High-quality Online, Blended, or Virtual Learning
Presented By: Kerlyn Joseph
for
Dr. James Diamond
Research on Online and Blended Teaching and Learning
Spring 2023
What should high-quality online, blended, or virtual learning look like in the next five years?
FRAME 1: SOCIAL JUSTICE/ DEI
Bell (2007)
- Social justice education is an interdisciplinary conceptual framework whose purpose is to cultivate critical thinking skills
- To understand oppression and socialization
- Empowering people to embrace their agency and work for social change
Alvarez (2019)
- Distributing resources fairly and treating students equitably so they feel (physically & psychologically) secure
Adams (2016)
- Six pedagogical principles that inform social justice education
(1) establishing a welcoming and inclusive environment
(2) helping participants understand their multiple positions within systems of inequality
(3) engage emotional and cognitive components of learning
(4) utilize participant’s knowledge and experiences
(5) promote engagement with ideas and other participants
(6) facilitate the development of knowledge, awareness, and skills
(Tharp, 2017)
- A class that honors social justice and DEI principles could have students complete online learning surveys to collect information about students’ prior conceptual knowledge & provide diagnostic information that can help to tailor course activities
- Student learning surveys useful in providing valuable insight about students.
- Dialogue questions to address any misunderstandings that advance student learning (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010)
Grant & Eynon (2017)
- Participation/outcomes are defined and determined with technology-users themselves rather than pre-determined by researchers, governments or other organization
Dhala & Johnson (2021)
- The course that emphasizes social justice elements will employ a “democratic setting” where all participants work together to ensure a “transformative” learning environment is created and sustained
FRAME 2: CREATION & MAINTENANCE OF ONLINE COMMUNITY
- Researchers found that prior online learning experience significantly predicted students’ successful course completion even when controlling for prior GPAs (Duha et al., 2022)
Garrison & Arbaugh (2007)
The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework addresses the complexity of the online learning environment
The framework posits that online learning should focus on three types of presences: social, teaching and cognitive
Swan (2001)
- Clarity of design, interaction with instructors, and active discussion with other students were associated with students’ perceived learning and satisfaction
Swan’s (2001) study showed…
- interactivity contributed to development of CoI, which led to students’ perceived learning/course satisfaction
- Student–instructor and student–student interaction predicted online students’ perceived learning & course satisfaction in online learning environments
Sher (2009)
- Posits that most student–instructor and student–student interaction occurs through discussion
So and Brush (2008)
- Found collaborative learning through interaction among students is associated w/social presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007) & course satisfaction in online learning
Cho & Tobias (2016)
- Active interaction in online discussion is positively related to students’ course satisfaction
- Research results indicate that active instructor participation in discussion enhanced aspects of students’ social presence
Andresen (2009); Kehrwald (2008); So & Brush (2008)
- Results consistent from previous studies: social interaction with instructors and peers in learning process helped students feel socially connected to others
- Interaction with the instructor an important factor that explain students’ social presence in online learning community
An, Shin, & Lim (2009); Cho & Kim (2013); Hew, Cheung, & Ng (2010)
- Results from this study demonstrated importance of instructor’s role for social presence in online learning environments
- Failed students tended to interact less w/ others
FRAME 3: LEARNING OUTCOMES
Cognitive Load Theory
An advance in learning theory that is relevant for instructional design of online learning
Mayer Richard (2018); Paas & Sweller (2014); Sweller (2009)
- Emerged in the 1990s and continues to develop
- Central tenet of cognitive load theory: the cognitive capacity of a learner’s available working memory is limited.
- The total cognitive load experienced by a learner consists of 3 demands on cognitive capacity during learning:
(1) Extraneous cognitive load= cognitive processing not relevant to learning goals
(2) Intrinsic cognitive load= cognitive processing needed to achieve learning goal
(3) Germane cognitive load= cognitive processing caused by the learner's efforts including schema construction and automatization
- Important goal for instructional design that fostered early research is summarized in the call: “The aim of instruction should be to reduce extraneous cognitive load caused by inappropriate instructional procedures” (Pass & Sweeler, 2014)
Outcomes
Means et al. (2009)
- Online learning is enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions w/media & prompting learner reflection
- Research shows that manipulations that trigger learner activity or learner reflection and self-monitoring of understanding are effective
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009)
- Cook et al. (2005) investigated whether inclusion of “self-assessment” questions at the end of modules improved student learning
- Student performance was statistically higher on tests taken immediately after completion of modules that included self-assessment questions than after completion of those without such questions
- An effect that the authors attributed to the stimulation of reflection
Chang (2007); Saito and Miwa (2007); Nelson (2007)
- Investigated student reflection and self-monitoring processes and the results of these studies revealed that reflective elements improved students’ online learning
FRAME 4: ONLINE LEARNING TOOLS
Tool: Nearpod
An instructional platform that merges formative assessment and dynamic media for collaborative learning experiences
What can you do with Nearpod?
Pytash et al., (2022)
- Find or create interactive lessons in minutes
- Assign self-paced lessons students access anytime
- Synchronize learning during live instruction
- Classroom communities stay connected with collaborative activities, polls, collaborate boards, and game-based quizzes
- Launch lessons instantly and receive comprehensive student assessments
- Evaluate student responses live or with post-session reports
- Enable 100% student participation
- Give every student a voice (social justice)
- Increase students’ access to information, ideas, and interactions
- Support and enhance their sense-making (reflection), which is central to the process of taking ownership of knowledge
- Get social with game-based learning (social/cognitive presences)
- Integrates with Google tools (Classroom, Slides, Drive, etc.)
Tool: Google Classroom
- Free Google application for educational purposes that can be linked with other Google tools such as (Documents, Forms, Drive, Calendar, etc.)
What can you do with Google Classroom?
Hernández Suárez et al. (2022)
- Applied in face-to-face, virtual or blended learning activities where virtual classroom can be created w/ resources (documents, videos, links, etc.) & activities (forums, tasks, etc.)
- Allows the assignment of tasks, creation of exams, creation of public folders, voice comments and digital portfolios
- Helps teachers better manage their time & classes to improve communication with students (Kraus et al., 2019)
- Cloud-based, intuitive for the student & easy to install through Gmail email/Google account & easy to use on mobile devices
What should high-quality online, blended, or virtual learning look like in the next five years?
SUM BIBLE COLLEGE & THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
A new way to look at online education…
Group Synchronous Learning
SUM’s Distance Education uses the internet to provide live two-way classroom interaction
SUM helps students organize into study groups, known as Cohorts, which voluntarily meet at locations provided by Partnering Ministries around the world.
Cohort Site provides free internet access, a study room, and basic equipment for Cohort
The classroom facilities are donated by a local church or ministry
Cohort Site can offer a two day or four day and/or evening classes
Cohort classes, taught by highly qualified ministry education professionals & streamed over the internet with live, real time interactive discussion between the instructor and the Cohort students
Typically, students in multiple Cohort Sites attend the same class, sharing the classroom experience and creating a multicultural learning community
Cohorts meet in groups w/teacher lecturing/moderating remotely to a group of students present in the same room at the same time
Cohort Lead in class with students or nearby for troubleshooting technical issues
Why its High-Quality…
Instructor’s role allows for social presence in online learning environments (Cho & Tobias, 2016)
Active interaction in online discussion is positively related to students’ course satisfaction (Cho & Tobias, 2016)
Active instructor participation in discussion enhances aspects of students’ social presence (Cho & Tobias, 2016)
Demonstrates pedagogical principles posited by Adams (2016)
engages emotional and cognitive components of learning
promotes engagement with ideas and other participants
Speculation About Future
High Quality online/blended/virtual learning experiences in the future will probably…
Gather students together in synchronous learning environments (cohorts) that use technology to simulate a traditional class environment while embracing the convenience that technology affords, similar to SUM Bible College & Theological Seminary’s model.
Use technology to make remote class meetings more like a live class by incorporating tools such as Zoom to broadcast the instructor while students are in the same room at the same time. Higher education institutions may choose to add this component as an option as it may make them more flexible with ability to offer more.
Will make use of tools such as Google Classroom and Nearpod to empowering people to embrace their agency and work for social change (Bell, 2007), engage emotional and cognitive components of learning (Adams, 2016), create a “democratic setting” where all participants work together to ensure a “transformative” learning environment is created and sustained (Dhala & Johnson, 2021), and foster teacher, social and cognitive presences in the course (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
References
Adams, M. (2016). Pedagogical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. J. Yoshi (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed., pp. 27– 53). New York, NY: Routledge.
Alvarez, B. (2019). Why social justice in school matters. NEA Today.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 749–760. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015
Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1), 249–257.
Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cho, M.-H., & Kim, B. J. (2013). Students’ self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 69‒75. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.001
Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 12
Dhala, M., & Johnson, S. (2021). Taking bell hooks on Zoom: Embodying Feminist Pedagogy in a Graduate Theological Classroom. Teaching Theology & Religion, 24(3), 165–174.
Domingue, A. D. (2016). Online and blended pedagogy in social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. J. Yoshi (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed., pp. 369–396). New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Grant, L., & Eynon, R. (2017). Digital divides and social justice in technology-enhanced learning. Technology enhanced learning: Research themes, 157-168.
Hernández Suárez, C. A., Prada Núñez, R., & Gamboa Suárez, A. A. (2022). Google Classroom In A Hybrid Model. Uses And Applications Of Higher Education Teachers. Webology, 19(6).
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S. & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38 (6), 571-606. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
Kapeliushna, T., Dymenko, R., Safonov, Y., Kachmala, V., Borshch, V., & Sheremet, O. (2022). Digital Tools for Effective Student Learning and Training Online in Conditions of Uncertainty. Financial & Credit Activity: Problems of Theory & Practice, 6(47), 469–479. Don: 10.55643/fcaptp.6.47.2022.3817
Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29 (1), 89–106. doi: 10.1080/01587910802004860
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Pytash, K. E., Benamati, C., & Perez, K. (2022). Covid connections: How English Language Arts Teachers Used Digital Tools to Support Online Learning. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, 62(1), 59–63.
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student–instructor and student–student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8 (2), 102–120.
So, H.-J. & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environments: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51 (1), 318–336. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220208
Tharp, D. S. (2017). Imagining Flipped Workshops: Considerations for Designing Online Modules for Social Justice Education Workshops. Multicultural Perspectives, 19(3), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2017.1335081
Ud Duha, M. S., Richardson, J. C., Yukiko Maeda, & Kucuk, S. (2022). The Role of Prior Online Learning Experience on Student Community of Inquiry, Engagement, and Satisfaction Scores. Online Learning, 26(4), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i4.2949