, which were restricted to questions posted by instructors; Gunawardena et al. (2001) suggested that the first stage of knowledge building in online discussion is sharing/comparing information, which can be observed from how students learn from clarifying a problem; and Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) focused on understanding of concepts' meanings together with how students used these concepts. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of two kinds of asynchronous online discussions to increase the interest and involvement in business statistics for information systems majors. Online discussions can facilitate the co-construction of knowledge (Lord and Lomicka, 2008) and student participation. Students who are apprehensive about learning statistics and those who have trouble doing computations tend to have a high level of anxiety (Pace and Barchard, 2006; Bawden and Robinson, 2009). Vandergrift (2003) described it in terms of a fear that "often springs from a tacit assumption that [students] must understand every word, as well as [their] unsatisfactory experiences with a 'listen and answer the following questions' approach to listening activities [in the classroom]" (p. 426). An instructor can use asynchronous online discussions as a tactical resource to help students avoid some of the in-class frustrations and assist them when they are outside of the classroom to supplement their face-to-face (F2F) meetings in a blended instructional approach. This blend of classroom and online learning modes stands to enhance the student experience provided that individuals are typically not single-method learners (Masie, 2002). The rest of the paper is laid out as follows: First, we discuss the theoretical foundations of the research and restate our key research question. Then, we describe the study methodology. Next, we specify the results of the study. Finally, we draw conclusions, discuss limitations, and outline future research ideas. …

[1]  Carol Stoak Saunders,et al.  The Social Construction of Meaning: An Alternative Perspective on Information Sharing , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Harvey Mellar,et al.  A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses , 1996 .

[3]  David Bawden,et al.  The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..

[4]  A. Sfard On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One , 1998 .

[5]  Yoram Chisik,et al.  In the company of readers: the digital library book as "practiced place" , 2005, Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '05).

[6]  Lara L. Lomicka,et al.  Blended Learning in Teacher Education: An Investigation of Classroom Community Across Media , 2008 .

[7]  Senom T. Yalcin,et al.  Online Learning: Patterns of Engagement and Interaction among In-Service teachers , 2003 .

[8]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[9]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[10]  David Nicol,et al.  Increasing success in first year courses: assessment re-design, self-regulation and learning technologies , 2006 .

[11]  Larry Vandergrift From Prediction Through Reflection: Guiding Students: Through the Process of L2 Listening , 2003 .

[12]  Susan J. Chinn,et al.  Using Web 2.0 to Support the Active Learning Experience , 2009 .

[13]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Virtual teams in and out of synchronicity , 2006, Inf. Technol. People.

[14]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[15]  E. Zhu Meaning Negotiation, Knowledge Construction, and Mentoring in a Distance Learning Course , 1996 .

[16]  Larry A. Pace,et al.  Using a spreadsheet programme to teach introductory statistics: reducing anxiety and building conceptual understanding , 2006 .

[17]  C. Fosnot Constructivism: a psychological theory of learning , 1996 .

[18]  S. Jeanne Horst,et al.  Moving beyond Academic Achievement Goal Measures: A Study of Social Achievement Goals. , 2007 .

[19]  C. Stefanou,et al.  Developing Motivation and Cognitive Learning Strategies Through an Undergraduate Learning Community , 2002 .

[20]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[21]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  Interactivity on the Nets , 1998 .

[22]  Judith B. Pena-Shaff,et al.  Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[23]  A. P. Rovai,et al.  Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses , 2004 .

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[25]  J. Tagg,et al.  From Teaching to Learning — A New Paradigm For Undergraduate Education , 1995 .

[26]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Effective Discussion Through a Computer-Mediated Anchored Forum , 2000 .

[27]  D. Garrison,et al.  Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education , 2001 .

[28]  George Siemens,et al.  Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of the Self-Amused? , 2006 .

[29]  Kayleigh Carabajal,et al.  Critical Analysis of Models and Methods Used To Evaluate Online Learning Networks. , 2001 .

[30]  J. van der Pol Facilitating Online Learning Conversations. Exploring tool affordances in higher education , 2002 .

[31]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[32]  A. E. Veldhuis-Diermanse,et al.  Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education , 2001 .

[33]  S. C. Ehrmann IMPLEMENTING THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES: Technology as Lever , 2004 .

[34]  A. Chickering,et al.  Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education , 1987, CORE.

[35]  Linda D. Grooms,et al.  Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings , 2009, Internet High. Educ..

[36]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  What Is Instructional-Design Theory and How Is It Changing? , 1999 .