Jared Keengwe Keengwe Jared Keengwe Models forBook4You PDF

Models for Improving
and Optimizing Online

and Blended Learning in
Higher Education
Jared Keengwe
University of North Dakota, USA
Joachim Jack Agamba

Idaho State University, USA
A volume in the Advances in Higher Education

and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book
Series
Managing Director: Lindsay Johnston
Production Editor: Jennifer Yoder
Development Editor: Austin DeMarco
Acquisitions Editor: Kayla Wolfe
Typesetter: Lisandro Gonzalez
Cover Design: Jason Mull
Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2015 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Models for improving and optimizing online and blended learning in higher education / Jared Keengwe and Joachim Jack
Agamba, editors.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4666-6280-3 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-6281-0 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-6283-4 (print & perpetual
access) 1. Computer-assisted instruction. 2. Blended learning. I. Keengwe, Jared, 1973- II. Agamba, Joachim Jack, 1962-
LB1028.5.M577 2015
371.334--dc23
2014017268
This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development
(AHEPD) (ISSN: 2327-6983; eISSN: 2327-6991)
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Advances in Higher Education
and Professional Development
(AHEPD) Book Series
Jared Keengwe
ISSN: 2327-6983
EISSN: 2327-6991
Mission
As world economies continue to shift and change in response to global financial situations, job mar-
kets have begun to demand a more highly-skilled workforce. In many industries a college degree is the
minimum requirement and further educational development is expected to advance. With these current
trends in mind, the Advances in Higher Education & Professional Development (AHEPD) Book
Series provides an outlet for researchers and academics to publish their research in these areas and to
distribute these works to practitioners and other researchers.
AHEPD encompasses all research dealing with higher education pedagogy, development, and cur-
riculum design, as well as all areas of professional development, regardless of focus.
Coverage IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts

• Adult Education for publication within this series. To submit a pro-
• Assessment in Higher Education posal for a volume in this series, please contact our
• Career Training Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@igi-global.com
• Coaching and Mentoring or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
• Continuing Professional Development
• Governance in Higher Education
• Higher Education Policy
• Pedagogy of Teaching Higher Education
• Vocational Education
The Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series (ISSN 2327-6983) is published by IGI Global,
701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase in-
dividually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please
visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-higher-education-professional-development/73681. Postmaster: Send all address changes
to above address. Copyright © 2015 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this
series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping,
or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including
classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com
Handbook of Research on Higher Education in the MENA Region Policy and Practice
Neeta Baporikar (Ministry of Higher Education, Oman)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2014 • 527pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466661981) • US $315.00 (our price)
Advancing Knowledge in Higher Education Universities in Turbulent Times

Tanya Fitzgerald (La Trobe University, Australia)
Cases on Teacher Identity, Diversity, and Cognition in Higher Education

Paul Breen (Greenwich School of Management, UK)
Handbook of Research on Trends in European Higher Education Convergence

Alina Mihaela Dima (Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Romania)
Overcoming Challenges in Software Engineering Education Delivering Non-Technical Knowledge and Skills
Liguo Yu (Indiana University South Bend, USA)
Engineering Science Reference • copyright 2014 • 556pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466658004) • US $235.00 (our price)
Multicultural Awareness and Technology in Higher Education Global Perspectives

Tomayess Issa (Curtin University, Australia) Pedro Isaias (Universidade Aberta (Portuguese Open University),
Portugal) and Piet Kommers (University of Twente, The Netherlands)
Cutting-Edge Technologies and Social Media Use in Higher Education

Vladlena Benson (Kingston University, UK) and Stephanie Morgan (Kingston University, UK)
Building Online Communities in Higher Education Institutions Creating Collaborative Experience

Carolyn N. Stevenson (Kaplan University, USA) and Joanna C. Bauer (Kaplan University, USA)
Using Technology Tools to Innovate Assessment, Reporting, and Teaching Practices in Engineering Education
Firoz Alam (RMIT University, Australia)
Engineering Science Reference • copyright 2014 • 409pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466650114) • US $215.00 (our price)
701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033

Order online at www.igi-global.com or call 717-533-8845 x100
To place a standing order for titles released in this series, contact: cust@igi-global.com
Mon-Fri 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (est) or fax 24 hours a day 717-533-8661
Editorial Advisory Board
Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng, University of North Dakota, USA
Paul Asunda, Southern Illinois University – Carbondale, USA
Susan Elwood, Texas A & M University – Corpus Christi, USA
Travis Heggie, Bowling Green State University, USA
Fred Iraki, United States International University, Kenya
Kenneth Kungu, Tennessee State University, USA
Lydia Kyei-Blankson, Illinois State University, USA
Marian Maxfield, Ashland University, USA
Dianna L. Newman, University at Albany, USA
Esther Ntuli, Idaho State University, USA
Robert Oboko, University of Nairobi, Kenya
Grace Onchwari, University of North Dakota, USA
Elijah Onsomu, Winston Salem State University, USA
Joseph Rugutt, Missouri State University – West Plains, USA
Gary Schnellert, University of North Dakota, USA
Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xiv
Preface................................................................................................................................................. xvii
Acknowledgment.................................................................................................................................. xx
Chapter 1
Optimizing Blended Teaching and Learning in Brick-and-Mortar Institutions....................................... 1
Joachim Jack Agamba, Idaho State University, USA
Chapter 2
Utilizing Learning Management System (LMS) Tools to Achieve Differentiated Instruction.............. 12
Sophia Palahicky, Athabasca University, Canada
Chapter 3
A Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL): A Model for Online Instruction........................... 34
Heather Robinson, University of North Texas, USA
Alana S. Phillips, University of North Texas, USA
Anneliese Sheffield, University of North Texas, USA
Michelle Moore, University of North Texas, USA
Chapter 4
Active Learning Strategies for Online and Blended Learning Environments....................................... 58
Cynthia Cummings, Lamar University, USA
Diane Mason, Lamar University, USA
Kaye Shelton, Lamar University, USA
Katie Baur, Lamar University, USA
Chapter 5
Cultivating Community in Online and Blended Learning Environments.............................................. 83
Tracy W. Smith, Appalachian State University, USA
Emory Maiden III, Appalachian State University, USA
Chapter 6
Serving Nontraditional Students: Meeting Needs through an Online Writing Program..................... 106
Dianna L. Newman, University at Albany (SUNY), USA
Meghan Morris Deyoe, University at Albany (SUNY), USA
David Seelow, Excelsior College, USA
Chapter 7
Blended for Student Engagement and Retention: The Case of Cinema and Visual Culture and
Healthy Lifestyle Studies..................................................................................................................... 129
Ishmael I. Munene, Northern Arizona University, USA
Flower Darby, Northern Arizona University, USA
John Doherty, Northern Arizona University, USA
Chapter 8
Student Outcomes and Retention in Online Academic and Training Programs.................................. 147
R. S. Hubbard, University of Southern California, USA
Chapter 9
Blending in the Humanities: Course Model and Assessment Results................................................. 173
Astrid Klocke, Northern Arizona University, USA
Danielle Hedegard, Northern Arizona University, USA
Chapter 10
Using Instructional Design Goals to Appropriately Classify Instructional Design Models................ 189
Shani Salifu, Concord University, USA
Chapter 11
A Model for Improving Online Collaborative Learning through Machine Learning.......................... 204
E. Muuro Maina, Kenyatta University, Kenya
Peter W. Wagacha, University of Nairobi, Kenya
Robert O. Oboko, University of Nairobi, Kenya
Chapter 12
Blogs in Teacher Education: Knowledge Sharing among Pre-Service Teachers on a Group Course
Blog...................................................................................................................................................... 220
Peggy Semingson, The University of Texas – Arlington, USA
Chapter 13
Using Technology to Enhance Teacher Preparation Field Experiences.............................................. 235
Ursula Thomas, Georgia Perimeter College, USA
Chapter 14
Blended Learning and Digital Curation: A Learning Design Sequence.............................................. 256
Nathaniel Ostashewski, Curtin University, Australia
Romana Martin, Curtin University, Australia
Andrew Brennan, Curtin University, Australia
Chapter 15
Learning through Web-Based Authoring Tools................................................................................... 269
Tony Lee, University of Oklahoma, USA
Doo Hun Lim, University of Oklahoma, USA
Related References............................................................................................................................. 279
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 307
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 346
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 354
Detailed Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xiv
Preface................................................................................................................................................. xvii
Acknowledgment.................................................................................................................................. xx
Chapter 1
Optimizing Blended Teaching and Learning in Brick-and-Mortar Institutions....................................... 1
Joachim Jack Agamba, Idaho State University, USA
This chapter focuses on the need for the inclusion of instructional design principles for in-service and
pre-service teacher professional development to assist faculty transition effectively to blended instructional
delivery. The need to improve the design and delivery of content of Course Management Systems (CMS)/
Learning Management Systems (LMS) in blended teaching and learning to serve 21st century learners
is emphasized. Administrators and technology support centers have a critical role to play in providing
alternative support for faculty if the optimal use of alternative learning environments are to be realized.
Chapter 2
Utilizing Learning Management System (LMS) Tools to Achieve Differentiated Instruction.............. 12
Sophia Palahicky, Athabasca University, Canada
Learning Management Systems (LMSs) aid in the achievement of differentiated instruction and therefore
should be embraced in spite of the time-consuming issues associated with it. This chapter argues that
differentiated instruction is worth the time and effort because it responds to individual needs, and
responsive teaching maximizes each student’s success
Chapter 3
A Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL): A Model for Online Instruction........................... 34
Heather Robinson, University of North Texas, USA
Alana S. Phillips, University of North Texas, USA
Anneliese Sheffield, University of North Texas, USA
Michelle Moore, University of North Texas, USA
Online instruction is becoming a necessity for all instructors. Communication is the overarching imperative.
Delivering instruction using the Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL) model has the potential
to remove communication barriers and actually draw more students into the social aspect of instruction
and truly engage them as lifelong learners.
Chapter 4
Active Learning Strategies for Online and Blended Learning Environments....................................... 58
Cynthia Cummings, Lamar University, USA
Diane Mason, Lamar University, USA
Kaye Shelton, Lamar University, USA
Katie Baur, Lamar University, USA
Student-centered learning practices allow learners to become connected. The purpose of this chapter is
to assist faculty in developing active learning strategies that are learner-centered utilizing technology
for online and blended environments.
Chapter 5
Cultivating Community in Online and Blended Learning Environments.............................................. 83
Tracy W. Smith, Appalachian State University, USA
Emory Maiden III, Appalachian State University, USA
How can institutions of higher education leverage the gains of social media for instruction to assist
learners through the use of online and blended environments? The authors provide a rationale for
cultivating community in online environments as well as provide descriptive cases of instructors who
have effectively used a learning management system to cultivate vibrant learning communities in online
and hybrid courses. They also offer multiple faculty development models for helping faculty develop a
social, teaching, and cognitive presence in online environments.
Chapter 6
Serving Nontraditional Students: Meeting Needs through an Online Writing Program..................... 106
Dianna L. Newman, University at Albany (SUNY), USA
Meghan Morris Deyoe, University at Albany (SUNY), USA
David Seelow, Excelsior College, USA
This chapter presents findings related to the use of online writing modules developed to support English
as a Second Language and nontraditional English speaking college students. Participants reported
improved content-specific writing skills, transfer of writing skills to other content areas, and increased
self-efficacy in writing. This chapter asserts that the need to support non-traditional learners is growing.
A writing program module for ELL college students is featured.
Chapter 7
Blended for Student Engagement and Retention: The Case of Cinema and Visual Culture and
Healthy Lifestyle Studies..................................................................................................................... 129
Ishmael I. Munene, Northern Arizona University, USA
Flower Darby, Northern Arizona University, USA
John Doherty, Northern Arizona University, USA
This chapter presents an analysis of approaches and models employed by faculty at one institution of
higher learning to develop and deliver two blended courses as part of the institution’s strategy of using
technology to enhance undergraduate student engagement and retention. The analysis shows that a
multimodal approach that infuses technologies and media and a proactive institutional policy in favor of
blended learning, coupled with strategic faculty development, provides the best pathway to developing
robust blended courses that are truly learner-centered. A call to create robust courses to serve learners
in a blended and online course environment is presented.
Chapter 8
Student Outcomes and Retention in Online Academic and Training Programs.................................. 147
R. S. Hubbard, University of Southern California, USA
The purpose of this chapter is to examine online education in order to understand how to improve
student outcomes and retention. This chapter offers six specific recommendations that faculty, students,
administrators, management, and support staff can undertake to assure that students and faculty will
have the resources to successfully complete an online academic or training program.
Chapter 9
Blending in the Humanities: Course Model and Assessment Results................................................. 173
Astrid Klocke, Northern Arizona University, USA
Danielle Hedegard, Northern Arizona University, USA
Technology and meaningful engagement? Blended vs. traditional learning environments? The chapter
presents a blended course model, assessment data, and ideas for contextual reflection about how change
in higher education paradigms is affecting the humanities in order to address them in a cooperative,
non-disruptive way. Finally, the unique context, assumptions, and causes for resistance to change in the
humanities with regard to technology and blended pedagogy are discussed. This chapter is intended to
help readers anticipate and address particular disciplinary perceptions of blended learning.
Chapter 10
Using Instructional Design Goals to Appropriately Classify Instructional Design Models................ 189
Shani Salifu, Concord University, USA
This chapter probes an assertion by Gustafson and Branch that it is easier to classify instructional models
when guided by the needs that call for them. Specifically, the chapter examines pertinent questions that
look at some assumptions guiding the choice of instructional models, the three design situations identified,
and some characteristics that separate the various design instances.
Chapter 11
A Model for Improving Online Collaborative Learning through Machine Learning.......................... 204
E. Muuro Maina, Kenyatta University, Kenya
Peter W. Wagacha, University of Nairobi, Kenya
Robert O. Oboko, University of Nairobi, Kenya
As the number of students studying online continues to increase, there is a need to develop models that can
improve online collaborative learning with minimal involvement of the instructor because the instructor
might not be able to cope with increased number of students. To address this need, this chapter discusses
a novel model for improving online collaborative learning that uses Machine Learning (ML) techniques.
The focus of this chapter is on opportunities for collaboration that online environments provide.
Chapter 12
Blogs in Teacher Education: Knowledge Sharing among Pre-Service Teachers on a Group Course
Blog...................................................................................................................................................... 220
Peggy Semingson, The University of Texas – Arlington, USA
The chapter provides an analysis of transcriptions of blog posts for a face-to-face course for evidenced-
based or text-based support. The purpose of the study was to examine the transcription of the students’
postings and Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) to look for the three types of elements that
comprise the Community of Inquiry according to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, as well as examination
of broader themes and trends across the data.
Chapter 13
Using Technology to Enhance Teacher Preparation Field Experiences.............................................. 235
Ursula Thomas, Georgia Perimeter College, USA
This chapter describes a field director’s revision of a field experience placement system and model for
a teacher education program at a two-year institution. The conversion from a paper system to using a
learning management system to support the field experience process of 324 students was documented.
Results from this case study indicate a positive correlation between the components of the process and
the features of the learning management system. In addition, findings from the case study reveal that the
learning management system provides additional benefits for program assessment.
Chapter 14
Blended Learning and Digital Curation: A Learning Design Sequence.............................................. 256
Nathaniel Ostashewski, Curtin University, Australia
Romana Martin, Curtin University, Australia
Andrew Brennan, Curtin University, Australia
This chapter presents a case of a successful integration of digital curation in a repeating series of
blended classroom activities. Digital curation, in education, is understood as the collection, organization,
interpretation, summary, and sharing of online resources by learners on a topic of inquiry. The chapter
describes the activities, the learning design, and the outcomes of a digital curation activity sequence. This
provides other educators with a learning design roadmap for engaging students in pre-lecture activities
or blended learning that adds value to classroom lectures.
Chapter 15
Learning through Web-Based Authoring Tools................................................................................... 269
Tony Lee, University of Oklahoma, USA
Doo Hun Lim, University of Oklahoma, USA
Web-based authoring tools are great additions to online education and training programs. For instance,
the Web-based authoring tools enable instructors and trainers to create media-rich learning instructions
and transform dry Web content into engaging and exciting learning content. Besides recreating and
transforming Web content, Web-based authoring tools also play an important role in expanding learners’
attention spans and their readiness to learn. This chapter provides a portrait of roles and impacts of Web-
based authoring tools in online learning environments.
Related References............................................................................................................................. 279
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 307
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 346
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 354
xiv
Foreword
With any book about models, I look for a process and a clear explanation of that process, and hopefully
some evidence to back up the model. An effective model, one that routinely accomplishes its purpose,
does not emerge fully featured and understood. Models improve by being continually tested and evalu-
ated. For educational models in particular, I am looking for the developmental stage of the model. As
Rowe (1991) outlined, models can be classified hierarchically, one type informing the other. Models
initially are descriptive serving to help users to understand a system and its context. Next are predictive
models providing a forecast of what might happen. Explorative models enable systematic exploration
and a variation of basic features. Ultimately, planning models are predictive but help us to evaluate pre-
dicted outcomes in terms of planning goals. Descriptive models, forming the foundations for the other
models, look at the past, while predictive and explorative examine the present, and planning models
focus on the future.
The study of these models can proceed along two directions; the first being a design focus or a design
question: What are the features of the model design, how is the model used, and how is the model evalu-
ated? A design focus pulls from design and development research providing a systematic approach to
studying the model’s development along typical lines of instructional design (Richey & Klein, 2007). A
second direction, more along program evaluation lines, asks how to help faculty members learn to teach
using blended and online deliveries? Both study directions – instructional and professional develop-
mental – are needed to systematically add to the knowledge base of models for online/blended learning.
The instructional direction examines teaching decisions in light of learners, content, and context, while
professional development addresses the contextual issues of the instructor, students, academic program,
institutional mission, and professional organizations.
With a book about models for learning, I also look for learning outcomes and teaching options that
support that learning. Multiple approaches pull from different learning theories and perspectives, so
faculty members who move to online teaching have an opportunity to not only consider teaching op-
tions, but the perspectives that underlie those approaches. Thus, the move to online teaching affords a
faculty member with a prompt to re-examine the purposes for a course and how that course is taught and
delivered. Such a re-examination may conflict with a range of perspectives, from a faculty member who
believes that a particular perspective (e.g., social constructivist) is essential or that no-re-examination
is needed at all (e.g., a content-focus). Despite these conflicts, being clear about the perspective and/
or purpose underlying the instructional activity can only help faculty and students. Teaching decisions
can be pragmatically guided by what is needed. These needs can be primarily learning outcomes but
can also include faculty and institutional goals and specific instructional and institutional situations, the
contextual realities surrounding the content in that place and at a particular time for students.
xv
The questions I pose to readers, then, are how has this edited volume (a) addressed process models for
blended/online delivery, how have these models (b) supported learning outcomes and teaching approaches,
and (c) how have these models helped faculty to be successful in their teaching and academic careers?
In terms of process models, many of the chapters discuss the constraints of a course management
system (CMS) on providing student-centered activities. The use of a CMS is not by itself a model for
learning. A CMS is usually a commercial product and is a major feature within an overall approach
for how learning is supported in blended or online deliveries. Features of models for learning need to
be based on learning outcomes, how teaching supports these outcomes, and what teaching decisions
need to be made for how a CMS is used. Some of the chapters document efforts that prompt instructors
to examine their own beliefs, re-examine teaching options, and document that learning has occurred,
sometimes by both instructor and student.
In terms of learning outcomes within these models, I see student engagement and community-building
as a major focus for the chapters. Words such as student communication, interaction, active engagement,
community, groups, and collaboration suggest that the authors are viewing student engagement and
community as key purposes (even as learning outcomes) for the online/blended environments. When
active or engaged learning is an overall purpose for teaching, then it’s useful to define through learning
outcomes what is meant by these engagement and community-building words, thus enabling student
performance to be assessed.
Some of the chapters focus on professional development and models for delivering courses. These
chapters report on the values of talking about student needs and peer sharing of specific cases and best
practices. In addition, professional development delivery using online and blended approaches help to
examine teacher and student perceptions of new delivery options and to discuss resistance to change.
I urge readers to study these chapters in terms of model features, learning outcomes, and profes-
sional development. Studying one’s teaching and the case studies of others provides opportunities to
help educators examine the basis for teaching decisions and to re-examine the assumptions underlying
these decisions. Any technology innovation, such as online and blended instructional delivery, serves
to prompt us to re-examine teaching. Teaching can be examined by thinking through the full range of
learning outcomes and that “developing community,” for example, might become a learning outcome if
that performance is truly valued. Teaching decisions in online and blended environments also warrant a
re-thinking of who the learners are. Finally, one’s teaching decisions can also be informed by the reality
of the context of the learning setting. I also encourage you to contact the chapter contributors and en-
gage in an ongoing discussion over how to build on their work through iterative and purposeful inquiry.
Neal Shambaugh
West Virginia University, USA
Neal Shambaugh is Interim Associate Dean of Academic Affairs in the College of Education and Human Services at West
Virginia University. A graduate of Virginia Tech, he is a professor of Learning Sciences and Human Development at WVU and
former program coordinator of Graduate Programs for Instructional Design and Technology. He is the author of two textbooks
on Instructional Design, one for teacher education, Instructional Design, A Systematic Approach to Reflective Practice, and
one for graduate programs, Mastering the Possibilities: A Process Approach to Instructional Design. He has taught courses
in instructional design, teaching methods, visual literacy, IDT professional practice, design and development research, and
educational psychology.
xvi
REFERENCES
Richey, R., & Klein, J. (2007). Design and development research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rowe, P. (1991). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
xvii
Preface
The current generation of learners continues to prefer online and blended learning environments to
traditional transmission methods (Allen & Seaman, 2011). These alternative technology-mediated
environments reflect the increasing need to serve a generation of learners who prefer to learn through
experience or by interacting with learning tools (Thomas, 2011). The purpose of this book is to further
the conversation on the utilization of technology-mediated environments or platforms such as Course
Management Systems (CMS) or Learning Management Systems (LMS), as well as models of instruc-
tion, to achieve learner-centered instructional practices that offer alternative means of communication
for understanding.
A key question that is recurrent in the book is that of appropriateness of technology use. It is the
responsibility of current educators to re-evaluate instructional practice relative to the needs of learners.
This would require instructional design skills and strategies for faculty to successfully integrate technol-
ogy tools and models that reflect differentiated instruction values to meet the needs of different types of
learners. The proper use of current resources to address critical needs of learners should not only focus
on what is outdated but also that which has been proven or has promise to engage learners and lead to
desirable learning outcomes (Johnsen & Taylor, 2011). The time has never been more crucial for faculty
to be able to transition from traditional delivery methods to technology-mediated methods that allow
learners to make meaning through interaction with learning materials.
A persistent factor affecting faculty optimization of technology-integrated instruction still remains
with the issue of time. It would require a paradigm shift on expectations of faculty by administrators and
a similar shift in focus by technology support centers that assist faculty on technology integration for this
expectation to become reality. Technology has always influenced educational practice and opportunities.
To this end, in Models for Improving and Optimizing Online and Blended Learning in Higher Education,
the chapter contributors establish the benefits of instructional technology over traditional methods and
argue for a willingness to embrace the challenges involved.
Chapter 1 examines the need for the inclusion of instructional design principles for in-service and
pre-service teacher professional development to assist faculty transition effectively to blended instruc-
tional delivery, and Chapter 2 argues that differentiated instruction is worth the time and effort because
it responds to individual needs, and responsive teaching maximizes each student’s success.
Chapter 3 posits that delivering instruction using the Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL)
model has the potential to remove communication barriers and draw more students into the social aspect
of instruction and truly engage them as lifelong learners.
xviii
Chapter 4 explores the need to assist faculty in developing active learning strategies that are learner-
centered utilizing technology for online and blended environments, and Chapter 5 offers a rationale for
cultivating community in online environments and multiple faculty development models for helping
faculty develop a social, teaching, and cognitive presence in online environments.
Chapter 6 presents findings related to the use of online writing modules developed to support Eng-
lish as a Second Language and nontraditional English speaking college students. Participants reported
improved content-specific writing skills, transfer of writing skills to other content areas, and increased
self-efficacy in writing. This chapter asserts that the need to support non-traditional learners is growing.
Chapter 7 presents an analysis of approaches and models employed by faculty at one institution of
higher learning to develop and deliver two blended courses as part of the institution’s strategy of using
technology to enhance undergraduate student engagement and retention, and Chapter 8 offers six specific
recommendations that faculty, students, administrators, management, and support staff can undertake
to assure that students and faculty will have the resources to successfully complete an online academic
or training program.
Chapter 9 presents a blended course model, assessment data, and ideas for contextual reflection
about how change in higher education paradigms is affecting the humanities in order to address them in
a cooperative, non-disruptive way. The unique context, assumptions, and causes for resistance to change
in the humanities with regard to technology and blended pedagogy are also discussed. This chapter is
intended to help readers anticipate and address particular disciplinary perceptions of blended learning.
Chapter 10 examines pertinent questions that look at some assumptions guiding the choice of instruc-
tional models, the three design situations identified, and some characteristics that separate the various
design instances, and Chapter 11 discusses a novel model for improving online collaborative learning
using Machine Learning (ML) techniques.
Chapter 12 provides an analysis of transcriptions of blog posts for a face-to-face course for evidenced-
based or text-based support, and Chapter 13 describes a field director’s revision of a field experience
placement system and model for a teacher education program at a two-year institution.
Chapter 14 presents a case of a successful integration of digital curation in a repeating series of
blended classroom activities. The chapter describes the activities, the learning design, and the outcomes
of a digital curation activity sequence. Chapter 15 provides a portrait of roles and impacts of Web-based
authoring tools in online learning environments.
The centrality of blended delivery of instruction and its advantages over traditional transmission methods
in traditional institutions of higher education are well established. The role of good instructional design
principles as necessary tools are highlighted along with an acknowledgement of the barriers impeding
optimal practice. In light of faculty resistance and associated demands for service and publication, the
need for different approaches to assist faculty are respectfully placed. There is alignment of thought on
the roles of LMS to aid in the achievement of differentiated instruction.
The role of instructional models and the cyclical process of revision relative to design and devel-
opment is also examined as with the potential to deliver instruction using the Rich Environment for
Active Learning (REAL) model for effective communication to produce life-long learning. Perhaps, a
fundamental goal of instruction in post-secondary education should contain a substantial reliance on
the constructivist paradigm of how learners make meaning for themselves rather than simply absorbing
information (Jonassen & Land, 2011).
xix
No grand claims are made for technology as a panacea for problems in education. Rather, this book
acknowledges the limitations of traditional (face-to-face) transmission of knowledge and advocates for
recognition of a cultural change brought about by technology. For higher education faculty, it means
acknowledgement of the centrality of technology in eliminating physical distance between people as
manifested by social media, for example. There is focus on the need to recognize learners’ experiences
in online and blended environments as being significantly different from traditional transmission and
interaction.
Finally, Course Management Systems or Learning Management Systems and Models are pivotal in
repurposing learning for the acquisition and enhancement of skills in the 21st century. To this end, the
centrality of the distance that the learner experiences as an alternative to traditional instructional delivery
is evident in this book. To better serve the current generation of learners, including non-traditional stu-
dents, faculty in higher education need to reassess what it means to be learner-centered in the design and
delivery of online and blended instruction. To achieve this, assisting faculty to optimize technology tools
in blended and online learning environments must become a priority for institutions of higher education.
The hope is that these scholarly essays will help forward the agenda and discussion on the signifi-
cance and the need for a willingness to embrace the challenges involved in the process of optimizing
technology tools in blended and online learning environments. Overall, this book provides very useful
information for administrators and educators who are interested in the planning, design, implementation,
and utilization of technology-mediated environments or platforms such as Course Management Systems
(CMS) or Learning Management Systems (LMS) as well as models of instruction to achieve the best
learner-centered instructional practices.
Jared Keengwe
Joachim Jack Agamba

REFERENCES
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. S. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011.
Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Johnsen, J. B., & Taylor, W. D. (2011). Instructional technology and unforeseen value conflicts. In G.
J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 173–178). Santa Barbara, CA:
Libraries Unlimited.
Jonassen, D. H., & Easter, M. A. (2012). Conceptual change and student centered learning environ-
ments. In D. Jonassen, & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 95–113).
Academic Press.
Thomas, M. (2011). Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology, and the new literacies.
New York, NY: Routledge.
xx
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my colleague and co-editor, Dr. Joachim Agamba (Idaho
State University). Thank you Jack, for your assistance drafting both the book proposal and the preface,
and for your assistance coordinating the Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) review process and activities.
I am forever indebted to my close family members who continue to inspire me to laugh often and write.
Specifically, I appreciate that YOU BELIEVE IN ME—your belief that I can ALWAYS successfully
accomplish any—yes, any writing project if I just tried.
Thanks to the wonderful staff at IGI Global who participated in the overall development and successful
completion of this great project. Finally, I am very grateful to the Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) team.
Jared Keengwe
1
Chapter 1
Optimizing Blended Teaching
and Learning in Brick-
and-Mortar Institutions
Joachim Jack Agamba
ABSTRACT
The increase of blended instructional offerings in brick-and-mortar institutions provides leverage for
the appropriate utilization of technology for instruction to optimize learning and serve a generation
of learners who prefer such environments. However, the question of appropriate use of technology to
improve student performance rests on teacher belief. Where faculty believe that they are content experts
who should be trusted to deliver instruction as they see fit, the integration of technology becomes a
choice. Some faculty see a clear demarcation between curriculum development and instruction as two
separate processes involving separate activities (Heinich, 2011). The missing link appears to be a lack
of appreciation for the benefits of instructional design principles that increase learning outcomes as a
result of interactivity. This chapter focuses on the need for the inclusion of instructional design principles
for in-service and pre-service teacher professional development to assist faculty transition effectively
to blended instructional delivery. Barriers that impede the appropriate use of technology for blended
delivery need to be identified and alternative approaches need to be applied to assist instructors and
increase the effective use of technology in blended learning environments that are more learner-centered.
INTRODUCTION positive claims on learning gains associated with

it, problems still abound on their proper implemen-
Rogers’ (2003) observation that it takes time for tation. For brick-and-mortar institutions, blended
a new innovation to be adopted and implemented learning environments are a natural fit because they
appropriately is still relevant today, particularly provide a bridge between traditional practice and
with the integration of Course Management Sys- online education. Blended instructional offerings
tems (CMS), in brick-and-mortar institutions of also provide revenue (Yuan & Powell, 2013) as
higher education. In spite of the widespread use some students prefer the benefits of a traditional
of CMS for blended instructional delivery, and the face-to-face and online combination.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch001
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Optimizing Blended Teaching and Learning in Brick-and-Mortar Institutions
Teaching and learning with blended formats for instructional delivery in brick-and-mortar
provides a learning environment that enhances institutions. The discussion centers on current
“real time” interaction with learning materials, practices in the utilization of blended learning
discussions with instructors and among col- environments with a focus on values of “student-
leagues, and the facility of providing actionable centered learning environments (SCLEs)” as
feedback without having to wait until the “next discussed by Land, Hannafin and Oliver (2012,
class meeting”, as is the case with the traditional p. 3). I argue that faculty professional develop-
learning environment alone. A driving factor for ment on CMS use should first focus on assisting
the increased use of blended learning environ- instructors understand technology tools and their
ments is that majority of students currently at- inherent variations relative to applicable theo-
tending college consist of a generation who are retical frameworks as a precursor to the standard
accustomed to experiencing real time results from practice of assisting faculty learn to implement
interacting with technological tools (Hartman, those tools.
Dziuban & Brophy-Ellison, 2007). Such learners Course Management Systems, through a
have therefore come to expect the similar experi- collection of software applications, provide a
ences of “convenience and flexibility” from their virtual environment for learning and interaction
learning process (Lin, 2009, p. 58). not only between instructors and students, but
However, it is this expectation that is driving among students as well (Betrus, 2008). Course
two competing legacies of thought and funda- Management Systems therefore provide access
mental preferences, among others, on teaching to course materials such as syllabi, assignments
and learning practices in the 21st century. This is and quizzes, grades, links to related websites,
mainly because many faculty who are accustomed tracking tools, feedback, and discussion forums
to traditional delivery and have learned that way that facilitate communication. The range of CMS
themselves, see nothing wrong with continuing the available in higher education include, but are not
same practice (Heinich, 2011). Yet interaction with limited to, Blackboard®, Moodle®, CourseInfo®,
content, as made possible by the distance aspect Desire2Learn®, eCollege®, Moodle, Sakai®, and
of blended environments is central to learning Brain Honey®. Course Management Systems is
outcomes (Rhode, 2009). This reality is consis- sometimes used interchangeably with Learning
tent with expectations of the current generation Management Systems (LMS) because the latter is
of learners who prefer technology to play similar a corporate version of the former (Betrus, 2008).
roles in their learning the way it does in their lives. Moodle, an abbreviation for Modular Object-
Educational technology, through the use of CMS, Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment, is used
provides essentials for these alternative learning to provide examples where necessary. Nonethe-
environments, making learner interaction with less, the discussion is applicable for other CMS.
knowledge objects possible (Nycz & Cohen, 2007). In a recent study on mobile learning practices,
As a consequence, CMS also dictate alternative Chen and Denoyelles (2013) reported that although
methods of instructional delivery that are neces- students continue to own mobile devices at a higher
sary for their successful adoption. rate, learning with those devices occur outside the
The goal of this chapter is to focus on the use classroom, mostly without guidance from instruc-
of Course Management Systems as a student- tors. However, these students are not accustomed
centered learning environment, particularly with to utilizing technological tools for learning. They
regard to issues concerning its effective and ap- expect guidance from instructors on such use.
propriate use as a blended learning environment Higher education institutions have responded to
2

such expectations by increasingly embracing tech- learning environments are a natural fit, as they
nology for teaching and learning because the 21st complement traditional delivery methods and meet
century market place requires graduates who can the needs of different types of learners.
compete in a technology-directed global market With regard to outcome-based instruction,
place (Oblinger & Murayama, 1996). Brick-and- evidence from studies on the efficacy of tradi-
mortar post-secondary institutions see the need tional delivery versus blended or distance delivery
to provide alternative, and improved methods of indicates the former is no more beneficial than
instructional delivery. However, many instructors the latter (Simonson, 2011; Land & Hannafin,
continue to underutilize inherent instructional 2000). It seems reasonable, therefore, to focus
tools in blended environments, which in essence on the appropriateness of technology use. Betrus
is inappropriate use, thereby underserving their (2008) observed that “a shared focus of the field
students. of educational technology remains on the appro-
The question of appropriate use of technology priate use of emerging technological resources
to improve student performance rests on: a) teacher to facilitate learning and improve performance”
belief, and b) the quality of support available for (p. 238). As such, it is the limited use or non-use
appropriate technology integration. Where faculty of CMS features by faculty which can impair
believe that they are content experts who should its effectiveness as a learning environment and
be trusted to deliver instruction as they see fit, consequently compromise its potential to enrich
then the use of technology becomes a choice. learners’ experiences.
Such faculty see a clear demarcation between
curriculum development and instruction as two
separate processes involving separate activities TEACHER BELIEF
(Heinich, 2011). The other inhibiting factor can be
found in the level and quality of support provided To begin with, university and college faculty for
by administrators through technology support the most part have no say in which CMS their
centers. In both cases, the missing link appears institution chooses for them. Administrators may
to be a lack of appreciation for the benefits of choose particular technologies based on financial
instructional design principles. This is particularly reasons (Hall, 2010) while faculty may choose to
more so in an era where collaboration between integrate such technologies based on convenience
instructional designers and subject matter experts (Surry & Land, 2000). As a consequence, faculty
has almost disappeared. The need for the inclusion may feel compelled (pushed but not ordered) to
of instructional design principles for in-service use CMS as directed by administrators. This can
and pre-service teacher professional development lead to ineffective use of CMS which results in
is therefore evidenced. undesirable learning outcomes and can frustrate
Assisting faculty, regardless of their notions learners and instructors alike (Hirumi & Kidney,
on teaching with technology, can remove barriers 2011). More so, ineffective or inappropriate use
that impede the appropriate use of technology of CMS translates into missed opportunities to
and thereby increase its effectiveness in blended capitalize on improved forms of delivery. Perhaps
learning environments (Jonassen & Easter, 2012). for such reasons, the capacity of teachers as in-
Technology is increasingly shaping how we learn dividuals and as a group to adapt and implement
and teach in the 21st century at a faster pace partly technological innovations at an optimal level has
because it drives innovation in educational prac- been a focus of several research studies which
tice. For brick-and-mortar institutions, blended have resulted in the proposal of several models
3

on the process of effective implementation for teacher are separate (Simonson, 2011). Those fac-
increased learning outcomes (Jonassen & Land, ulty fail to see that learning experiences supersede
2012; Hirumi & Kidney, 2011; Pollard, 2005). that of mastering goals and objectives (Tessmer,
A focus on changing teacher belief resides in the 1998). As a consequence, the role of technology as
comparison of the fundamental aspects of teach- an enabler of teaching and learning is dismissed.
ing and learning between traditional and blended For reasons such as this, it is necessary to include
learning environments and the associated modi- relevant theoretical frameworks that support and
fication of behaviors that are necessary (Power, validate the appropriate use of technological tools
2014). In addition, evidence of desirable learning in a CMS, as part of faculty professional develop-
outcomes from distance education need to be a ment on technology integration.
part of the conversation, as faculty who believe in Rogers’ (2003) classic analysis of how people
the efficacy of traditional face-to-face instruction adopt innovations is relevant to this discussion in
do not see the advantages of technology-mediated that he describes instances affecting such adoption
instruction. As a result, some teachers still prefer that are relevant to the adoption and appropriate
the physical presence of learners and the direct integration of CMS for blended delivery. The first
interaction that results from it (Simonson, 2011). instant is that of time. The literature is replete
Repurposing instruction for the distance aspect with arguments that time is a constraining fac-
of delivery and facilitation for blended delivery tor that impedes the appropriate application of
may therefore not appeal to them, including the technology. Although universities and colleges
fact that the current generation of learners prefer provide technology centers and personnel to as-
to learn and communicate differently from tra- sist faculty (Heinich, 2011; Betrus, 2008), not all
ditional practice. Such beliefs are at the core of faculty members take advantage of such resources.
faculty resistance to transition from face-to-face Rogers’ (2003, p. 20) analysis of time as an im-
to blended environments. peding factor in the adoption of an innovation is
applicable to the adoption of CMS but even more
complicated because it is not rejected outright
FACULTY RESISTANCE TO CHANGE but used inappropriately at various stages and
dimensions. Faculty adopt CMS at varying rates
Two factors affecting the appropriate use of tech- with varying quality. So even though numbers
nology in education that highlight this chapter may paint a bright picture, in terms of faculty
are faculty resistance to change and the need for who use a CMS on a given campus, the quality of
alternative forms of appropriate support in the adoption may not. Resistance, as such, therefore
utilization of CMS for blended instructional de- relates to several variables besides time, as Rog-
livery (Jonassen & Land, 2000; Reigeluth, 1999; ers’ (2003) indicated.
Januszewski & Molenda, 2008). Faculty resistance Knowledge and attitudes toward an innovation
to change is an endearing reason for the underuse such as CMS use is another factor that aligns with
of technology (Simonson, 2011). Such faculty the resistance to use CMS for blended delivery. Ac-
are therefore likely to utilize CMS mainly as a cording to Rogers (2003), “knowledge” (learning
repository of learning materials and for convenient about and understanding how it works), “persua-
access by their students (Heinich, 2011). sion” (whether an individual is convinced or not
Faculty who resist change discount the benefits of the innovation), “decision” (activities leading to
of distance education, partly because they fail to adoption or rejection), “implementation” (putting
see how effective instruction can take place outside an innovation to use), and “confirmation” (seek-
of the physical classroom where the learner and ing reinforcement to improve quality of use) may
4

work in sequence, as a process of innovation (p. In the race to join the for-profit higher educa-
20). However, for faculty, such a sequence may tion sector in the virtual delivery of education,
not occur. “Conflicting messages” may occur traditional brick-and-mortar institutions will serve
sooner, even though the adopter wants to use it their students well, if not better, by re-envisioning
but does not have the expertise to make it hap- how to effectively assist faculty embrace CMS
pen. The certainty that faculty need in order to technology just as online learning rethinks areas
fully adopt a CMS is sometimes lacking. In such for improvement (Bowen, 2013). Such a focus
a case, the advantages of the innovation are not would reside in the design, delivery, mediation, and
fully conveyed because thought-process was not a assessment of learning materials and technologi-
part of the professional development PD process, cal tools that have been proven to enhance student
if that indeed took place. learning outcomes. This can be achieved through
“sound design principles” in how content is or-
ganized for distance delivery (Mohammed, 2004,
ALTERNATIVE SUPPORT p. 2). Existing frameworks for best practices such
FOR FACULTY as design principles found in Danielson (2007)
and the Quality Matters Rubric, for example, are
The second discussion in the literature that in- not fully exploited to improve course design. By
forms this chapter is that of the provision of PD understanding alternative methods, faculty can
on CMS integration. There is a need for faculty embrace options that work for them. Such an ef-
PD frameworks to shift from a predominant focus fort would also go beyond current predominant
on how to apply technological tools to that of first practice of simply providing virtual platforms such
assisting faculty understand the utility of CMS as CMS and expecting faculty to adapt.
tools and their inherent benefits over traditional The time has never been more pressing, but yet
delivery methods. Only by first understanding the ripe, for higher education faculty to become more
benefits of each tool for instruction, can faculty comfortable with exploring and using available
then become stakeholders and want to learn their technology, especially through CMS, for alterna-
application. tive technology-mediated instruction because it
While universities and colleges provide tech- can be more effective in reaching college students.
nology centers and personnel to assist faculty Yet the factors that impeded distance education
members with technology use (Heinich, 2011; Be- in the past, as documented by Simonson (2011)
trus, 2008), the necessary changes in instructional persist and confound the appropriate adoption and
practice required for the optimal implementation integration of blended delivery in the 21st century.
of this new framework for teaching and learn- First, faculty have to be convinced that teach-
ing, which Abel, Brown, and Suess (2013, p. 1) ing a blended course requires a paradigm shift in
describe as “a new architecture for learning” has the conceptual framework that guides traditional
been undermined, partly leading to or reinforcing planning and delivery of instruction. This requires
faculty resistance. Some faculty view the time as- behavioral change toward embracing the fact that
sociated with taking advantage of these resources instructional delivery will involve face-to-face
as a constraint. The need for continued efforts to instruction and facilitation as well as distance
hypothesize strategies for instructional improve- guidance and communication. Faculty who are
ment and to conduct research and intervention already enthusiastic about the benefits of blended
to achieve such (Richey & Morrison, 2011) is delivery and have varying degrees of experience,
therefore necessary. would require PD that focuses on optimizing CMS
5

integration. That form of assistance resides in Conflicts with instructional time and preparation
elevating the knowledge base. For faculty who impede faculty attendance of such workshops.
dismiss blended instructional delivery, it requires As such, faculty only go to technology support
PD that will distinguish traditional face-to-face centers physically or call for assistance via phone
instructional practice from blended delivery. when the need arises.
For this group of faculty, the practical demands Although technology support centers are un-
of added time and work required for planning, dergoing transformation due to faculty demands
organizing, designing and delivery of content and input, much still remains to be done to make
(Simonson, 2011) for blended instruction is a faculty stakeholders of appropriate technology
significant consideration. use. Much of these changes reside in first mak-
Two impeding factors, among others, play a ing faculty stakeholders of the benefits of the
fundamental role that affect the optimal or appro- appropriate use of technology tools in CMS
priate use of CMS for instructional delivery. First, over traditional instructional methods. This will
is the critical role that faculty support systems on involve a process of diffusion (Rogers, 2003)
technology use (i.e., technology support centers, whereby faculty at various stages of CMS tool
deans, heads of department, and administrators) use can observe demonstrations on tools and their
need to play to assist faculty transition from a inherent variations with specific emphasis on
belief in traditional face-to-face delivery to that of differing circumstance of use based on learning
technology-mediated delivery. The second factor objectives and the pedagogical underpinnings of
resides in practical alternative approaches that are such use. Faculty exposure to relevant pedagogical
faculty-centered and data-driven. frameworks and theories that justify the selection
of CMS tools is likely to appeal to them. Every
CMS has tools with variations that can serve the
LIMITATIONS OF A ONE-SIZE- needs of different types and levels of learners,
FITS-ALL PD APPROACH for example. Abel (2013) has noted how a par-
ticular use of technology can be appropriate for
Technology centers that assist faculty on blended foundational courses or concepts but not suitable
and online course development have the tendency for advanced courses or concepts. An example
to focus on a one-size-fits-all approach to their is the use of the “Q & A” choice for discussion
faculty development programs. Although teaching forums for upper division or graduate courses in
faculty on how to implement CMS tools (usually favor of other options in Moodle because that
the basic ones) is necessary, that manner of ap- particular option requires that students first post
proach requires revision. Typically, technology their discussion before they can see other posts.
centers provide a calendar on topics that will be Therefore, it is by understanding the rationale for
covered each week or month during each school the utility of each tool that faculty are then likely
term. Such instruction and activities are usually to embrace and try them out. In order for this to
focused on assisting faculty navigate and apply occur, however, it would require technology sup-
CMS tools. In addition, technology centers are also port personnel who are not only knowledgeable in
open for consultation with faculty on their varying how the tools of a CMS works but conversant in
needs. In spite of these accommodations, time to the different circumstances of appropriate use in
devote to learning and or improving instructional order to persuade such utility. When faculty are
design for delivery remains a key confounding exposed to the differing functions of CMS technol-
factor that impedes faculty ability to attend train- ogy tools, especially with regard to the attainment
ing workshops (Heinich, 2011; Betrus, 2008). of desirable learning outcomes, skepticism on the
6

value of technology for teaching and learning is disciplines because the former receive training
more likely to change. This type of support for in writing goals and objectives, in addition to
faculty can also lead to collaboration and useful frameworks for designing instruction. This is in
feedback to administrators on what works and part because the former is expected to teach these
what does not. skills to pre-service teachers as part of their cur-
The analysis here is that if, for instance, faculty riculum. Such faculty are therefore more likely to
only go to technology centers to get assistance embrace more appropriate tools in a CMS whereas
with uploading syllabi and course materials at faculty who are not immersed in learning theory
the beginning of the term, and pay another visit to and its practical relevance to CMS may become
learn how to enter grades at mid-term or toward the content with utilizing tools that only provide the
end of term, then what perpetuates is that faculty convenience of a repository for course materials.
are not even aware of the other beneficial tools in Faculty are subject matter experts but they
a CMS that could enhance teaching and learning may lack the complementary expertise to select
and make them become more learner-centered. appropriate CMS tools that can best meet the
If technology support staff are not familiar with pedagogical needs of instruction (Gentry, 2011).
pedagogical frameworks and their relevance to As such, it would require technology support
CMS tools, they fail to promote optimal use by staff who are not only knowledgeable in guiding
not making the case for links between the two and faculty on how to navigation the various tools in
why their utility in certain circumstances provide a CMS but in addition, be knowledgeable in the
more desirable results over traditional face-to- practical applications of learning theory, includ-
face practice. As a consequence, “the concepts ing andragogy.
and principles related to ‘using technological A quick exposure of faculty, where necessary,
resources’” as explained by Molenda (2008, pp. to the differing utilities of a CMS tool that reflect
141-156) get undermined. perceived differences or intersections between the
For this reason, it is necessary for some behaviorist and cognitivist perspectives versus the
technology support personnel to be trained in constructivist perspectives (Molenda, 2008), for
the pedagogical rationale for the utility of CMS example, have implications for appropriateness
tools to provide initial training that will then be of use. In addition, such choice of use reflects
complement by training on tool implementation. the difference between teacher-centered practice
The second reason why technology support which is predominant in traditional delivery
personnel need to go to faculty at their own versus the constructivist perspective which is
departments is that colleges and departments in learner-centered and which appropriate use of
any given institution will have differing needs CMS tools tends to espouse. Understanding the
even on the same CMS. Even where such needs different types of use for one CMS tool there-
do not vary much, faculty exposure to relevant fore lays the foundation for appropriateness of
pedagogical frameworks and theories that jus- choices based on faculty content management.
tify the selection of CMS tools could influence It is the manner of content management with a
improved application significantly. For example, CMS which establishes the difference between
faculty within a college or department of education traditional delivery practices and learner-centered,
can be expected to be knowledgeable in learning technology-directed practice. Providing answers
theory and its role in education, instructional to the following questions by an instructor who
alignment principles, and the philosophy of being uses a CMS for instructional delivery puts this
learner centered as compared to faculty in other analogy in perspective:
7

• Is there alignment between course objec- focused examination of their CMS course sites
tives and utility of choice tools? and help to validate any alternative recommenda-
• Is there evidence of interactive opportuni- tions for resource selection. Such an approach is
ties for learners to make meaning? also likely to win faculty receptivity to alternative
• Is faculty optimizing use of tools based on resource utility and integration. Effects of such
manner of use? Where is the evidence? efforts by technology support centers would also
• How does the material gain or main- lead to data-driven information on faculty choice
tain the learner’s attention with regard to selection of CMS tools and provide accurate in-
interactivity? formation on barriers, concerns, and constraints
• How is productive feedback provided? that impede optimal implementation of technology
tools, and register impacts of PD on appropriate
CMS use for learner-centered instruction. Also,
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES by identifying and classifying faculty use of each
FOR CMS USE CMS tools and their variation of use, it is possible
to collect data that would verify individual as well
The following processes for appropriate tool as general faculty use for analysis. The analysis of
use are available, however, it would take their such would also provide data for the comparison
implementation by technology support centers for of CMS tool use from one school term or year
success to happen. First, it is necessary to iden- to another, for noticeable differences, especially
tify the baseline of CMS tools and their inherent for faculty who teach the same course(s) with
variations in order to foreground their use. Such such frequency. This practice will also make it
identification should go beyond ordinary practice possible for the type of feedback interactions at
such as how to add an activity, file or folder to a a micro level that Jacobsen and Kapur (2011, p.
course, setting up quizzes, using grade book or 304) discuss with regard to theoretical application
adding a discussion forum. Different ways of uti- of learning environments.
lizing a tool through its variations should first be
established. Following this, it would be appropriate
to verify tools that faculty actually use. Utilizing CONCLUSION
Hall’s (2010) innovation configuration mapping
concept, for example, can place faculty with regard A significant body of students who are immersed
to current use of CMS tools and therefore, form in information technology populates traditional
the basis for providing appropriate and effective brick-and-mortar universities and colleges.
assistance toward optimal use. Such a framework Technology and modern media have shaped the
would help to explore faculty integration of CMS environment that this generation of learners live
to: (a) describe the manner of use; (b) choice pro- in. The efficient and reliable technological devices
cesses; and (c) faculty perceptions of optimal use and associated software afford this generation a
(i.e., how they think they utilize CMS resources). latitude and convenience to communicate, access
Such theoretical/pedagogical rationales for CMS information and interact at unprecedented rates.
tool selection and alignment reflects views of best Universities and colleges, in response to the need
practices (Heinich, 2011; Betrus, 2008). to provide technology-mediated environments to
Professional development training workshops support learning, have generally embraced CMS
on selecting CMS resources based on performance to optimize learning (Nycz & Cohen, 2007).
objectives and established learning outcomes However, faculty in post-secondary institutions
would provide faculty with opportunities for a provide technology-mediated platforms such as
8

CMS to support blended learning, faculty are yet The mantra must be that “A” students are made
to utilize CMS tools appropriately to enhance and not born. For this to be realized, it means
learning and increase learning outcomes are As that traditional delivery modalities alone will not
a result, their lives are driven by mobile devices assist in this endeavor. The increasing success of
which they largely use within the context of social distance learning, and as an emerging force in
media. Consequently, technology, with particular education, must not be lost in the current debate
regard to blended delivery in particular and online on MOOCs. Heed must be paid to students as
learning in general, provides opportunities that consumers, for they will ultimately decide where
also pose problems. It appears that the problem to pursue their education. For brick-and-mortar
lies in how to connect with, not discourage the institutions, technology is not a threat if faculty
social connections that students have with their are properly assisted on the appropriate use of
world (Abel, Brown, & Seus, 2014). In spite of technology-mediated blended environments. The
these inherent problems, many (Bowen, 2013; actual and potential benefit of students depends on
Carr-Chellman, 2011; Chen & Denoyelles, 2013) how faculty have been prepared to utilize blended
are optimistic about the appropriate use of tech- environments for learner-centered instructional
nology to increase learning outcomes that reflect delivery and facilitation to achieve desirable learn-
the needs of our society today. ing outcomes.
For brick-and-mortar institutions of higher
education, it means taking advantage of alterna-
tive delivery methods to serve students who are REFERENCES
physically on campus as well as those who choose
to study from distance. The key to success for Abel, R., Brown, M., & Suess, J. (2013). A new
these traditional institutions is to focus on assisting architecture for learning. Higher Education in the
faculty design courses that are student-centered Connected Age. EDUCAUSE.
that also meet “best practices” with their stipulated Betrus, A. K. (2008). Resources. In Educational
CMS. Designing and delivering instruction for technology: A definition with commentary
traditional teaching and learning environments (213-240). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
are different from that of blended environments. Associates.
The paradigm shift in assisting higher education
faculty transition from traditional to blended Bowen, W. G. (2013). The potential for online
environments is to empower instructors with learning: Promises & Pitfalls. EDUCASE Re-
the necessary resources and incentives to take view, 48(5).
ownership of technology-mediated instructional
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2011). Power, expertism,
design as they do with their traditional processes
and the practice of instructional design. In Instruc-
(Carr-Chellman, 2011).
tional technology: Past, present, and future (pp.
Blended environments provide opportunities
105-115). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
for brick-and-mortar institutions to expand their
student outreach through optimal assistance to Chen, B., & Denoyelles, A. (2013). Exploring
faculty. The focus must be on how to increase students’ mobile learning practices in higher
the number of students who succeed through the education. EDUCAUSE Review, 49(1).
achievement of desirable learning outcomes. For
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional
this to occur there is a need to go beyond the tra-
practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.).
ditional face-to-face learning environment alone.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
9

Gentry, C. G. (2011). Educational technology: A Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012).
question of meaning. In Instructional technology: Student-centered learning environments: Foun-
Past, present, and future (pp. 1-9). Santa Barbara, dations, assumptions and design. In Theoretical
CA: Libraries Unlimited. foundations of learning environments (pp. 3-25).
Academic Press.
Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel:
Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal Lin, Q. (2009). Student views of hybrid learning:
of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), A one year exploratory study. Journal of Comput-
231–254. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782550 ing in Teacher Education, 2, 57–66.
Hartman, J. L., Dziuban, C., & Brophy-Ellison, J. Mohammed, A. (2004). Theory and practice in
(2007). Faculty 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(5), online learning. Athabasca University.
62–77.
Molenda, M. (2008). Using. In Educational
Heinich, R. (2011). The proper study of instruc- technology: A definition with commentary (pp.
tional technology. In Instructional technology: 141-173). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Past, present, and future (pp. 31-54). Santa Bar- Associates.
bara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Nycz, M., & Cohen, E. B. (2007). The basics for
Hirumi, A., & Kidney, G. (2011). Contemporary understanding e-learning. In Principles of effec-
issues facing distance educators: An e-learning tive online teaching (pp. 1-17). Santa Rosa, CA:
perspective. In Instructional technology: Past, Information Science Press.
present, and future (pp. 145-160). Santa Barbara,
Oblinger, D. G., & Maruyama, M. K. (1996).
CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Distributed learning. Boulder, CO: Cause Profes-
Jacobsen, M. J., & Kapur, M. (2011). Learning en- sional Paper Series.
vironments as emergent phenomena: Theoretical
Pollard, J. S. (2005). Measuring implementation
and methodological implications of complexity. In
in schools: Innovation configurations. Austin,
Theoretical foundations of learning environments
TX: Sedl publications.
(2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge.
Power, T. M. (2014). John Falkin: Designing an
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Defini-
online graduate seminar. In The ID case book:
tion. In Educational technology: A definition with
Case studies in instructional design (pp. 105-112).
commentary (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Lawrence
Academic Press.
Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999). Preface. In
Jonassen, D. H., & Easter, M. A. (2012). Con-
Instructional design theories and models: A new
ceptual change and student centered learning
paradigm of instructional theory (vol. 2). Mahwah,
environments. In Theoretical foundations of learn-
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ing environments (pp. 95-113). Academic Press.
Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in
Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-
self-paced online learning environments: An
centered learning environments. In Theoretical
exploration of learner preferences. International
foundations of learning environments (pp. 1-23).
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learn-
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ing, 10(1), 1–23.
10

Richey, R. C., & Morrison, G. R. (2011). Instruc- KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
tional design theory construction. In Instructional
technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 253-280). Adoption: The process or act of using some-
Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. thing new.
Blended Instruction: The combination of
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations traditional face-to-face with online instruction.
(5th ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Course Management System (CMS): The
Simonson, M. (2011). Distance education yester- utilization of technology platforms for the delivery
day, today, and tomorrow. In Instructional technol- and assessment of learning. This is synonymous
ogy: Past, present, and future (pp. 79-104). Santa with Learning Management System (LMS).
Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Instructional Design: A framework for orga-
nizing instructional content.
Soares, L. (2013). Creating an environment Instructional Technology: The utilization of
for learning technologies: Toward a generative technological tools to assist learning. Synonymous
model of state policy and institutional practice. with educational technology.
EDUCAUSE. Learning Environment: Conditions that in-
Surry, D. W. & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies fluence the acquisition of knowledge, skills and
for motivating higher education faculty to use attitudes or their improvement.
technology. Innovations in Education & Training Optimize: Increasing outcome to high level(s)
International, 37(2), 145-153. as possible.
Professional Development: Assistance pro-
Tessmer, M. (1998). Meeeting with the SME to vided to an individual or group of people that
design multimedia exploration systems. ETR & leads to growth and enhancement in their work.
D, 46(2), 79–95. doi:10.1007/BF02299790 Technology Tools: Applications within a
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open Course Management System (CMS) for selection
education: Implications for higher education. and implementation.
The University of Bolton. Retrieved from http://
publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667
11
12
Chapter 2
Utilizing Learning Management
System (LMS) Tools to Achieve
Differentiated Instruction
Sophia Palahicky
Athabasca University, Canada
ABSTRACT
Students bring their own knowledge, experiences, and personal interests to brick-and-mortar and virtual
classrooms. When instructional strategies and learning activities are developed based on prior knowledge,
experiences, and personal interests, the instruction is a form of differentiation. This chapter discusses
how Learning Management Systems (LMSs) can help teachers and instructors achieve differentiated
instruction that meets individual needs. There are two important implications of differentiated instruc-
tion: (a) lessons are tailored to meet individual and diverse student needs, and (b) lessons cannot be
planned without knowledge about who the learners are. When taking into consideration that teaching is
tailored to meet individual needs, it becomes apparent that differentiated instruction means more work
for the teacher or instructor. It also means the teacher or instructor has to continually change learning
activities and is not able to use handy pre-designed ones because student progress or lack of progress
informs teaching strategies. This chapter argues that differentiated instruction is worth the time and ef-
fort because it responds to individual needs, and responsive teaching maximizes each student’s success.
SETTING THE SCENE expected to perform the same skills, grasp the same
concepts, solve the same problems, and critically
Each student comes to class with different skills, think about the same topics. Teachers and instruc-
prior knowledge, and experiences, yet curriculum tors must find ways to cover the curriculum and
developers, teachers, parents, and school admin- ensure all students meet the prescribed learning
istrators expect all students to meet the same objectives for the subject or course. However, this
learning outcomes. Apart from students who have blanket approach should not be the focal point of
learning disabilities or special needs with modi- instruction. Instruction needs to enhance learning
fied and adapted programs, students in a class are for each student. Differentiated instruction can
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch002

Utilizing Learning Management System (LMS) Tools to Achieve Differentiated Instruction
help teachers and instructors achieve this because assignments and the midterm and final exams.
it supports effective teaching and student learning. During one of his weekly lectures, he discovers
The following scenarios support this argument. a student doing a history assignment. The student
is not engaged in his lesson, and is content to
Scenario 1 work on another course. The irritated profes-
sor puts the student on the spot and calls him to
A university professor in the faculty of educa- solve a complex, Grade 10, math equation on the
tion teaches a course called Mathematics for board in front of the class. The student gets up,
Elementary Teachers. The students are third- solves the problem with ease, and returns to his
year undergraduates, and the course is required chair. The student attends classes because it is a
for graduation. The professor gives the students requirement, not a necessity. He does not need
the previous year’s final exam on the first day the lessons because he has already mastered the
of class, and explains that the exam mark will content being taught.
not count towards the final course mark, but the In this scenario, the instructor does not take
results will help in the design of the term lessons. prior knowledge into consideration and uses a one-
After collecting the exams, the instructor explains size-fits-all instructional strategy. This approach
that any student who scores 88 percent or higher reaps a very different outcome: student needs are
on the exam would be exempted from attending not met. Does differentiation make more sense?
classes, completing class assignments, and com-
pleting the midterm exam. The only requirement
for these students would be to complete the final INTRODUCTION
exam at the end of the term. The instructor tells
the students that the course is a refresher because Differentiated instruction is a common sense
the content covers mathematics for grades 5 to10. practice because it responds to student needs. Ac-
He concludes with these words: “Students should cording to Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman (2009),
not be required to sit through a full semester in a “it is a waste of human potential to make some
class that teaches them nothing.” students wait for the rest of the class after they
In this scenario, the professor assesses prior have learned what was being studied, just as it is
knowledge and then groups the students into two a waste to make some students move on before
groups; one group is required to attend classes they have learned it” (p. 391). Students should not
(lessons designed to meet their needs), and the have to sit through a lecture about content they
other group is exempted from this requirement have already mastered. Instead, this time should
(no lessons needed). This instructor differentiates be spent building on that prior knowledge. This
instruction, and student needs are met. is what differentiated instruction does. It allows
for the best use of instructional time because
Scenario 2 instructional activities are selected and designed
based on student readiness, not based on cur-
Another instructor, teaching the same course, riculum requirements. Paterson, Schneidler, and
Mathematics for Elementary Teachers, begins Williamson (1938) state, “Ideally, the highest aim
his lessons on the first day of class. He does not of education is to obtain a full understanding of
assess prior knowledge, and requires all students each student in order to adjust educational offer-
attend his classes. He tells the students he thinks ings to his needs so that he may be prepared for a
all students should be treated equally. Everyone role wherein highest achievement and satisfaction
must attend all classes and complete all term may be realized” (p. 1). Differentiated instruction
13

is based on an important point Paterson et al. themselves to construct the bridge between what
(1938) make: education must respond to individual they bring to their studies and where their studies
differences. are taking them. (pp. 26–27)
There are no specific, step-by-step instruc-
tions on how teachers or instructors differentiate Differentiated instruction gives the role of
instruction. Therefore, it is important to understand “bridging gaps” back to the teacher or instructor.
what differentiated instruction isn’t. Tomlinson Even in virtual learning environments, teachers
(2000a) states that “differentiation is not a recipe and instructors can bridge gaps between previ-
for teaching nor is it an instructional strategy” ous knowledge and new knowledge. Educational
(p. 6) and also refers to differentiated instruction technology makes this possible. Teachers and
as a teaching philosophy. A teacher or instructor instructors can differentiate instruction in blended
may subscribe to a particular teaching philosophy and online environments using a learning manage-
that fosters inflexible instructional strategies. For ment system (LMS).
example, the teacher or instructor who does not An LMS is educational software that serves
assess prior knowledge subscribes to a one-for-all multiple functions, including course management,
teaching philosophy: one instructional strategy, administration, tracking, and reporting. It is not
plan, learning activity, and assessment for all stu- only useful for delivery of content and assessments
dents. The teacher or instructor who assesses prior but also provides asynchronous and synchronous
knowledge subscribes to a what-is-appropriate opportunities for interaction and collaboration. Pi-
teaching philosophy: (a) what does the student otrowski (2010) identifies six activities of an LMS:
already know? and (b) what is the next appropri- creation, organization, delivery, communication,
ate activity? The instructor in Scenario 1 uses collaboration, and assessment. Some examples of
formative assessment to find out what students LMSs include Blackboard, Moodle, Desire2Learn,
already know (prior knowledge) and determines and Angel. A more detailed definition of LMSs is
(or differentiates) the next appropriate activity provided later in this chapter. LMS tools enable
based on this information. The instructor plans to teachers and instructors to differentiate learn-
design teaching activities based on what the stu- ing activities according to each student’s needs.
dents need. Albeit this is an extreme example, the Differentiated instruction is possible “through
important point here is that teaching in response to the monitoring of each student’s achievement as
student needs is fundamental to effective teaching they progress through the course content within
and student learning. a Learning Management System (LMS)” (Atkins,
Laurillard (2012) states that we must consider O’Connor, & Rowe, 2007, p. 20). According to
what students themselves bring to learning when Tomlinson & Eidson (2003), differentiated instruc-
considering the wider context of what formal tion “stems from a teacher’s solid (and growing)
teaching must achieve. understanding of how teaching and learning occur,
and it responds to varied learners’ needs for more
In all educational sectors, knowing who our stu- structure or more independence, more practice
dents are, and what they need from our teaching, or greater challenge, a more active or less active
has become so challenging that the hard-pressed approach to learning” (p. 3). Essentially, “differ-
teacher, busy with the task of continually renew- entiated teaching is responsive teaching” (p. 2).
ing and updating the curriculum, tends to trust Differentiated instruction is based on the ac-
to the intelligence and motivation of the students knowledgement of three important areas: student
14

readiness, interests, and learning style preferences. that teachers or instructors asses all of these areas,
Student readiness is the focus of the following but an effective teacher will be aware of the fact
discussions and arguments, but this chapter does that a wide span of other attributes contribute to
not (a) discuss various types of student interests the development of student needs, interests, and
or explain how to assess student interests, (b) experiences. Further to this, some students are
explain or discuss the different types of learning visual learners, some work better in groups than
style preferences, or (c) provide arguments to others, and some require direct instruction while
support or discount the debate about whether or others are better able to learn through inquiry. It
not learning styles exist. is important not only that teachers and instructors
“Differentiation according to student interest are aware of the differences that students bring but
involves the purposeful use of course content; also that they provide a flexible teaching approach
instructional processes, end products and/or class- that permits all students to learn. This chapter
room environments that attend to the particular provides evidence to support the following claims:
interests of the student” (Takahashi, 2013, para.
1). Lum (2009) makes the distinction between • Differentiated instruction enhances student
learning styles (information-processing activities) learning.
and learning preferences (individual choices of • LMS tools can help teachers deliver differ-
one particular mode of learning over others). An entiated instruction.
investigation of differentiation based on interests • Internal and external barriers prevent ef-
and learning style preferences is beyond the scope fective use of LMS tools when delivering
of this chapter. Differentiation based on readiness differentiated instruction.
is central to the discussion here, and so a clear
definition of readiness is provided. Differentiated Instruction
Readiness is defined as “a student’s current and Effective Teaching
understanding and knowledge towards a unit or and Student Learning
topic of study” (Takahashi, 2013, para. 1). An
instructor who uses differentiated instruction There is a myriad of instructional approaches that
must assess student readiness to find out what teachers can use in face-to-face, blended, and on-
students already know about the subject matter. line environments. Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman
Students build on or connect new learning to (2009) identify sixteen different instructional
their existing knowledge base. Hence, an assess- approaches. Some of these include case-based
ment of prior knowledge allows the teacher or learning, direct instruction, drill and practice,
instructor to identify the gap (if any) between hands-on learning, anchored instruction, learner
what the student already knows (old knowl- centered instruction, problem-based instruction,
edge) and what the student needs to learn (new and project-based instruction. Laurillard (2012)
knowledge). However, assessing prior knowledge focuses on acquisition, inquiry, discussion, and
cannot be done in isolation of a number of other collaborative approaches. While an investigation
considerations, including language, culture, and into the different types of instructional approaches
even race. Laurillard (2012) identifies six student is beyond the focus of this chapter, any instruc-
characteristics that affect how students interact in tional approach can utilize principles of differen-
the learning environment: previous knowledge, tiation. A teacher or instructor uses differentiated
self-confidence, abilities and motives, conceptions instruction when frequent formative assessments
of knowledge and learning, approaches to learning guide their instructional process to enhance learn-
and studying, and expectations. It is not expected ing. Simply put, differentiated instruction calls
15

for frequent formative assessments that inform hashi (2013) states, “When we differentiate tasks
instruction. These formative assessments serve according to a student’s readiness we are creating
a twofold purpose; they provide information on tasks that are a closer match to a student’s skill
prior knowledge and information about students’ level and understanding of the topic” (para. 2).
understanding of the concept being assessed. The When student success and student learning are
information provided by the assessment is used given priority over simply covering the curriculum,
to determine what kinds of learning activities the the process of teaching and learning is rewarding
student should be given next. for both students and teachers. Differentiated
Teachers and instructors ask two very impor- instruction, although it is not a teaching strategy
tant questions when considering a differentiated but a teaching philosophy, puts student success
model. Is the time and effort worth it? Do students and student learning first. Is the time and effort
benefit from differentiation? Before answers to worth it? Do students benefit from differentia-
these questions are discussed, several key points tion? The answer to both of these questions is
for teachers and instructors must be considered. yes. Atkins, O’Connor, and Rowe (2007) report
The first point is that students do not come into that differentiation enhances student learning,
the classroom (bricks-and-mortar or virtual) with increases knowledge of individual student achieve-
the same level of understanding and skills. Ac- ment, and increases teachers’ knowledge of the
cording to Laurillard (2012), “students bring their next appropriate activity for teaching and learning
motivations, knowledge, and skills to their learn- through the students’ interaction with the course
ing activities, which help to define their personal materials as presented via the LMS.
goals, although these may vary across different
courses, given their background and the nature of
the course” (p. 64). The second point is that the LMS TOOLS AND DIFFERENTIATED
goal of the teacher or instructor is “to maximize INSTRUCTION
the capacity of each learner by teaching in ways
that help all learners bridge gaps in understanding Learning management systems (LMSs) are not
and skill and help each learner grow as much and always viewed in a positive way, and some teachers
as quickly as he or she can” (Tomlinson & Eidson, and instructors feel these systems can be a prob-
2003, p. 2). Too often, teachers and instructors lem. According to Anderson and Dron (2011), an
focus on covering the curriculum, collecting LMS that “sees the world in terms of courses and
assignment scores, and calculating final marks. content will strongly encourage pedagogies that fit
Differentiation forces teachers and instructors to that model and constrain those that lack content
focus on enhancing student learning. However, and do not fit a content-driven course model”
the reality is that time, institutional priorities, and (para. 3). Hawryszkiewycz (2004) states that
demands of an ever-increasing curriculum can LMSs “are passive in the sense that they require
prevent teachers and instructors from providing instructional material to be set up by instructors.
the best teaching strategies and learning opportuni- Learners access these materials and use them in
ties for students. On the other hand, the teacher or ways specified by the instructors. Such systems
instructor who “emphasizes assessment to inform generally support instructor-directed classroom
instruction understands that only by staying close learning” (p. 348). While LMSs are used to facili-
to student progress can he or she guide student tate inflexible, content-driven, teacher-centered
success” (Tomlinson, 2008b, p.7). Further, Taka- instructional approaches, research supports that
16

these systems do promote instructional approaches al. (2007) uses pre-tests and post-tests that match
that enhance student learning. Evidence of this specific learning outcomes as formative assess-
claim is provided in the paragraphs that follow. ment that identifies appropriate learning activities
According to Atkins et al. (2007), effective for each student. These formative assessments are
use of an LMS can enhance student learning and done within the LMS called Moodle, and “active
achieve differentiated instruction. Also, Hodgson web links direct the student to the appropriate
(2010) states, “Educators can promote innova- content based on the quiz results” (p. 23).
tive practice via an LMS such as WebCT (now The qualitative study by Atkins et al. (2007)
Blackboard, www.blackboard.com), FirstClass indicates that the time, effort, and cost associated
(www.firstclass.com) or Moodle (www.moodle. with differentiated instruction are justified. Their
org)” (p. 52). LMSs give immediate feedback to study included over 20 classrooms and about 500
students via auto-marked quizzes, and they provide students enrolled in Lunar Cycles (Science, Year
opportunities for communication via discussion 6) and Introduction to Algebra (Mathematics, Year
forums. These would not have been possible in 9). Another study by Tomlinson, Brimijoin, &
the traditional correspondence generation (print Narvaez (2008) shows that teachers at Conway El-
era) of distance education. Today, advocates for ementary School considered “the most significant
differentiated instruction can promote its use in outcome of the decision in 2000 to embark on the
online and blended environments because frequent journey toward differentiation was that teachers
formative assessments can be administered using began seeing students as the engine that drives the
LMS tools. teaching-learning cycle” (p. 147). Tomlinson et
While differentiated instruction requires the al. (2008) also present a snapshot of the change
teacher or instructor to conduct formative as- process for Colchester High School and report
sessments on an ongoing basis within the course, that an entire high school’s psyche and pedagogy
measurement of what the student knows is not changed as a result of differentiation; discourse
intended simply for the purpose of reporting on between students and teachers increased, and, as
the student’s progress (summative assessment) but a result, “a sense of community evolved, [and]
for the purpose of selecting learning materials and members of student government began working
activities that would improve student learning. As with faculty and administrators” (p.177).
Takahashi (2013) states, “We can vary the pace, Differentiation can be successful within a
the level of complexity, degree of independence as virtual or online classroom environment when
well as the amount of support and structure” (para. LMS tools are used effectively. Paulsen (2003)
4). The student would receive remedial materials argues that “much of the success of e-learning
if required or advanced materials if appropriate. can be attributed to the availability of Learning
For example, The Learning Federation (TLF) for Management Systems (LMSs), also known as
Australian and New Zealand schools customized Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) or learning
the LMS to allow for differentiated instruction “so platforms” (p. 134). Mahdavi and Khoobkar (2010)
that the sequence in which course content delivered describe LMSs as systems that can be used to plan,
to students was dependent on their performance implement, and assess a specific learning process.
on integrated assessment components” (Atkins et Studies show that post-secondary institutions are
al., 2007, p. 21). The point of the assessment is using LMSs to support instruction (Christie &
to identify what the student needs next. Atkins et Jurado, 2008; Ellis & Calvo, 2007; Paulsen, 2003).
17

LMSs are not learning repositories, although they Using LMS Tools for
have this capability. They are educational software Differentiated Instruction
systems designed to enhance student learning and
improve instruction, and, according to Reigeluth Since LMSs are increasingly being used, it is logi-
and Carr-Chellman (2009),“instruction is anything cal to assume that research about the use of these
that is done purposely to facilitate learning” (p. 6). systems is of interest to stakeholders—students,
K–12 online schools and brick-and-mortar teachers, parents, faculty members, and institution
schools are using LMSs to deliver instructional administrators. Furthermore, knowledge about
materials to students. Just because universities and how these systems can be used to improve student
K–12 schools provide these systems to teachers learning and student success is very relevant to the
and instructors, it does not mean one can assume teachers and instructors who use them. The use
that (a) teachers and instructors use the systems of LMS tools to achieve differentiated instruction
effectively and (b) the systems improve student should be pertinent to brick-and-mortar delivery
learning. According to Hannum, Banks, and models (including blended models) and also to
Farmer (2009), rural high schools use LMSs to online environments: pertinent because differen-
resolve the issue of teacher shortage and to offer tiation responds to student needs, and, to maximize
comprehensive curriculum. individual student potential, responsive teaching
At this point, it is important to highlight that is essential. Technology provides the tools that al-
LMSs are being used to support both campus- low responsive teaching to be realized, especially
based and online instruction: “No longer is the use for large classes of 100 or more students. For
of information and communication technologies example, LMSs provide teachers with automated
(ICTs) that facilitate distance learning restricted assessment tools that can be used for formative
to universities that have a mission to educate at assessment of extremely large classes. These au-
a distance” (Ellis & Calvo, 2007, p. 60). Conver- tomated assessments provide instant feedback to
gence between classroom public education and the learners, and do not increase workload for the
distance education in public schools can be dated teacher or instructor. LMS tools can help educators
back to the early 1990’s (McKinnon, 1995). ICTs differentiate instruction, and this chapter shows
are being used not only in distance education how this can be achieved.
delivery but also in all different types of instruc- When LMS tools are used to differentiate
tional settings to support instruction. According instruction, students who require enrichment or
to Crawley and Frey (2010) “these technologies remedial materials benefit. These students have
provide the opportunity to enhance the learning the widest gap between what they bring and
environment in face-to-face courses as well as what they are expected to learn, and they are at a
distance courses” (p. 137). much higher risk of losing interest in their stud-
Specifically, “the use of an online learning ies when their needs are not met. These students
management system such as WebCT, Blackboard, need flexible learning designs, and LMS tools can
or dotLRN to support campus-based learning provide this. Mahdavi and Khoobkar (2010) refer
experiences is an increasingly widespread inter- to LMSs as Learning Activity Management Sys-
national phenomenon in higher education” (Ellis tems (LAMSs): “Learning Activity Management
& Calvo, 2007, p. 60). Effective use of LMS tools (LAM) systems are flexible learning design tools
helps teachers and instructors to differentiate that enable instructors to organize and monitor
instruction and, at the same time, each student’s learning activities of the learners. These activities
needs are met. include assignments, quizzes, and also collabo-
18

ration” (p. 176). Frey, Fuller, and Kuhne (2010) perception that their teachers were not engaged
add, “With these new technology changes comes with them in what they believed ought to have
the responsibility of the educator to explore new been an interactive learning environment (p. 41).
teaching opportunities and understand the possi-
bilities that can exist, being open to the changing This study by Weaver et al. (2008) includes
and growing dynamics” (p. 13). 1,314 students (response rate of 6.6 percent)
While it is possible for teachers to vary their and 96 academic staff (response rate of 3.8 per-
teaching approach without the use of a LMS, it is cent), and it investigates the adoption and usage
reasonable to state that such a system can support of the LMS (WebCT) at Monash University in
a varied approach to teaching and learning. For Melbourne, Australia. The study concludes that
example, an LMS allows teachers to use multime- “due to a perceived lack of institutional support
dia approaches to learning, including the use of and adequate resourcing, many staff are forced to
words (spoken or written), and images (animated adopt a teacher centered approach in their online
or still). Furthermore, LMS tools allow for differ- teaching” (p. 41). Lack of support and resources
entiated instruction because each tool has a unique impedes effective use of an LMS. Institutional
function. Collectively, the tools provide teachers support, training, technical support, and profes-
and instructors with a wide span of assessment sional development that focus on online design,
options (such as self, peer, group), presentation pedagogy and evaluation are very important to the
of content (including text, pictures, multimedia), successful use of LMSs. A discussion of barriers
and collaborative or individual learning activities to the effective use of LMS tools is given in the
(e.g., discussion forum, wiki, journal). A more latter part of this chapter.
detailed discussion about the varied kinds of LMS This chapter provides evidence that LMSs are
tools is provided later in this chapter. being used in face-to-face, blended, and online
When an LMS is used to support differentia- environments at both K–12 and post-secondary
tion, teaching can be varied to meet the needs of levels. But what does differentiation look like in
students. However, teachers or instructors must an LMS in an online environment? This question
use the system with the goal to enhance student is important especially when considering the
learning. If enhancing student learning and stu- implications of using LMSs in online environ-
dent success is not fuelling the use of an LMS, ments. Shouldn’t online courses be designed from
it is more likely the system will be misused. For beginning to end? In most cases, online courses
example, LMSs can be used to deliver inflexible are developed from beginning to end. Instructional
teaching strategies that simply “push” content. designers work with content specialists to develop
Also, teachers and instructors become concerned online courses, and these courses are designed to
about the vocational aspect (how to use the sys- have a finished product. The primary role of the
tem) rather than the pedagogical aspect (how can instructional designer is to ensure an alignment of
learning occur with the system). According to a course objectives, learning activities, and assess-
survey study by Weaver, Spratt, and Nair (2008), ments. The content specialist ensures the content
is relevant, current, and meets the requirements of
… academic teachers were more concerned with the curriculum and program of study. Does this
technical aspects and workload issues, and stu- model of design and development allow for differ-
dents were more concerned with the quality of entiated instruction? Absolutely, any course can be
the online teaching, which was reflected in their differentiated if the person teaching, facilitating, or
19

guiding the learners through the course materials both consider the needs of individual students.
conducts formative assessments and responds to However, while universal design focuses on is-
the needs of the learners. However, institutional sues of accessibility and inclusion, differentiated
practice may prohibit this. For example, differ- instruction focuses on maximizing the potential of
entiated instruction is not possible if teachers and each student. Differentiation ensures the learning
instructors are not permitted to edit their online materials—i.e., content, activities, assignments,
course and if they are forced to deliver the course and assessments—are appropriate for bridging
without the flexibility of adapting and changing the gap between what students bring (readiness),
it to meet the needs of the learners. What is con- and what content is taught. Even though a student
veyed about an institution that insists its teachers might be able to access course materials easily and
deliver pre-designed courses? It says that at the independently, materials might not be appropri-
institutional, faculty, or program level, the focus is ate for any necessary learning, i.e. enrichment
on covering curriculum rather than enhancing the or remedial work. Therefore, universal design is
learning experience for students. By contrast, Frey not enough to ensure students develop to their
et al. (2010) state, “The concept of differentiating fullest potential.
our instruction in the online teaching and learn- In summary, LMSs are being used to support
ing environment means maximizing the learning instruction in all types of teaching and learning
opportunity for all students across a spectrum environments. LMS tools can be used to deliver
of curriculum and courses” (p. 2). To maximize a differentiated model that tailors lessons to meet
learning opportunities, the teacher or instructor individual needs. A discussion about how LMS
must first know what works for the student and tools can be used to achieve differentiated instruc-
what does not work for the student. This requires tion and sample scenarios are presented in the
both an assessment of prior knowledge and also following sections.
an awareness of other kinds of differences that
each student brings, such as language, culture,
and experiences. Delivery of a differentiated THE USES OF LMS TOOLS
model requires a commitment from institutions,
faculties, teachers, and instructors to respond to Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are com-
the needs of learners after formative assessments plex software systems that have a broad span of
have been conducted. capabilities because an integrated set of tools is
Educators who want to ensure education is built into the systems. The integrated set of tools
accessible to all, including students with mild to makes it possible for one system to perform all the
severe disabilities, may identify some similarities tasks a distance learning system requires, includ-
between differentiated instruction and universal ing design, development, delivery, management,
design. The former can be compared to univer- and administration of courses. A few examples
sal design, and some instructional designers use of LMSs include Blackboard, Desire2Learn, and
principles of universal design to ensure a course Moodle. According to Piña (2013), LMS tools
is inclusive. Universal design emerged from the can be divided into six categories: communica-
disability rights movement, and its purpose is tion tools, productivity tools, student involvement
social inclusion, equality, and independence tools, course delivery tools, content development
(Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012). Universal design and tools, and administration tools. Piña (2013) identi-
differentiated instruction are similar in that they fies the tools within these categories as follows:
20

• Communication Tools: Discussion forum, 1. Discussion Forum

discussion management, file exchange,
internal email, online journal/notes, real- Discussion forums can be used to facilitate in-
time chat, and whiteboard. creased collaboration between students in online
• Productivity Tools: Bookmarks, calendar/ learning communities (OLCs). “OLCs are mostly
progress review, searching within a course, formed around a shared interest or need, and are a
work offline/synchronize, and orientation/ powerful tool for building trust and relationships,
help. for acquiring and exchanging knowledge, leading
• Student Involvement Tools: Group work, to more human Web environments” (Rigou, Sir-
community networking, and student portfolios. makessis, Stavrinoudis, & Xenos, 2007, p. 217).
• Course Delivery Tools: Test types, au- According to Rigou et al. (2007), “collaborative
tomated testing management, automated refers to systems enabling the collaboration of
testing support, online marking tools, on- many learners within an OLC in order to complete
line grade book, course management, and a task that cannot be accomplished by a single
student tracking. learner” (p. 217). The discussion forum within the
• Content Development Tools: Accessibility LMS allows students to participate in community-
compliance, content sharing or reuse, course building via collaborative experiences. The LMS
templates, customized look and feel, instruc- discussion forum allows discussions to be threaded
tional design tools, and instructional stan- so they can be organized by topic. Bernsteiner,
dards compliance. Ostermann, & Staudinger (2010) describe how
• Administrative Tools: Authentication, this discussion thread occurs:
course authorization, registration integra-
tion, and hosted services. Usually, web forums are designed for the discus-
sion of special topics. The forum is furthermore
This section includes a discussion of three tools subdivided into sub-forums or sub-topics. Con-
related to three of Piña’s (2013) six categories: dis- tributions to the discussion can be made and
cussion forum (communication tool), assessment other people may read and/or respond to them.
types and automated tests (course delivery tool), Several contributions to a single topic are called
and content sharing (content development tool). It a thread (p. 181).
is important to reiterate that differentiated instruc-
tion is not an instructional strategy but a teaching Threaded discussions should be used for com-
philosophy. Therefore, there are no step-by-step munication activities that value process as well
instructions on how to achieve it. This section of as product. Students benefit a great deal from the
the chapter provides examples of how LMS tools process of online discussions. They provide an
can be used to achieve differentiated instruction. opportunity for sharing ideas, critical thinking,
These examples are not to be taken as a definitive and self-reflection, and they keep learners engaged
set of instructions. However, they provide sample within the learning community, especially when
scenarios that can deepen understanding of why the discussions are critical in nature. Shedletsky
differentiated instruction is important to effective (2010) states, “Whether labeled ‘discussion,’ ‘dia-
teaching and student learning. logue,’ or ‘conversation,’ the liveliest interactions
21

are critical” (p. 250). According to Hakkarainen, exemplifies how students can share their views
Saarelainen, and Ruokamo (2009), “the capac- and engage in mutual and reciprocal critique. It
ity to collaborate is also highly valued in most also shows that discussion forums can be used
professions, and institutions want to be able to for formative assessment for the purpose of dif-
demonstrate to employers that their graduates ferentiated instruction.
have these skills” (p. 39).
Discussion forums are asynchronous tools; that Sample Scenario
is, communication is not in real time. According
to Bernsteiner et al. (2010), discussion forums are • Course: Family studies
“made for communication” and so they are effec- • Topic: Fragile families
tive tools when used for the purpose for which they • Level: University undergraduate Year 2
are designed. Teachers and instructors misuse the (20 to 25 students)
discussion tool when they use it for activities that • Learning Objective: Upon completion of
can be completed by a single learner. For example, the unit, students should be able to identify
the discussion forum is used as a virtual picture key characteristics of a fragile family.
frame when students are asked to post essays to • Formative Assessment: To assess prior
the discussion forum without any expectation of knowledge and experience about fragile
a discussion to follow— that is, reading and com- families, the instructor uses the following
menting on someone else’s, or critiquing someone discussion forum activity for the purpose
else’s post—The best use of the discussion tool is of identifying what students need next.
when it facilitates interaction between learners- • Instructions to the Students: Our topic
to-learners and learners-to-instructor with the of study for this unit will be fragile fami-
aim of promoting critical thinking and reflection. lies. Before completing the unit readings,
Discussion forums should not be used as a virtual we will participate in a discussion about
bulletin board. the topic. The discussion will be open
Discussion forums can be useful in the appli- for the duration of Week 5. Complete the
cation of a differentiated model. Pallof and Pratt following:
(2009) state that teachers and instructors should
“promote, use, and assess learner contributions to Your Contribution
the discussion board” (p. 48). In the application of
differentiated instruction, the discussion tool could • Please post your answers to the following
be used for formative assessment. For example, in questions:
the following sample scenario, assessment rubrics ◦◦ What do you think are three key char-
are not provided because the assessment is meant acteristics of a fragile family?
to inform instruction. Assessment rubrics would ◦◦ Explain why you selected these three.
be required for summative assessment purposes. ◦◦ Have you heard the term fragile fam-
The following sample scenario illustrates how ily used in news reports, journal ar-
differentiated instruction can be achieved using ticles, books, or in your personal
the LMS threaded discussion tool. According to experiences?
Shedletsky (2010), a discussion is “an alternately • Your post should be a total of 150–250
serious and playful effort by a group of two or words, using correct spelling and grammar.
more to share views and engage in mutual and • You do not need to support your response
reciprocal critique” (p. 249). The sample scenario with citations.
22

• Make your post by midweek to allow time dents perform. This would have to be determined
for others to respond. based on time constraints and based on student
success or lack of student success. The learning
Interaction with Others objective in this scenario is the following: Upon
completion of the unit, students should be able
• Respond (50–100 words) to at least one to identify key characteristics of a fragile family.
other person’s posting that is either very Students in each discussion forum are expected
similar to yours or very different from to meet this outcome even though the learning
yours. activity for each forum is differentiated.
• Respond (50–100 words) to at least one stu-
dent who has provided a response to your 2. Assessment Types and
post (if no one responds to your post, re- Automated Tests
spond to one more student of your choice).
Effective use of LMS tools can help teachers
Differentiating the follow-up activity: The teacher perform a wide range of teaching tasks. Mahdavi
or instructor organizes three discussion forums. and Khoobkar (2010) state, “Typically, a learning
Students who have little or no knowledge about management system provides an instructor with a
fragile families will work in Forum 1. Students way to create and deliver content, monitor learn-
who have some knowledge and experience with ers’ participation, and assess their performance”
fragile families will work in Forum 2. Students (p. 175). This section focuses on assessment of
who are extremely knowledgeable about fragile student performance for the purpose of differenti-
families will work in Forum 3. Students will be ating instruction. It is important to remember that
assigned to the appropriate forum based on their frequent formative assessments play an integral
responses in the previous formative assessment. part in the application of differentiated instruc-
The three forums will provide differentiated in- tion. Through the assessment of prior knowledge
struction based on the needs of the learners. For teachers and instructors are able to identify what
example, students with little or no knowledge may learning materials would benefit each student
be asked to watch a video that explains the char- most. Frequent assessment of large classes of 100
acteristics of fragile families and then participate or more students can be extremely difficult for one
in a discussion about grouping the characteristics instructor to manage, especially if the assessments
in some way. On the other hand, students who take the form of 2,000-word essays, a common
are very knowledgeable about the characteristics method of post-secondary assessment. Teachers
of fragile families may be asked to read sample and instructors with large class enrolments use
scenarios where they have to evaluate whether a multiple choice assessments to make their work-
family is fragile and give explanations to support load more manageable. LMSs have been used to
their evaluation. They would use the discussion auto-mark these multiple choice assessments and,
forum to critique each other’s evaluation. as a result, have afforded teachers and instructors
Comments: The follow-up activity has a two- more time. However, Pallof and Pratt (2009) note,
fold purpose; it provides instruction that responds
to the needs of the learners, and it is a formative As instructors are finding their way in the online
assessment. After completing the discussion environment and paying more attention to good
within the three assigned forums, the instructor course design and delivery, they are discovering
could determine the next activity based on how stu- that traditional forms of assessment of student
23

work—such as tests and quizzes—that served them needs of the learners as well as the course objec-
well in the face-to-face classroom may not work tives. LMSs provide many types of questions for
quite as well online. (p. 3) automated marking. The following question types
can be created using an LMS automated test tool.
Mahdavi and Khoobkar (2010) explain that
technology can be used to conduct formative • Either/or
assessments. • Fill in the blank
• Fill in multiple blanks
Due to the increased number of students and • Jumbled sentence
classes in universities and other educational • Matching
institutions, traditional assessment can be time • Multiple answer
consuming, difficult and error prone. Computer • Multiple choice
Aided Assessment (CAA) refers to the use of • Likert scale
computer technology as part of the assessment • Ordering
process and is a rapidly developing research area • Short answer
as new technologies are harnessed. Assessing • True/false
students’ answers to a set of questions in order
to either evaluate their ability or giving them in- According to Pallof and Pratt (2009), perfor-
stant feedback has become an important part of mance assessments require students to create a
learning management systems. Assessment can be product or demonstrate a skill that is connected
categorized as summative and formative assess- to the learning process, and authentic assessments
ment. Summative assessment is used to evaluate do not assess knowledge acquisition, but evaluate
students and their ability over the learning ma- a student’s ability to apply a skill in real-world
terial. Formative assessment is used to enhance situations. Within an LMS and using either an
students’ learning by giving them immediate html editor or visual textbox editor, students can
feedback. Formative assessment does not normally demonstrate their learning via performance and
contribute in the marking process. (p. 182) authentic assessments in a variety of ways. On
the other hand, students could use other software
The assessment tools that are available in LMSs to create or demonstrate learning and submit the
can cater to the needs of teachers and instructors assignment for marking to the LMS. For example,
who simply want to make their multiple choice, if a student had to create a spreadsheet in Excel
true/false, and matching assessments available to demonstrate how to calculate profit earned by
online for the purpose of automated marking. a business, this Excel file could be submitted for
However, this is not the best use of the tool. Ac- marking in the LMS.
cording to Pallof & Pratt (2009), to make online Before students complete performance or
assessments effective, teachers and instructors authentic assessments, teachers may need to
should use a variety of the following approaches: provide scaffolding. Multiple choice and short
performance assessment, authentic assessment, answer assessments are useful for this purpose.
projects, portfolios, self-assessments, peer as- However, teachers and instructors should not use
sessments, and weekly assignments that include computer-marked multiple choice assessments as
discussion assignments. LMSs do not restrict the only form of summative assessment within a
assessment types, but they provide a wide variety course. Students must be able to demonstrate their
of assessment options. The role of the teacher or learning in a variety of ways. Computer-marked
instructor is to choose assessment types that fit the assignments are to be used mostly for formative
24

purposes. At the University of Alberta, for ex- • Instructions to the Students: Our topic of
ample, WebCT Vista was used to deliver online study for this unit will be the calculating
placement testing for students: “Students are given of compound interest. Before completing
a test prior to coming to campus to determine the unit readings, complete this multiple
which course level is most appropriate” (Volchok, choice quiz. The quiz will be open for the
Caines, & Graf, 2006, p. 2). Too often, instructors duration of Week 2. You have one attempt
and teachers rely on multiple choice and short an- at the quiz, and 60 minutes to complete it
swer assessments for summative reporting. LMSs once you start. Based on your quiz results,
provide a tool kit of assessments, and you will be assigned the next appropriate
activity.
… faculty can choose to assess students through a • Differentiating the Follow-Up Activity:
number of methods. Quizzes and other tools can Students will be assigned one of the fol-
be embedded within the course content to gauge lowing activities:
students’ knowledge of the material. Subsequent
or remedial material can then be selectively re- Activity 1 (For learners Who Score 0–25 of
leased based on the outcome of the assessment. the Total 50)
Self-tests and surveys can be used throughout the Students watch a video capture (20 minutes) that
course to aid instructors in the delivery of course shows step-by-step examples of how to calculate
material (p. 2). compound interest. After viewing the video
capture, students complete an assignment where
The following sample scenario provides an they have to show (step-by-step) how to calculate
example of how an LMS assessment tool can be compound interest. The work is submitted via the
used to achieve differentiated instruction. Accord- assignment dropbox in the LMS.
ing to Mahdavi & Khoobkar (2010), LMSs are
effective assessment tools that make it possible to Activity 2 (For Learners Who Score 26–45
assess a large group of students on a wide range of the Total 50)
of skills independent of time and location.
Students work through an interactive PowerPoint
Sample Scenario that goes through a few examples of how to cal-
culate compound interest. After working through
• Course: Finance the examples, the students complete an assignment
• Topic: Compound interest where they have to calculate compound interest but
• Level: University undergraduate Year 1 provide only the answers (not their step-by-step
(100–120 students) work). The work is submitted via the assignment
• Learning Objective: Upon completion of dropbox in the LMS.
the unit, students should be able to calcu-
late the compound interest on a loan. Activity 3 (For Learners Who Score 46–50
• Formative Assessment: To assess prior of the Total 50)
knowledge and experience about com- Students complete an assignment that requires
pound interest, the instructor uses the as- them to (a) create three of their own scenarios, (b)
sessment tool to create a multiple choice make a prediction of which scenario would have
quiz (50 questions). The LMS is set to auto the highest compound interest, and (c) calculate
mark the quiz and provide immediate feed- for compound interest to see if their prediction is
back. Students are then directed to the next correct. The work is submitted via the assignment
activity based on their score. dropbox in the LMS.
25

Comments: In this scenario the students re- forums within the LMS. Teachers and instructors
ceive a formative assessment (multiple choice can meet the needs of their students, and maximize
quiz) that identifies what activity they should the development of individual learning. LMSs
complete next. The follow-up activity is differ- allow teachers and instructors access to tools
entiated based on each student’s performance in that provide a wide span of options for teaching
the formative assessment. The learning objective strategies: visual learning, auditory learning, direct
in this scenario is as follows: Upon completion instruction, inquiry-based learning, collaborative
of the unit, students should be able to calculate learning, independent learning, constructivist
the compound interest on a loan. Each activity is learning, and opportunities for scaffolding. When
congruent with this objective. LMS tools are used effectively, teachers and in-
structors can provide responsive teaching using a
3. Content Sharing variety of instructional approaches. Figure 1 shows
an example of how content could be organized in
Student-to-content interaction is critical to the an LMS using a variety of formats.
learning process, and LMSs provide teachers and
instructors with a variety of options to present and Sample Scenario
assign content. Dawley (2007) describes “content
areas” as “spaces online where instructors host • Course: Literature
materials for their courses or students. In an LMS, • Topic: Haiku and quatrain poems
content areas include folders for items such as the • Level: Grade 10 high school (25–30
class syllabus, lesson plans, weekly assignments, students)
course documents and handouts, teacher contact • Learning Objective: Upon completion
information, and subject-area content” (p. 24). of the unit, students should be able to (a)
According to Dawley, the organization of class write haiku and quatrain poems and (b)
materials is critical to student success, and Shelton summarize the history of haiku and qua-
and Saltsman (2008) state, “The online course train poems.
design should provide an intuitive navigation • Formative Assessment: To assess prior
path for the student” (p. 47). A poorly organized knowledge and experience about haiku and
course can create confusion, interfere with infor- quatrain poems, the teacher uses the assess-
mation processing, reduce retention, and frustrate ment tool to create a true/false and short
students. When LMS tools are used effectively, answer quiz (20 questions). Ten questions
course content is organized and navigation is easy. assess prior knowledge about the history of
Course materials can be differentiated in the haikus and quatrain poems. The other ten
LMS because content can be presented in varied questions assess prior knowledge about the
formats (folders, Word or PDF files, wiki, blog, correct structure of haiku and quatrain po-
html, etc.). However, teachers and instructors ems. The LMS is set to auto mark the quiz
should not use all formats simply because they and provide immediate feedback. Students
are available. Instead, it is better to select a con- are then directed to the next activity based
sistent, organized format that allows flexible and on their score.
differentiated learning. LMSs can help teachers • Instructions to the Students: Our topic of
deliver differentiated instruction because content study for this unit will be haiku and qua-
can be delivered in print, image/graphics, audio, train poems. Before completing the unit
video, flash object, and simulation. Content can be readings, please complete the true/false
interactive by using wikis, blogs, and discussion and short answer quiz. The quiz will be
26

Figure 1. Example of course content in an LMS
open for the duration of Week 7. You have ems could be directed to review the written
one attempt at the quiz and 30 minutes to and audio samples of haiku and quatrain
complete it once you start. poems. Students whose score reflect they
• Differentiating the Follow-Up Activity: have mastered the topic could be direct-
Students are directed to the next activity ed to write their own haiku and quatrain
based on how they have performed on the poems.
formative assessment. For example, stu- • Comments: Providing a variety of formats
dents who score low (less than 6 out of 10) in which content is presented means in-
on the history portion of the assessment struction can be suited to meet the needs
could be directed to read a Pdf article and of the learners. For example, auditory
view a video presentation about the his- learners have the option of listening to a
tory of haiku and quatrain poems. Students haiku or quatrain poem, and visual learners
who score low (less than 6 out of 10) on have the option of seeing a haiku or qua-
the structure of the haikus and quatrain po- train poem in written form. LMSs present
27

content in a wide variety of formats, and Some of the barriers that prevent teachers from
learners can choose which learning style using ICTs in general are the same as those that
appeals to them and meets their needs. prevent them from using LMS tools for differen-
tiated instruction. Drent and Meelissen (2008)
Summary and Selim (2007) identify internal and external
barriers that prevent teachers from using ICTs
LMS tools enable teachers and instructors to in general: (a) lack of teacher training, (b) lack
differentiate instruction. Frequent formative as- of commitment to constructivist pedagogy, (c)
sessments can be administered to students using teachers’ lack of experience using the technology,
the auto-marked assessment tool within the LMS. (d) lack of technical support, and (e) tendency of
This not only reduces workload for the teacher long term teachers to use traditional approaches
or instructor but also provides immediate feed- and teaching styles.
back to the students. Discussion forums can also The same barriers also prevent successful use
be used to conduct formative assessments that of LMS tools for the purpose of differentiating
provide teachers with information for grouping instruction. Internal barriers include attitudes,
students according to their needs. Furthermore, pedagogy, and teaching styles. External barriers
content can be presented to students in a variety include lack of time, lack of training, and lack of
of ways, and this allows the teacher or instructor administration support. To effectively use LMS
to differentiate. However, effective use of LMS tools for differentiated instruction, teachers and
tools to achieve differentiated instruction is only instructors must acquire the expertise for using
possible when teachers and instructors overcome the technology, which means they need training
barriers that prevent effective use. and experience. For example, specific skills can be
learned for setting up the differentiated release of
content, quizzes, and tests that provide immediate
BARRIERS THAT PREVENT feedback to students. In addition, “school vision,
SUCCESSFUL USE OF LMS TOOLS mission, and philosophy also impact the use of
technology” (Nasser, Cherif, & Romanowski,
This chapter has focused on (a) how LMSs 2011, 42). These also can prevent teachers and
are used to support instruction in face-to-face, instructors from differentiating instruction. For
blended, and online learning environments; (b) example, when institutional practice prohibits
LMS tools that can help teachers and instructors the altering of pre-designed courses, a teacher or
achieve differentiated instruction and a reduced instructor will be prevented from trying to use
assessment workload; and (c) the enhancement differentiated instruction. Figure 2 shows internal
of student learning through differentiated in- and external barriers that prevent teachers and
struction. However, numerous barriers prevent instructors from using LMS tools for the purpose
teachers from using LMS tools effectively, and of differentiated instruction.
these barriers deter them from providing students
with the best learning experiences—those that
are tailored specifically to their needs. The criti- CONCLUSION
cal question is, why are teachers and instructors
not using LMS tools to differentiate instruction? Differentiated instruction is planned around the
The answer to this question lies in both external needs of the students, and appropriate instructional
and internal barriers that affect the purpose and strategies are selected accordingly. Teachers and
frequency of use of LMSs. instructors who differentiate their lessons respond
28

Figure 2. Internal and external barriers that prevent effective use of LMSs to achieve differentiated
instruction
to the needs of their students by applying common- Setting up the LMS to differentiate content takes
sense practice. Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) time and requires specific skills. Preparing for-
state, “It is certainly the case that teachers who mative assessments (albeit they are auto marked)
lead effectively for differentiation operate from a takes time. Planning, organizing, and moderating
clear sense that classrooms should model a world course discussions that aid critical thinking and
in which learning is rewarding and in which mutual reflection take time. Teachers and instructors who
respect, persistent effort, and shared responsi- differentiate their curriculum must allocate time
bility make everyone stronger” (p. 26). On the for planning and management.
other hand, while teachers and instructors might K–12 schools and post-secondary institutions
agree that differentiated instruction enhances are providing teachers and instructors with LMSs,
the learning experience, the application of this but how these systems are used is influenced by
may still be viewed as impractical. How far does internal and external barriers. Time management,
the teacher or instructor go to ensure all student training, institutional mission, attitudes, and peda-
needs are met? Teachers may believe differenti- gogy can prevent teachers and instructors from
ated instruction is best for their students, but they differentiating. However, teachers who persist
may very well struggle with how to achieve this. in their effort to do the best for their students
29

will find ways to work through and around these Differentiated instruction is important to ef-
barriers. LMS tools can be useful in applying a fective teaching because it responds to the needs
differentiated model to make teaching and learn- of students. LMS tools can help teachers deliver a
ing a rewarding process. Laurillard (2012) states, differentiated model that enhances student learn-
While we cannot expect that a revolution in ing. The primary goal of teachers and instructors,
the quality and effectiveness of education will K–12 school administrators, and post-secondary
necessarily result from the wider use of technol- institutions must center on providing educational
ogy, we should expect the education system to be opportunities that respond to each student’s needs.
able to discover how to exploit its potential more
effectively. It has to be teachers and lecturers
who lead the way on this. No-one else can do it. REFERENCES
But they need much more support than they are
getting (p. 84). Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations
Teachers and instructors need to consider the of distance education pedagogy. International
following important questions: Review of Research in Open and Distance Learn-
ing, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/
• Should students be responsible for bridg- index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663
ing the gap between what they bring and Atkins, S., O’Connor, G., & Rowe, L. (2007).
what they are expected to learn? Differentiating the curriculum: A lot of effort
• How can effective instruction begin with- for little gain?. In Proceedings of ascilite 2007
out input from the learners? conference. Retrieved from http://www. ascilite.
• How can you guide student success if you org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/atkins.pdf
are unaware of student failures?
Bernsteiner, R., Ostermann, H., & Staudinger,
The principle of differentiation denotes a R. (2010). E-learning with wikis, weblogs and
crucial point for educators to consider when they discussion forums: An empirical survey about the
reflect on their practice: the crux of effective teach- past, the present and the future. In N. Karacapilidis
ing is to maximize individual potential, and to do (Ed.), Novel developments in web-based learning
this, instruction must respond to the needs of the technologies: Tools for modern teaching (pp.
learners. Therefore, a primary role of the teacher 174–198). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-938-0.ch010
or instructor is to bridge the gap between what
Christie, M., & Jurado, R. G. (2008). Barriers to
students bring and what they are expected to learn.
innovation in online pedagogy. Retrieved from
According to Lambert and McCombs (1998),
http://www.sefi.be/wp-content/abstracts/1051.pdf
By building on the knowledge base from
research and theory on how learning occurs and Crawley, D. C., & Frey, B. A. (2010). Examining
the individual differences that influence learning, the relationship between course management sys-
we can see how best to work with each person’s tems, presentation software, and student learning:
strengths and provide the education that all An exploratory factor analysis. In L. Tomei (Ed.),
people will need to maximize their development ICTs for modern educational and instructional
and learning. We can no longer assume that all advancement: New approaches to teaching (pp.
learners bring similar experiences and needs to 136–151). Academic Press.
the learning context (p. 6).
30

Dawley, L. (2007). Content areas: Syllabus, notes, Hodgson, P. (2010). Enhancing student learning
lesson plans, and documents. In L. Dawley (Ed.), through blending varied learning and assessment
The tools for successful online teaching (pp. experiences. In E. Ng (Ed.), Comparative blended
24–49). Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-1- learning practices and environments (pp. 50–69).
59140-956-4.ch002 Academic Press.
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which fac- Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998).
tors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use Introduction: Learner-centered schools and
ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, classrooms as a direction for school reform. In
187–199. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001 N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How
students learn: Reforming schools through learner-
Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2007). Minimum
centered education (pp. 1–22). Academic Press.
indicators to assure quality of LMS-supported
doi:10.1037/10258-017
blended learning. Journal of Educational Tech-
nology & Society, 10(2), 60–70. Retrieved from Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design sci-
http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_2/6.pdf ence: Building pedagogical patterns for learning
and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Frey, B. A., Fuller, R., & Kuhne, G. (2010). Dif-
ferentiating instruction: Four types of courses. In Lum, L. L. Q. (2009). Accommodating learn-
R. Fuller, G. Kuhne, & B. Frey (Eds.), Distinctive ing styles in bridging education programs for
distance education design: Models for differenti- internationally educated professionals (IEPs).
ated instruction (pp. 13–26). Academic Press. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Learn-
doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-865-4.ch002 ing. Retrieved from http://0-site.ebrary.com.
aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/lib/athabasca/docDetail.
Hakkarainen, P., Saarelainen, T., & Ruokamo,
action?docID=10385405
H. (2009). Assessing teaching and students’
meaningful learning processes in an e-learning Mahdavi, M., & Khoobkar, M. H. (2010). Effec-
course. In C. Spratt & P. Lajbcygier (Eds.), E- tive design and delivery of learning materials in
Learning technologies and evidence-based assess- learning management systems. In D. Russell & A.
ment approaches (pp. 20–36). Academic Press. Haghi (Eds.), Web-based engineering education:
doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-410-1.ch002 Critical design and effective tools (pp. 175–185).
Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-659-
Hannum, W. H., Irvin, M. J., Banks, J. B., &
9.ch013
Farmer, T. W. (2009). Distance education use
in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural McKinnon, N. C. (1995). Distance education
Education, 24(3), 2–13. Retrieved from http:// and the transformation of elementary/secondary
jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-3.pdf education. In J. Roberts, & E. Keough (Eds.), Why
the information highway?Lessons from open and
Hawryszkiewycz, I. T. (2004). Towards active
distance learning. Toronto, Canada: Trifolium
learning management systems. In R. Atkinson, C.
Books Inc.
McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds),
Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st Nasser, R., Cherif, M., & Romanowski, M. (2011).
ascilite conference (pp. 348–356). Retrieved from Factors that impact student usage of the learning
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/ management system in qatari schools. Interna-
procs/hawryszkiewycz.htm tional Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 12(6), 39–62.
31

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the Rigou, M., Sirmakessis, S., Stavrinoudis, D., &
online learner: Resources and strategies for fac- Xenos, M. (2007). Tools and methods for sup-
ulty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. portiing online learning communities and their
evaluation. In N. Lambropoulos & P. Zaphiris
Paterson, D. G., Schneidler, G. G., & Williamson,
(Eds.), User-centered design of online learning
E. G. (1938). Introduction. In Student guidance
communities (pp. 215–237). Academic Press.
techniques: A handbook for counselors in high
schools and colleges (pp. 1–5). Academic Press. Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors
doi:10.1037/11227-001 for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor
models. International Journal of Technology
Paulsen, M. F. (2003). Experiences with learning
Marketing, 2(2), 157–182. doi:10.1504/IJTM-
management systems in 113 European institutions.
KT.2007.014791
Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
6(4), 134–148. Retrieved from http://ifets.ieee. Shedletsky, L. (2010). Critical thinking in discus-
org/periodical/6_4/13.pdf sion: Online versus face-to-face. In D. Russell
(Ed.), Cases on collaboration in virtual learning
Piña, A. A. (2013). Learning management sys-
environments: Processes and interactions (pp.
tems: A look at the big picture. In Y. Kats (Ed.),
249–262). Academic Press.
Learning management systems and instructional
design: Best practices in online education (pp. Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2008). Applying the
1–19). Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666- ADDIE model to online instruction. In L. Tomei
3930-0.ch001 (Ed.), Adapting information and communication
technologies for effective education (pp. 41–58).
Piotrowski, M. (2010). What is an e-learning
Academic Press.
platform? In Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning manage-
ment system technologies and software solutions Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. L. (2012). Universal
for online teaching: Tools and applications (pp. design: Creating inclusive environments. Hobo-
20–36). Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-1- ken, NJ: Wiley.
61520-853-1.ch002
Takahashi, K. (2013). Differentiation accord-
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). ing to readiness, interest & learning preference.
Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Retrieved from http://www.tvdsb.ca/webpages/
Building a common knowledge base. New York: takahashid/techdia.cfm?subpage=128209
Routledge.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differ-
Reigeluth, C. M., & Keller, J. B. (2009). Under- ences? Standards-based teaching and differentia-
standing instruction. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr- tion. Educational Leadership, 58, 6–11.
Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and
models (vol. 3, pp. 27–39). New York: Routledge.
32

Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Differentiated school: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Making revolutionary changes in teaching and
learning. Retrieved from http://0-site.ebrary.com. Asynchronous Interaction: Exchange and
aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/lib/athabasca/docDetail. sharing of online resources and information at
action?docID=10234674 different times.
Differentiated Instruction: A teaching
Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). philosophy that acknowledges learners have dif-
Differentiation in practice: A resource guide ferent prior knowledge and skills, interests, and
for differentiating curriculum, grades K-5. Re- experiences and that requires learning activities
trieved from http://0-ehis.ebscohost.com.aupac. be selected in response to formative assessment.
lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/ Formative Assessment: Evaluation of student
nlebk_87518_AN?sid=1e30596a-e708-44b0- knowledge about a particular topic, concept, or
b2f9-3eee3a275285@sessionmgr10&vid=1&fo skill that is used to determine the next appropriate
rmat=EB&lpid=lp_1&rid=0 learning activity.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). LMS: Educational software system that serves
Leading and managing a differentiated class- multiple functions, including course management,
room. Retrieved from http://0-site.ebrary.com. administration, tracking, and reporting; useful for
aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/lib/athabasca/docDetail. delivery of content, assessment, and providing
action?docID=10436140 asynchronous and synchronous opportunities for
interaction and collaboration.
Volchok, D., Caines, M., & Graf, D. (2006). Student Readiness: Prior knowledge and
Continuous assessment for improved student current understanding about a particular topic.
outcomes: Examples from WebCT’s exemplary Summative Assessment: Evaluation of stu-
course project. In M. Hricko & S. Howell (Eds.), dent knowledge about a particular topic, concept,
Online assessment and measurement: Case studies or skill that contributes to calculation of final mark
from higher education, K-12 and corporate (pp. for reporting purposes.
1–14). Academic Press. Synchronous Interaction: Exchange and
Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Nair, C. S. (2008). Aca- sharing of online resources and information in
demic and student use of a learning management real time and at the same time.
system: Implications for quality. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 30–41.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/
ajet24/weaver.html
33
34
Chapter 3
A Rich Environment for
Active Learning (REAL):
A Model for Online Instruction
Heather Robinson Anneliese Sheffield

University of North Texas, USA University of North Texas, USA
Alana S. Phillips Michelle Moore

University of North Texas, USA University of North Texas, USA
ABSTRACT
Online teaching is considerably different from face-to-face teaching. With the continued growth of online
teaching, all teachers should be prepared to teach an online course. Since the overarching difference
between face-to-face and online instruction is communication, it is imperative for online instruction
to be delivered using a social constructivist model to make up for the lack of social interaction in the
classroom. Delivering instruction using the Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL) model has the
potential to remove communication barriers and draw more students into the social aspect of instruc-
tion, and therefore truly engage them as lifelong learners. The REAL model is explored in this chapter.
INTRODUCTION 2013). Academic leaders are aware that it requires

extra time and effort for instructors to teach online
Higher education institutions understand the in- courses (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Specifically,
herent importance of the development of online Beck and Ferdig (2008) found that moving their
education and offering online courses, as well course to the online environment impelled inter-
as the importance of improving their respective action among instructors. The researchers found
teaching and learning formats. While the majority that instructors developed instructional teams in
of academic leaders believe online education is order to divide responsibilities. Instructors also
critical for their long-term strategy, there is con- expressed the need to promote “teacher training
tinued concern about barriers which may impact as a high priority for future directions” (Beck &
the growth of online courses (Allen & Seaman, Ferdig, 2008, p. 14). Training on time manage-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch003

A Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL)
ment, technology aspects, how to teach online, received face-to-face classroom instruction, they
and audience analysis would be beneficial to would be inclined to teach accordingly. “Perhaps
instructors (Beck & Ferdig, 2008). for the first time in centuries, however, instructors
Online courses in U.S. higher education have now have to teach in ways vastly different from how
been increasing steadily for more than ten years they were taught and from how they were taught
(Allen & Seaman, 2013). Almost a third of all to teach” (Anderson, Standerford, & Imdieke,
higher education students (32% or 6.7 million) 2010, p. 1). For universities looking to expand
are taking at least one online course—courses that their course offerings to include training related
deliver at least 80% of the course content online. to online teaching, the path is not clear-cut. With
A large proportion (62%) of higher education so few universities offering such courses, lack of
institutions have shifted from offering specific research and few models to guide their develop-
online courses to offering complete online pro- ment, there is little on which to build (Barbour,
grams (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Nearly 70% of Siko, Gross, & Waddell, 2013). Furthermore, the
higher education institutions agree that online courses, certificates, and professional develop-
education is a critical component of their overall ment programs that have been developed vary
strategic plan (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Despite widely in intended audience, duration, and scope
the general enthusiasm for online learning in (Barbour et al., 2013), providing little in the sug-
higher education institutions, there are two classes gestion of a best practice.
of higher education institutions that may not be The continual emergence and development of
placing urgency or priority on online education. social technologies and the supporting portable
Picciano, Seaman, and Allen (2010) found that hardware (Sims & Koszalka, 2008) make it a per-
private four-year liberal arts colleges are reluctant tinent time to use social constructivist principles
and research-based universities are planning for the within maturing learning management systems
expansion of online education, but only in select (LMS). In a paper on transforming distance edu-
areas of study. Likewise, their study revealed that cation, Tam (2000) states, “constructivist prin-
educational leaders perceive online courses as a ciples provide a set of guiding principles to help
lower quality alternative to face-to-face courses. designers and instructors create learner-centered,
Nearly one third of faculty (32%) view online technology-supported collaborative environments
learning as inferior, and more than a third (38%) that support reflective and experiential processes”
view it as somewhat inferior to face-to-face courses (p. 57). Tam (2000) adds that a constructivist
(Picciano et al., 2010). However, students taking view “summons instructional designers to make
online courses recognize the benefits: flexibility a radical shift in their thinking and to develop
for balancing career, family, and school (Picciano rich learning environments that help to translate
et al., 2010). Faculty, like their students, appreci- the philosophy of constructivism into actual
ate the flexibility, particularly in managing the practice” (p. 54).
added time commitments (Parietti & Turri, 2011). The purpose of this chapter is to propose a
The demand for online courses may continue to specific social constructivist instructional model,
motivate higher education institutions to focus Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL),
on the quality of each course. Strategic planning as a viable option to enhance higher order think-
for continuously improving teaching and learning ing and student knowledge construction in online
formats is a part of that focus. higher education courses. The emergence of Web
According to the apprenticeship-of-observa- 2.0 technologies and trends characterized by inter-
tion, teachers have a tendency to teach the way activity, openness, user-centeredness, dynamicity
they were taught (Lortie, 2002); since most have and content mobility fosters a nurturing environ-
35

ment for the implementation of social constructiv- peers evaluate each other’s work (O’Shea & Kidd,
ist principles in education (Paily, 2013). Online 2011). These innovations may reduce the difficulty
learners are now in a position to capitalize on of developing, distributing, and assessing learning
these constructivist-supporting technologies such in constructivist classrooms.
as web authoring, social networking, multimedia This chapter is not an attempt to show the su-
sharing, web conferencing, and crowdsourcing periority of one social constructivist model over
(performing jobs collectively online). Learners another. Classrooms are best served by using a
who published in blogs and forums improved variety of models representing different theories
learning outcomes, motivation (Miyazoe & An- of learning: “Where the curriculum is genuinely
derson, 2010), and interaction (Cuhadar & Kuzu, coconstructed in action, teaching methods are
2010). Likewise, learners can also co-construct selected according to the needs of the moment and
knowledge and artifacts with wiki applications no methods in the teacher’s repertoire are assumed,
(Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010). The increased a priori, to be good or bad” (Wells, 2002, p. 22).
degree of interaction embedded in a wiki can
potentially give wikis an edge over blogs. Wikis
support the constructivist principles of “...multiple LITERATURE REVIEW
modes of representation, Collaboration oppor-
tunities, Experience with multiple perspectives, Social Constructivism
Learner centered, Learner relevant, and Social
negotiation” (Paily, 2013, p. 45). Social network- There are many differing opinions on what social
ing platforms have led to enhanced relationships constructivism is. Social constructivism may be
and interactivity and promoted informal learning the most disagreed upon learning theory (Harlow,
opportunities (Ractham, Kaewkitipong, & Firpo, Cummings, & Aberasturi, 2007; Schunk, 2012).
2012; Thomas & Harrison, 2009). Some say it is not a theory of learning at all (Sc-
Modern technological developments also help hunk, 2012), but a pedagogical intention (Nuthall,
to resolve some of the main problems posed by 2002), a model of knowing (Thompson, 2003), or
constructivism critics. In 1992, more than two an epistemology (Schunk, 2012; Hyslop-Margison
decades before Web 2.0 technologies and mobile & Strobel, 2008; Simpson, 2002). The theory was
devices emerged, Dick (1992) consolidated and defined using a list of principles (Duffy & Cun-
reduced the primary concerns about constructivist ningham, 1996; Savery & Duffy, 1996), and yet
teaching to be: Wilson (1997) called constructivism itself “an
underlying philosophy, or way of seeing the world”
1. Cost inefficient; (p. 65), not an instructional strategy which may be
2. Technology dependent; and “reduced to a discrete set of rules or techniques”
3. Difficult to assess. (p. 65). Nuthall (2002) explained that most writ-
ing on social constructivist teaching does share
The costs of implementing constructivist two viewpoints: students must construct their own
principles have dropped considerably in recent knowledge and learning comes from community
years as software and hardware have become more participation.
affordable and more powerful. This cost reduc- Vygotsky is credited with developing the
tion has also made technology more accessible to ideas behind social constructivism (Brophy,
students, teachers, and institutions. Developments 2002; Schunk, 2012). His concept of the zone
in social media have lead to novel assessment of proximal development, or the range between
strategies like crowdsourced grading, in which a learner’s developmental level and the level the
36

learner could reach with the support of a more assists individual students or groups as needed
capable individual (Vygotsky, 1978), along with in their zones of proximal development. Wells
the later concept of scaffolding, or the support that outlines the following activities for building ex-
a mentor can provide to help the learner achieve perience: drawing on relevant prior knowledge,
beyond their independent capacity (Wood, Bruner, brainstorming possible questions, approaches and
& Ross, 1976), both reflect the nature of social procedures, and planning the goals, procedures,
constructivism. From a philosophical perspec- and materials. He explained that the information
tive, “many versions of [social constructivism] activity consists of gathering information and col-
maintain that objects exist only after they enter lecting evidence, observing and experimenting.
communicative space” (Keaton & Bodie, 2011, Wells added that knowledge building occurs when
p. 192). These “communicative acts” can take students identify patterns and make connections,
place within an individual or among people: it evaluate evidence and formulate solutions or draw
is the social act of defining the object that forms conclusions, and then present results and receive
its perceived constructs and potential meaning feedback. Finally, students demonstrate under-
(Keaton & Bodie, 2011, p. 192). standing by reflecting on current understandings
Wells (2002) suggests looking at social con- and strategies and determining the next step in the
structivism as a framework or a stance, rather learning process (Wells, 2002). This process is
than a method. Briefly, this framework includes depicted in the “model of the relationship between
dialogic inquiry within a grouping of activities and learning and teaching” (see Figure 1).
participant structures: experience, information, At a very abstract level, the building of under-
knowledge building, and understanding (Wells, standing proceeds along this spiral path through
2002). According to the Wells framework, the experience, information, knowledge building, and
teacher first manages curriculum and second, understanding.
Figure 1. A model of the relationship between learning and teaching (Wells, 2009)
37

Social interactions in a classroom are expected the students’ needs or interests, or the society
to lead to improvements in higher order thinking they lived in (Fenton, 1991). Controversies arose
(Palincsar, 1998). Vygotsky (1978) believed “all around the perspectives students were exposed to,
the higher functions originate as actual relations the neglect of traditional social studies curricu-
between human individuals” (p. 57). Research- lum, and the ill-structured content (Cunningham
ers in Turkey recently analyzed problem solving & Duffy, 1996) which led to difficulties with the
skills and metacognition of teacher candidates, need for student assessment to substantiate the
university students who have been accepted in a success of the curriculum (Wolcott, 2007). These
teacher education program, and concluded social challenges continue with constructivist methods
constructivist approaches increased both problem today. Researchers from different perspectives
solving skills and metacognition awareness over have claimed public education is on the decline and
students in traditional classroom instruction (Bay, blame teachers for using constructivist methods
Bagceci, & Bayram, 2012). Teacher candidates (Matthews, 2003; Stone, 1996), while another ex-
in Taiwan described the social constructivist plained the misrepresented statistics that are used
classroom as a “rich, interesting, and superior” to scare the public and discredit public education
learning experience compared with the traditional and instead presented statistics substantiating
classroom (Syh-Jong, 2007). education improvement (Ravitch, 2013).
Many researchers have written about why they Constructivism and online instruction. While
support social constructivist teaching; however, the objectivist and constructivist controversy con-
little research showed “systematic assessment of tinues, technology has grown and improved. Huang
outcomes” (Brophy, 2002, p. xiii). Research in (2002) explained how adults, online learning and
social constructivist teaching is usually conducted constructivism are ideal together, stating, “through
with a view towards using a particular model, such Web mechanisms, the learner can search actively
as peer-assisted learning (which includes peer and discover [a] rich resource to solve problems
tutoring, reciprocal teaching, and collaborative or construct his or her own knowledge. Thus, the
learning) (Schunk, 2012), problem-based learn- Web becomes a common tool for learner-centered
ing (Savery & Duffy, 1996), discourse (Brophy, or constructivist learning” (p. 30).
2002), cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins
& Duguid, 1989), or a rich environment for active Constructivism, because it is derived from class-
learning (REAL) (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995). room practice, has helped many more classroom
Challenges in the shift to constructivism. teachers to discover that there is more to teaching
Objectivism or instructivism, which is teacher- and learning than what goes on in the classroom
centered, is commonly considered the polar oppo- on campus under the eye of a teacher; on the
site of constructivism, which is learner-centered. contrary, they find that they can access richer
Jonassen (1991) referred to objectivism as “ex- learning environments in students’ homes and
ternally mediated reality” and constructivism as work places, providing structured learning and
“internally mediated reality” (p. 8). There has dialogue with their students through the media of
been a shift from objectivism to constructivism communications technologies. (Moore & Kears-
in teaching since at least the 1960s when Bruner ley, 2012, p. xvi).
(1966) developed a method of inquiry for fifth
grade social studies students. This study and other Electronic communications last longer than
similar federally funded programs sought to instill lectures. The Internet was originally created to
inquiry and methodology over memorization allow researchers to share computer resources;
(Fitchet & Russell, 2012) but failed to consider electronic messaging to allow users to com-
38

municate personally fueled its growth (Hafner In an online course, therefore, students should
& Lyon, 1996). The concrete nature behind learn through their interaction with the material,
electronic communication should be leveraged the instructor, and other students. As learners
since students recall less than half of the lecture embark “on a process of discovery with one
right after class and less than 20% a week later another, rather than being told what they need
(Gardiner, 1994). “In contrast, interests, values, to memorize or know, the outcome is a deepen-
and cognitive skills are all likely to last longer, ing of the learning experience and satisfactory
as are concepts and knowledge that students have achievement of learning objectives” (Palloff &
acquired not by passively reading or listening to Pratt, 2001, p. 3). Faculty need to relinquish their
lectures but through their own mental efforts” control of the class and allow this to happen (Pall-
(Bok, 2006, pp. 48–49). off & Pratt, 2001) and Palloff and Pratt (2005)
suggest ways to collaborate online such as small
As such, instructors should consider using group assignments for research or case studies,
constructivist principles for online learning. simulations, homework forums, and mutual shar-
Researchers report differing results when using ing and feedback for papers. “‘Read and discuss’
constructivist principles in online instruction, de- online classes are no longer seen as the best way
pending on the students (Chen & Bennett, 2012). to deliver content” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 4).
For example, some students are more comfortable One social constructivist instructional model,
with traditional lecture methods (Gabriel, 2004) REAL, should be considered for online instruction
or are resistant to change (Kuhn, 1970). Once because it allows the instructor flexibility, fosters
students experience collaborative, online learn- generative learning, student responsibility and ini-
ing, they can see the benefits and may change tiative, and social knowledge construction through
their previous negative opinions (Gabriel, 2004). authentic learning experiences. This model is
expected to empower students to actively construct
Online Instruction and knowledge through inter- and intrapersonal com-
the REAL Model municative actions. While research conducted
on the use of REAL is sparse, this chapter will
Online courses are usually instructor-led but provide some of the merits found in the model
can also be self-paced or self-directed. These through examples from the literature and from
online learning courses might also be referred a university level course, which was designed to
to as web-based learning or e-Learning (Moore, help others build skills in online course develop-
Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011). Berge (1995) ment and facilitation.
divided online course facilitation into four areas:
pedagogical, social, managerial and technological.
Common characteristics and technological tools MODEL DESCRIPTION: REAL
in online courses include asynchronous group
and individual messaging in the form of discus- Rich environments for active learning, also known
sion boards and email, course material access as REALs, is an instructional model that evolved
through an LMS or content management system from social constructivist principles. As defined
(CMS), and real time interaction through chat or by Grabinger and Dunlap (1995), who put a name
synchronous video conferencing (Mason, 1998; to this instructional model, the characteristics of
Moore et al., 2011). a REAL are: active knowledge construction and
39

evolution, indexed knowledge acquisition, and higher-order thinking processes to help

collaboration and social negotiation of meaning students develop rich and complex knowl-
(see Figure 2). Though Grabinger and Dunlap edge structures; and
(1995) do not specifically call REAL a social • Assesses student progress in content and
constructivist model, they stress the importance learning-to-learn within authentic contexts
of collaboration, which is a clear indicator of their using realistic tasks and performances
intention for learning to come from community (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995, p. 5).
participation. From the perspective of construc-
tivism, a REAL: The REAL model also has five attributes that
are necessary in meaningful face-to-face and on-
• Promotes study and investigation within line learning (Buckley, Garvey & McGrath, 2011;
authentic contexts; Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995; Grabinger, Dunlap &
• Encourages the growth of student respon- Duffield, 1997; Johnson, 2013). These include:
sibility, initiative, decision making, and in-
tentional learning; • Student responsibility and initiative;
• Cultivates collaboration among students • Generative learning activities;
and teachers; • Authentic learning contexts;
• Utilizes dynamic, interdisciplinary, gen- • Authentic assessment strategies; and
erative learning activities that promote • Collaborative learning.
Figure 2. REAL definition framework depicting the relationship between the learning theory and the
REAL model (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995, p. 13) used under CC by 3.0 Unported (http://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by/3.0) / co-operative support changed to collaborative learning (Grabinger, Dunlap
& Duffield, 1997)
40

Using the REAL model, learning activities intelligence” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989, p.
within the LMS should promote student collabo- 366). Palinscar (1990) explained that the extent
ration. The understanding of a topic or subject is to which students become intentional learners
molded through experience rather than the more depends on the extent to which they are involved
traditional transfer of knowledge from teacher to in the choice of learning activity and therefore
student. Learning is student-initiated and gener- feel in control of learning. Responsible students
ated through realistic contexts. A REAL reflects want to know what it takes for them to learn and
the four steps of Wells’s (2002) Spiral of Know- they take the initiative to find out.
ing: experience, information building, knowledge However, students often sit passively in the
construction, and understanding. The REAL classroom throughout most of their education.
model is enhanced by sophisticated models of They usually are not allowed or asked to be re-
how design happens in real-world contexts and sponsible for their learning by being allowed or
is grounded in academically recognized theories encouraged to choose what they learn or by being
of teaching and learning. allowed to work with others (Grabinger, 1996). A
study of an English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
Student Responsibility and Initiative class supported the idea that using Internet com-
munication tools such as e-mail, newsgroups, and
Online learners are well positioned to manage chat appeared to encourage students to be more
their own learning. Students show initiative as expressive and less passive than in a traditional
they plan their time and involve themselves in environment, leading to “increased engagement,
selecting, coordinating and executing their own confidence, and responsibility” (Young, 2003 p.
coursework. Thus, students in the online learning 458), even though the tools alone did not improve
environment employ responsibility and initiative, the level of student work. Teachers encourage
as they participate in synchronous and asynchro- responsibility and initiative by allowing students
nous discussions and then choose and complete to have this larger role in their own learning.
projects or activities online (Johnson, 2013). Grabinger’s (1996) intent was for teachers to in-
Student responsibility and initiative refer to volve others such as parents, administrators, and
the student’s right to make decisions, or accept colleagues to help plan strategies to encourage
responsibility, for their own learning (Cambourne, students to be responsible.
1995). It is the difference between intentional
learning and incidental learning. Intentional Generative Learning
learners have purpose, put forth effort and are
actively engaged (Palinscar & Klenk, 1992). In- The second attribute of a REAL, generative learn-
tentional learners need to know themselves well ing, provides students the opportunity to investi-
enough to make choices about their learning ac- gate, research, and solve problems (Vonderwell &
tivities (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, Turner, 2005). Students become the investigator
1983); this takes responsibility and initiative, as while the teacher facilitates (Grabinger & Dunlap,
students are not just choosing simplistic activities 1995). Merlin Wittrock (1974) conceived the gen-
in order to get by. Incidental learning can occur erative model of learning around the time of the
merely through an experience; in contrast, the paradigm shift from behaviorism to cognitivism.
intentional learner’s goal is to learn from the The generative learning model’s unique contribu-
experience (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989). “It tion was “its emphasis upon both concrete, prior,
is clear that intentional learning is an achieve- distinctive experience and abstract verbal abili-
ment, not an automatic consequence of human ties transferring to and being used to construct”
41

(Wittrock, 2010, p. 41). The goal of this learning cognitive process involved in learning with under-
theory is to encourage learning with understand- standing, comprehension, and long-term recall”
ing, which according to Wittrock (1974), occurs (p. 43). Other research supported the claim that
through discovery as the learner takes action to generative learning positively impacted recall,
make sense of the information. Wittrock clarified retention, and comprehension (Doctorow, Wit-
through the following example: trock, & Marks, 1978). Peper and Mayer (1978)
added that generative activities can help learners
Although a student may not understand sentences develop broader and more widely transferrable
spoken to him by his teacher, it is highly likely that conceptions.
a student understands sentences that he generates The act of note taking during class is a seem-
himself. In this context, generation and under- ingly obvious generative learning activity. Shortly
standing are closely related; possibly one causes after the introduction of generative theory, the
the other, or perhaps the terms are synonymous impact of note taking as a generative task was
(Wittrock, 1974, p. 182). investigated (Peper & Mayer, 1978). Peper and
Mayer (1978) studied how note taking related
The theory of generative learning is situated to information encoding. They described the
in cognitive principles because the theory relies two forms of encoding as either (a) assimilating
on the assimilation of information within exist- information within “meaningful structures” (p.
ing cognitive structures developed through past 515) or (b) arbitrarily storing new information.
experience (Wittrock, 2010). Some researchers Whereas the arbitrary association of information
argued that the introduction of Wittrock’s gen- requires only that the information be received, the
erative theory was influential in developing and assimilation form of encoding occurs under three
propagating the constructivism paradigm that was conditions: (a) the information was received; (b)
underway (Mayer, 2010; Tobias, 2010). Wittrock the learner has past experience related to the infor-
(1992) later recognized that generative theory mation; and (c) the learner actively processes the
extended cognitivism because generative activi- new information with their existing experience.
ties emphasized the construction of associations The assimilation of information into the existing
rather than information storage. cognitive framework of experience and under-
In introducing his theory, Wittrock (2010) standing, as defined by these three conditions,
referred to studies conducted by himself and his is, in essence, generative learning. The results of
students. The reports showed strong support for the note taking study indicated that note taking
student generation of cognitive associations in can help assimilate new knowledge within older
recall, comprehension, and retention. One study understandings and this activity may be more
showed that retention and comprehension of a beneficial to students struggling with concepts
given text passage was higher when students were (Peper & Mayer, 1978).
given a word organizer and even higher when In another example, Ritchie and Volkl (2000)
students were asked to generate a sentence in their examined generative work done by an individual
own words about the passage. In another study, col- in comparison with generative activity involving
lege students asked to recall a group of words had a group of learners using concept maps and ob-
higher recall when directed to regroup the words ject manipulation in a lab setting. The study also
in a way that seemed logical to them (Wittrock, examined the impact of the order of sequential
2010). Based on these findings, Wittrock (2010) generative activities. They found that learners
declared, “I believe that the generation from one’s who worked independently performed as well
memory of abstract and concrete associations is a as learners working in teams. However, students
42

performed higher on the assessment that first used of the activity, context, and culture in which it is
the concept maps and then manipulated objects developed and used” (p. 32). Authentic learning
than those with the reverse treatment sequence. activities should be meaningful, purposeful, and
Researchers suggested that a general encompass- logical (Brown et al., 1989).
ing activity like concept mapping provides a strong An authentic learning context considers the
foundation for more specific learning activities capabilities of the students and places them in
to follow (Joyes, Fisher, & Coyle, 2002; Ritchie the most realistic or authentic setting possible
& Volkl, 2000). (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995). Placing a student
Using the generative learning attribute, in an authentic setting or providing an authentic
teachers develop learning activities that include task is central; when students work in groups
problem-solving tasks which allow the students within this setting to solve and explain, deeper
to generate ideas and work on a project that is of knowledge and learning may occur (Grabinger &
value to them. Students create their own goals and Dunlap, 1995). There are benefits of authenticity
objectives and apply them (Grabinger & Dunlap, in the learning context. If students can relate a
1995). In addition, generative learning involves problem or situation to something they encounter
students making sense of the point of view of oth- in daily life, learning is more likely to occur. As
ers through discourse (Schaverien, 2003). the students interact with the authentic problem
Generative learning activities provide students or situation, they take initiative to gather informa-
the opportunity to investigate, research, and solve tion in an effort to solve the problem (Grabinger
problems (Vonderwell & Turner, 2005). “Gen- & Dunlap, 1995).
erative learning…simply demands that students Anchored instruction is an example of a REAL
produce something of value. It is probably the most strategy that can be used to support authentic in-
exciting part of a REAL because students work on struction. Anchored instruction aims to overcome
projects and tasks that are relevant to them and to the problem of inert knowledge, or knowledge
their peers” (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995, p. 20). which can be recalled when requested, but is
not necessarily “used spontaneously in problem
Authentic Learning solving even though it is relevant” (The Cogni-
tion and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990,
The third attribute of the REAL model is the p. 2). Overcoming the inert knowledge problem
creation of authentic learning contexts. Au- may be accomplished by “creating environments
thentic learning contexts are those with realistic that permit sustained exploration by students
situations, conditions, or tasks given to students and teachers and enable them to understand the
within a learning environment to create a deeper kinds of problems and opportunities that experts
knowledge. Creating realistic, rich, and relevant use as tools” (p. 3). An example provided by
learning contexts, which are focused on the stu- Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) presented students
dents’ needs is essential. Students benefit from in an instructional design and development class
realistic, authentic learning environments that have working in teams with actual clients to develop
relevance to their future careers, such as the use of instruction that will be delivered to another group
productivity and collaboration tools (Vonderwell of students. These realistic, problem-solving
& Turner, 2005). Brown et al. (1989) explained activities also encourage collaboration and peer
that knowledge is situated and “in part a product review opportunities.
43

Authentic Assessment that can be specified and that are reliable across
multiple scorers” and should be shared with stu-
The fourth attribute, authentic assessment, builds dents in advance of the task (Grabinger & Dunlap,
on the authentic learning contexts described above. 1995, p. 23).
Like authentic learning activities, authentic assess- In practice, using authentic assessments will
ments are realistic and ill-defined; they require the typically require students and their teachers to
student to use content knowledge in context and employ a variety of skills. In describing one
emphasize “depth more than breadth” (Grabinger model REAL environment, Grabinger and Dun-
& Dunlap, 1995, p. 23). The goals of the two, lap (1995) explained that in completing a project
activities and assessments, however, are differ- designing projects for their community, students
ent. Authentic learning activities are designed to were required to demonstrate all of the following
allow students to develop and practice skills with skills: project management, research, organization
the support of others while authentic assessments and representation, presentation, and reflection.
are designed as a means of evaluation (Gulikers, Similarly, in assessing their students, teachers
Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2004). may need to use alternative methods such as ob-
It is important to note that authentic assess- serving students, distributing questionnaires, or
ments differ from traditional assessments in sev- in-depth reviews of student documents or other
eral important ways. Whereas a more traditional work products.
assessment might ask students to recall facts or
demonstrate basic skills as a summative measure, Collaborative Learning
an authentic assessment provides insight as to how
the student will perform when faced with a similar The final attribute of REAL as an instructional
problem in real-life (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995). model is collaborative learning. Collaboration
Furthermore, well-designed authentic assessments is part of Vygotsky’s explanation of the zone of
require the student to complete a meaningful task proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978): learners
or solve a problem in its entirety (Cumming & can solve problems in “collaboration with more
Maxwell, 1999). For instance, as Cumming and capable peers” (p. 86). Social negotiation is one
Maxwell (1999) explained, “writing a report of the specific strategies constructivists use, ac-
demands skills of integration which go beyond cording to Ertmer and Newby (1993). “Meaningful
the drafting of separate paragraphs” (p. 181). In social interaction is the foundation for constructing
addition, an authentic assessment tends to be more rich environments for active learning” (Vonderwell
formative in nature, working as part of the learn- & Turner, 2005, p. 68). Through collaboration,
ing process or, in a more summative application, students work together to access resources and ex-
used to make decisions (Gulikers et al., 2004). perience and develop an appreciation for multiple
The differences between traditional and au- perspectives (Buckley et al., 2011; Grabinger et
thentic assessments necessarily require a different al., 1997). Collaboration is defined by Roschelle
approach to scoring as well. Grabinger and Dun- and Teasley (1995) as “a coordinated synchronous
lap (1995) suggested that authentic assessments activity that is the result of a continued attempt
should be designed to allow students to express to construct and maintain a shared concept of a
their interests and work to their strengths. More- problem” (p. 70). Collaborative learning is dif-
over, scoring guides for authentic assessments ferent from cooperative learning, which includes
should contain “complex multi-faceted criteria more structure and individual accountability
44

(Arendale, 2005; Henri & Rigault, 1996; Smith, freely and spontaneously without having to find
Shepard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005) and consists an opening to speak. Other students may focus
of dividing the work more than working together more on the message than the messenger (Henri
(Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). & Rigault, 1996). Despite the evidence supporting
Vonderwell and Turner (2005) discussed the the REAL model, such instruction may suit some
importance of collaboration structured into a students more than others—for example, reflec-
course: students learn to work together rather tive learners many be more successful than active
than dividing group work and completing it learners in online classes, in both collaborative
alone. A problem-based learning environment is and self-directed formats (Battalio, 2009).
an example of a learning system where collabo-
ration is used throughout the problem-solution
process (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995). Students LEARNING TO TEACH ONLINE
are presented with a problem and then they work USING A REAL MODEL
together using their own knowledge, learning
from their peers, and developing new knowledge An undergraduate course called “Introduction
on the subject in attempts to develop a solution. to Online Teaching” was developed using the
Interaction in the online class consists of three REAL instructional design model. The course
kinds of meaningful social interaction. Students was designed to be taught completely online but
interact and collaborate using tools such as dis- can be adapted for a blended course structure.
cussion groups, electronic mail, or chat (Dunlap, The intended audience for the course is teacher
1999). According to Moore and Kearsley (2012), candidates or university students preparing to
interactions are student-to-student, teacher-to- teach in the K-12 environment in a face-to-face,
student, and student-to-content interactions. blended, or a fully online classroom.
Student-to-student interaction often occurs dur- Throughout the course, the teacher candidates
ing meaningful discussion with peers in discus- will learn the basic principles of online teaching
sion threads and during group work, as well as through personally navigating and managing
within the peer review process. Instructors may online teaching experiences. The students will be
need to give students a focus or project for the responsible for developing two units of instruction.
discussions (Dunlap, 1999). Teacher-to-student First, small groups of students design a week of
interaction happens when the teacher provides content and learning activities related to a given
meaningful feedback and the student reflects upon issue in online teaching. The online learning
this and assesses his or her own understanding of issues were selected after a review of research
the learning context. This type of social interac- into the training needs of such students, national
tion also occurs during various dialogues with standards for online learning, and the concepts
the instructor over the semester through email, covered by other online teaching courses (Dawley,
discussion thread and synchronous meetings. Rice, & Hinck, 2010; Duncan & Barnett, 2009;
Finally, student-to-content interaction occurs as International Association for K-12 Online Learn-
the student investigates and researches related ing, 2011). Each of the groups are responsible for
content as well as when interacting with the in- facilitating the online teaching course for one week.
structor developed learning materials (Johnson, The second unit students develop will be re-
2013; Moore & Kearsley, 2012). lated to their specific area of study. These teacher
Collaboration online can be an advantage over candidates build on their experiences throughout
a traditional classroom. While involved in collab- the course to develop a unit that they may someday
orative learning, students may express themselves use when they are certified teachers. For example,
45

a teacher candidate planning to teach seventh interactive features like collaborative content
grade science may develop a unit on heredity that development (wikis, glossaries, database tools)
involves a high degree of online collaboration as and structured discussion forums (Dougiamas,
students collect information about inherited traits 2011). These features can help build community
from people around the world. (Black, Dawson, & Priem, 2008), an important
The development of these two units is sup- element of online and blended learning (Black et
ported through regular online synchronous class al., 2008; Murphy, 2012; Rovai, 2002) for learner
meetings in which students can practice using persistence, information sharing, support, and
the technologies and asking questions. Students satisfaction (Rovai, 2002). Interestingly, in their
also participate in design review meetings before study of LMS use, Lonn and Teasley (2009) found
they deliver their topic in online teaching unit to that for blended classrooms, teachers and students
their peers. These design review meetings help rated LMS-based communication tools (e.g. chat
ensure that key content is addressed and also that features, discussion forums, wikis) as less valuable
workload and delivery method will be adequately than the more commonly used distribution tools
managed. Students will turn in regular project sta- (e.g. content sharing, assignment submission, an-
tus reports indicating the progress they are making nouncements, schedule, and syllabus). Addition-
toward their two projects, which also provides an ally, students valued the communication tools and
opportunity to ask questions and receive support. the general integration of technology in teaching
The principles used to design the course, outlined less than teachers. The researchers stated, “These
Grabinger and Dunlap (1995), fully demonstrate ratings suggest that students, in particular, may be
the REAL model. responding not to whether these tools are used,
but rather how they are used” (Lonn & Teasley,
Learning Management System Use 2009, p. 693).
Dougiamas (2011) continued the LMS-use
Using Garrote and Pettersson’s (2011) classifica- progression to show that teachers with moderately
tion of LMS use (distribution, communication, advanced LMS skills extended student learning
interaction, and administration), the following by planning sequential activities that fed into one
paragraphs show how social constructivist learn- another, utilizing external Internet resources like
ing activities embedded in a REAL can help games and activities, and reflecting on course
students reach the higher levels of knowledge activity using surveying features. Teachers also
construction: apply, analyze, evaluate, and create used more student-centered activities like al-
(Anderson et al., 2001). lowing students more control over grading and,
Dougiamas (2001) suggested a progression to some degree, over course structure. Lastly,
in how teachers use an LMS as they became expert instructors utilized their peer community
more comfortable and familiar with the system. to conduct active research on their teaching and
Instructors initially used the features of the LMS to collaborate with peers.
for distributing content, opening communication This progression from distribution, student col-
channels, and for managing quizzes and assign- laboration, activity extensions, student-involved
ments. Others reported that in the blended learning course planning, and on to instructor reflection
setting, those three features were also the most and professional community building, reflects a
commonly used by the sampled instructors and positive correlation between instructor’s LMS
students (Lonn & Teasley, 2009). experience and student-centered, higher-level
As teachers became more experienced in learning activities. Unfortunately, Severance and
their use of the LMS, they incorporated more Teasley (2010) and Lonn and Teasley (2009) report
46

that the majority (95%) of LMS activity is in lower DISCUSSION AND

levels of this progression: content distribution, RECOMMENDATIONS
assignments, and broadcast communication. The
REAL model can support instructor progression to Constructivist learning can be harder for the stu-
the higher levels of technology enhanced teaching dent and take more time for the instructor. The
and learning. task of creating a complete, all-encompassing
Content distribution in the constructivist learning system may seem overwhelming, even
classroom involves more than teacher generated impossible, given the pressures faced by instructors
and teacher disseminated content; it includes in the present higher education climate (Kitts &
student content generation as well. Students can Hancock, 1999). The extensive time and resources
collaboratively research and construct a class necessary to implement this model is a recogniz-
glossary or even textbook. This crowdsourced able weakness of REAL. Assessments in a REAL
content development is made possible through model go beyond simple tests to artifact analysis
Wiki technology often incorporated in the LMS. and observation, which can be complex and time
Additionally, rich sources of content exist outside consuming.
the LMS. Students can experience environment or Allowing students to take the initiative and
object manipulation through virtual simulations make decisions about their own learning is chal-
outside the LMS. As discussed earlier, object lenging. Students might be accustomed to being
manipulation was shown to be a generative activ- told what to learn and need the instructor’s help
ity (Ritchie & Volkl, 2000) and well inline with to take on a different role. The instructor will
a REAL. need to take time to assist students in the form of
The lack of agreement between students and scaffolding until they become comfortable with
instructors in the blended classroom (Lonn & their new responsibilities (Grabinger & Dunlap,
Teasley, 2009) and researchers (Black et al., 1995). This in itself is a challenge; as mentioned,
2008; Murphy, 2012; Rovai, 2002) on the value instructors are used to teaching the way they were
of communication in LMS-supported learning taught (Lortie, 2002).
suggests that instructors are possibly not using Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) are op-
communication features in ways that researchers ponents of minimally guided instruction. “Mini-
believe will enhance community building. Social mally guided instruction appears to proceed with
constructivist uses of LMS communication tools no reference to the characteristics of working
could include using social networking tools fea- memory, long-term memory, or the intricate re-
tured in many modern LMSs like chat, comments, lations between them” (Kirschner et al., 2006, p.
as well as exchanges across student blogs. 76). Kirschner et al. (2006) believe that unguided
Lastly, administration of courses reflects a instruction is less effective, and stated that there is
constructivist REAL when students take control “evidence that it may have negative results when
over some elements of grading and class struc- students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or
turing (Severance & Teasley, 2010). A novel and disorganized knowledge” (p. 84).
largely untested concept of crowdsourced grading Empirical research on this point provided evi-
may hold promise as an authentic, generative dence that minimal guidance during instruction
classroom activity. Using this strategy, authority is less effective than guided learning designed to
in the classroom is dispersed and students have support the cognitive processing necessary for
power to evaluate each other’s work and class learning (Mayer, 2004). Kirschner et al. (2006)
contributions (Davidson, 2009). stated that one of the main assumptions made in
47

minimal guidance instruction is that learning is cessful online students (Chou, 2012; Chou & Chen,
most effective when students can “solve authen- 2008; Corbeil, 2003). Sherry (1996) recommends
tic problems” and gain “complex knowledge in students in online courses use tools to help track
information-rich settings” and “construct their progress and stresses the importance of prompt
own solutions” (p. 76). feedback. The LMS can help with tracking prog-
Wilson (1997) stated that some view construc- ress and delivering feedback. The REAL model
tivism as being permissive with little structure, can help self-directed learners grow by allowing
cautioning that students actually do need some them to be involved in selecting their own realistic
structure in order to become creative. Content in learning activities.
the constructivist environment, such as the REAL Instruction under the REAL model calls for
model, will not necessarily be predetermined; realistic activities, demands collaboration, needs
students should be allowed to set their own learn- self-reflection, requires research, and is designed
ing objectives and select their own research topics for and develops self-directed learners (Dunlap,
based on their own needs (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1999). The Internet makes process modeling by
2002). The instructional designer should not adopt an expert accessible to students, reflecting real-
performance objectives but instead select authentic world applications using multimedia elements
tasks (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). Some may be such as video and audio (Collins & Brown, 1988;
concerned with having less structure, but research Dunlap, 1999). Students also have access to tools
suggests that “creativity arises out of the tension online to create meaningful, realistic artifacts for
between spontaneity and limitations” (May, 1975, class presentations (Dunlap, 1999).
p. 115). “Surely a middle ground was needed, one Students collaborate using tools such as discus-
where students could actively solve problems at sion groups, electronic mail, or chat; instructors
the same time as they mastered basic skills and may need to give students a focus or project for
gained knowledge under the guidance of capable the discussions (Dunlap, 1999). “Self-reflection
teachers” (Ravitch, 2001, p. 442). implies observing and putting an interpretation on
Online courses can offer the flexibility for stu- one’s own actions” (Von Wright, 1992, p. 61). As
dents to select the content they feel will benefit their Wade, Fauske and Thompson (2008) explained in a
learning and achievement most (Murray, Pérez, literature review, written instead of oral reflection
Geist, & Hedrick, 2012). However, collaborating is more effective because it takes more thought
can be challenging in this environment. When a to produce and the audience can take more time
student does not have the instructor in class to to receive the reflection; writing for oneself (as
answer questions and must wait for a response to in a private journal) can produce a more shallow
the communication and feedback, this can be a reflection than writing publicly, as in a blog or
barrier to learning (Vonderwell & Turner, 2005). discussion group—possibly more so with a dis-
Additionally, interacting with team members who cussion group because the writer expects a reply.
are not actively involved and collaborating, wait- Research can be seamlessly integrated into the
ing for group member responses, and attempting online classroom; this can be a strength of online
to develop interpersonal relationships with the learning, with access to people and information
instructor and team members may also be barriers not found in a campus classroom (Dunlap, 1999).
to learning (Vonderwell & Turner, 2005). Active learning implies the students are doing the
Online instruction may draw self-directed research, not the instructor. Unless all students
learners or online instruction may help create are equipped in the traditional classroom with
self-directed learners. Studies show mixed results; Internet capable devices, they may not be as active
self-directed learners are not always the most suc- as the online students who require the Internet.
48

“Teachers become facilitators and guides, rather authentic assessment strategies, and collaboration
than presenters of knowledge. Students become together within an LMS to provide an enriching,
active investigators, seekers, and problem solvers social constructivist learning environment.
working purposefully on a challenge” (Dunlap,
1999, p. 315).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CONCLUSION We would like to thank Scott J. Warren, Jonathan

Gratch, Adriana D’Alba, Mark Glynn, and R.
The REAL model, with its foundations in social Scott Grabinger for their valuable support and
constructivism, may prove a viable model for suggestions.
online teaching and learning as it emphasizes the
need for collaborative, generative, authentic, and
problem-based teaching methods. Online students REFERENCES
are in a position to demonstrate responsibility
and initiative in their learning, which is another Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing
key REAL attribute, as well as be more creative. course: Ten years of tracking online education
Individuals learn to apply tools and knowledge in the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan
in new domains and different situations within a Consortium.
REAL. Students are given the skills to become Anderson, D. L., Standerford, N. S., & Imdieke,
successful citizens, they are engaged in knowledge- S. (2010). A self-study on building community
construction and problem-solving activities, as in the online classroom. Networks, 12(2), 1–10.
well as thinking and learning processes they will
be expected to engage in once they are on the job Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian,
(Grabinger et al., 1997). Students become lifetime P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., et al.
learners (Grabinger et al., 1997). Grabinger and (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
Dunlap (1995) stated that, “in today’s complex assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of
world, simply knowing how to use tools and educational objectives (Abridged Edition). New
knowledge in a single domain is not sufficient York: Addison Wesley Longman.
to remain competitive as either individuals or
Arendale, D. R. (2005). Postsecondary peer
companies” (p. 5).
cooperative learning programs: Annotated bib-
Using the REAL instructional model to design
liography. Online Submission.
online courses that utilize the social constructiv-
ist compatible elements of an LMS can provide Barbour, M. K., Siko, J., Gross, E., & Waddell,
instructors and instructional designers with a K. (2013). Virtually unprepared: Examining the
framework for enhancing student-centered en- preparation of K-12 online teachers. In R. Harts-
vironments in which students actively construct, horne, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher
evolve, and assimilate knowledge and socially education programs and online learning tools:
negotiate meaning. The REAL model brings Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 60-81).
student responsibility and initiative, generative Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:
learning activities, authentic learning contexts, doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1906-7.ch004
49

Battalio, J. (2009). Success in distance education: Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R. A., & Cam-
Do learning styles and multiple formats matter? pione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and
American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), understanding. In J. H. Flavell, & E. M. Markman
71–87. doi:10.1080/08923640902854405 (Eds.), Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology
(Vol. 1). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bay, E., Bagceci, B., & Bayram, C. (2012). The
effects of social constructivist approach on the Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).
learners’ problem solving and metacognitive lev- Situated cognition and the culture of learn-
els. Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(3), 343–349. ing. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
doi:10.3844/jssp.2012.343.349 doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Beck, D., & Ferdig, R. E. (2008). Evolving roles Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruc-
of online and face-to-face instructors in a lecture/ tion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
lab/hybrid course. The Turkish Online Journal of
Buckley, P., Garvey, J., & McGrath, F. (2011).
Educational Technology, 7(1), 5017.
A case study on using prediction markets as a
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional rich environment for active learning. Computers
learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick & Education, 56(2), 418–428. doi:10.1016/j.
(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays compedu.2010.09.001
in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally
Berge, Z. (1995). Facilitating computer conferenc- relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years
ing: Recommendations from the field. Educational of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182–190.
Technology, 35(1), 22–30. doi:10.1598/RT.49.3.1
Black, E. W., Dawson, K., & Priem, J. (2008). Chen, R. T. H., & Bennett, S. (2012). When Chi-
Data for free: Using LMS activity logs to measure nese learners meet constructivist pedagogy online.
community in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 64(5), 677–691. doi:10.1007/
Higher Education, 11(2), 65–70. doi:10.1016/j. s10734-012-9520-9
iheduc.2008.03.002
Chou, P. (2012). The relationship between engi-
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: neering students’ self-directed learning abilities
A candid look at how much students learn and and online learning performances: A pilot study.
why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Contemporary Issues in Education Research,
Princeton University Press. 5(1), 33–38.
Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2002). Social constructivist Chou, P., & Chen, W. (2008). Exploratory study
teaching: Affordances and constraints. London: of the relationship between self-directed learn-
Emerald Group Publishing. ing and academic performance in a web-based
learning environment. Online Journal of Distance
Learning, 9(1).
50

Collins, A., & Brown, J. (1988). The computer as Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C.
a tool for learning through reflection. In H. Mandl, (1978). Generative processes in reading com-
& A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intel- prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,
ligent tutoring systems. New York, NY: Springer. 70(2), 109–118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.70.2.109
doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-6350-7_1
Dougiamas, M. (2011). Moodle keynote [Pow-
Corbeil, J. R. (2003). Online technologies self- erPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.
efficacy, self-directed learning readiness, and slideshare.net/moodler/moodle-keynote-ju-
locus of control of learners in a graduate-level ly-2011-8597385\
web-based distance education program. (Doctoral
Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Disserta-
teach online: What works for pre-service teach-
tions and Theses (Order No. 3094002)
ers. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
Cuhadar, C., & Kuzu, A. (2010). Improving in- 40(3), 357–376. doi:10.2190/EC.40.3.f
teraction through blogs in a constructivist learn-
Dunlap, J. (1999). Rich environments for active
ing environment. The Turkish Online Journal of
learning on the web: Guidelines and examples.
Distance Education, 11(1), 134–161.
In P. de Bra & J. Leggett (Eds.), WebNet World
Cumming, J. J., & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Con- Conference on the WWW and Internet (vol. 1, pp.
textualising authentic assessment. Assessment in 313–318). Honolulu, HI: IEEE.
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(2),
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism,
177–194.
cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical
Cunningham, D., & Duffy, T. (1996). Constructiv- features from an instructional design perspective.
ism: Implications for the design and delivery of Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook
Fenton, E. (1991). Reflections on the “new social
of Research for Educational Communications
studies”. Social Studies, 82(3), 84–90. doi:10.10
and Technology (pp. 170–198). New York, NY:
80/00377996.1991.9958313
Macmillan Library Reference.
Fitchett, P. G., & Russell, W. B. (2012). Reflecting
Davidson, C. N. (2009). How to crowdsource
on MACOS: Why it failed and what we can learn
grading. HASTAC. Retrieved Dec 1, 2013 from
from its demise. Paedagogica Historica, 48(3),
http://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/
469–484. doi:10.1080/00309230.2011.554423
how-crowdsource-grading
Gabriel, M. (2004). Learning together: Exploring
Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going
group interactions online. Journal of Distance
virtual! 2010. Academic Press.
Education, 19(1), 54–72.
Dick, W. (1992). An instructional designer’s view
Gardiner, L. (1994). ASHE-ERIC Higher Edu-
of constructivism. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonas-
cation Report: Redesigning higher education:
sen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of
Producing dramatic gains in student learning
instruction: A conversation (pp. 91–98). Hillsdale,
(vol. 7). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Higher Education.
51

Garrote, R., & Pettersson, T. (2011). The use of Harlow, S., Cummings, R., & Aberasturi, S.
learning management systems: A Longitudinal (2007). Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A rationale
case study. eleed, 8(1), 1–12. for constructivism. The Educational Forum, 71(1),
41–48. doi:10.1080/00131720608984566
Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for
active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Hand- Henri, F., & Rigault, C. R. (1996). Collaborative
book of research for educational communications distance learning and computer conferencing.
and technology: A project of the association for In Advanced educational technology: Research
educational communications and technology (pp. issues and future potential (pp. 45–76). Springer.
665–692). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for
Macmillan.
adult learners in online learning environments.
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1),
environments for active learning: A definition. The 27–37. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00236
Journal of the Association for Learning Technol-
Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2008).
ogy, 3(2), 5–34. doi:10.1080/0968776950030202
Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2002). Applying and pedagogical implications. Teacher Educator,
the REAL model to web-based instruction: An 43, 72–86. doi:10.1080/08878730701728945
overview. In Proceedings from ED-MEDIA 2002
International Association for K-12 Online Learn-
World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
ing. (2011). National standards for quality online
Hypermedia, and Telecommunications. Denver,
teaching. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/
CO: Academic Press.
resources/publications/national-quality-stan-
Grabinger, R. S., Dunlap, J. C., & Duffield, J. A. dards/
(1997). Rich environments for active learning in
Johnson, C. J. (2013). Evaluation of a hybrid
action: Problem-based learning. The Journal of
mathematics methods course for novice teach-
the Association for Learning Technology, 5(2),
ers. International Journal of Online Pedagogy
5–17. doi:10.1080/0968776970050202
and Course Design, 3(1), 33–52. doi:10.4018/
Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. (2002). Applying the ijopcd.2013010103
REAL model to web-based instruction: An over-
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus construc-
view. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA World Confer-
tivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?
ence on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &
Educational Technology Research and Develop-
Telecommunications. Denver, CO: AACE.
ment, 39(3), 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF02296434
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner,
Joyes, G., Fisher, T., & Coyle, D. (2002). Develop-
P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework
ments in Generative Learning using a Collabora-
for authentic assessment. Educational Technol-
tive Learning Environment. Paper presented at the
ogy Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.
Networked Learning Conference. Sheffield, UK.
doi:10.1007/BF02504676
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating
Hafner, K., & Lyon, M. (1996). Where wizards
constructivism into instructional design: Potential
stay up late: The origins of the Internet. New
and limitations. Journal of Educational Technol-
York, NY: Touchstone.
ogy & Society, 8(1), 17–27.
52

Keaton, S. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2011). Explaining Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes
social constructivism. Communication Teacher, rule against pure discovery learning? The Ameri-
25(4), 192–196. doi:10.1080/17404622.2011.6 can Psychologist, 59(1), 14. doi:10.1037/0003-
01725 066X.59.1.14 PMID:14736316
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Mayer, R. E. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock ’s
Why minimal guidance during instruction does enduring contributions to the science of learn-
not work: An analysis of the failure of construc- ing. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 46–50.
tivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and doi:10.1080/00461520903433547
inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning
41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
outcomes and students’ perceptions of online
Kitts, S. A., & Hancock, J. T. (1999). Putting writing: Simultaneous implementation of a fo-
theory into practice: The creation of REALs in rum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning
the context of today’s universities. The Journal setting. System, 38(2), 185–199. doi:10.1016/j.
of the Association for Learning Technology, 7(2), system.2010.03.006
4–14. doi:10.1080/0968776990070202
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance
revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of learning environments: Are they the same? The
Chicago Press. Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or
innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance
uses of Learning Management Systems. Comput- education: A systems view of online learning.
ers & Education, 53(3), 686–694. doi:10.1016/j. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
compedu.2009.04.008
Murphy, J. (2012). LMS teaching versus com-
Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociologi- munity learning: A call for the latter. Asia Pa-
cal study (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University Of cific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5),
Chicago Press. 826–841. doi:10.1108/13555851211278529
Mason, R. (1998). Models of online courses. ALN Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A.
Magazine, 15(7), 1–14. (2012). Student interaction with online course
content: Build it and they might come. Journal
Matthews, W. (2003). Constructivism in the
of Information Technology Education: Research,
classroom: Epistemology, history, and empirical
11(1), 125–140.
evidence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3),
51–64. Nuthall, G. (2002), Social constructivist teach-
ing and the shaping of students’ knowledge and
May, R. (1975). The Courage to Create. New
thinking. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist
York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
teaching: Affordances and constraints. Emerald
Group.
53

O’Shea, P., & Kidd, J. (2011). Crowdsourced Picciano, A., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010).
grading: Exploring the validity and effects of Education transformation through online learn-
student-authored and student-evaluated textbooks. ing: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous
In S. Barton et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learning Networks, 14(4), 17–35.
Learn 2011 (pp. 1266–1271). AACE.
Ractham, P., Kaewkitipong, L., & Firpo, D.
Paily, M. U. (2013). Creating constructivist learn- (2012). The use of Facebook in an introductory
ing environment: Role of “Web 2.0” technology. MIS course: Social constructivist learning envi-
International Forum for Teaching Studies, 9(1), ronment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
39–51. Education, 10(2), 165–188. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4609.2011.00337.x
Palincsar, A. S. (1990). Providing the context for
intentional learning. Remedial and Special Educa- Ravitch, D. (2001). Left back: A century of battles
tion, 11(6). doi:10.1177/074193259001100608 over school reform. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist
perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of
Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375. doi:10.1146/ the privatization movement and the danger to
annurev.psych.49.1.345 PMID:15012472 America’s public schools. New York, NY: Ran-
dom House.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Foster-
ing literacy learning in supportive contexts. Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211– two generative learning strategies in the science
225, 229. doi:10.1177/002221949202500402 classroom. School Science and Mathematics,
PMID:1573331 100(2), 83–89. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.
tb17240.x
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from
the cyberspace classroom. In Proceedings of 17th Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construc-
Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and tion of shared knowledge in collaborative prob-
Learning (pp. 1–5). Academic Press. lem-solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer
supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97).
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborat-
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
ing online: learning together in community. San
3-642-85098-1_5
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community
Parietti, I. S. C., & Turi, D. M. (2011). Assessment
at a distance. International Review of Research in
of the online instructor. Academy of Educational
Open and Distance Learning, 3(1).
Leadership Journal, 15, 63–78.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking
based learning: An instructional model and its
as a generative activity. Journal of Educational
constructivist framework. Constructivist learn-
Psychology, 70(4), 514–522. doi:10.1037/0022-
ing environments: Case studies in instructional
0663.70.4.514
design, 135, 14.
54

Schaverien, L. (2003). Teacher education in the Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional

generative virtual classroom: Developing learning design, and technology: Implications for trans-
theories through a web-delivered, technology- forming distance learning. Journal of Educational
and-science education context. International Technology & Society, 3(2), 50–60.
Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1451–1469.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Van-
doi:10.1080/0950069032000070234
derbilt. (1990, August-September). Anchored
Schunk, D. (2012). Learning theories: An educa- instruction and its relationship to situated cogni-
tional perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson tion. Educational Researcher, 2–10.
Education.
Thomas, M., & Harrison, R. (2009). Identity
Severance, C., & Teasley, S. D. (2010). Preparing in online communities: Social networking sites
for the long tail of teaching and learning tools. and language learning. International Journal of
In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Emerging Technology & Society, 7(2), 109–124.
Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the
Thompson, P. (2003). Radical constructivism:
9th International Conference of the Learning
Reflections and directions. In L. P. Steffe, & P.
Sciences (vol. 1, pp. 758–764). Academic Press.
W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst
International Journal of Educational Telecom- von Glaserfelt (pp. 291–315). New York, NY:
munications, 1(4), 337–265. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Simpson, T. L. (2002). Dare I oppose constructiv- Tobias, S. (2010). Generative learning theory,
ist theory? The Educational Forum, 66, 347–354. paradigm shifts, and constructivism in edu-
doi:10.1080/00131720208984854 cational psychology: A tribute to Merl Wit-
trock. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 51–54.
Sims, R., & Koszalka, T. (2008). Competencies for
doi:10.1080/00461520903433612
the new-age instructional designer. In Handbook
of research on educational communications and Von Wright, J. (1992). Reflections on reflec-
technology (pp. 569-575). Academic Press. tion. Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 59–68.
doi:10.1016/0959-4752(92)90005-7
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D.
W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of Vonderwell, S., & Turner, S. (2005). Active learn-
engagement: Classroom-based practices. Jour- ing and pre-service teachers’ experience in an
nal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101. online course: A case study. Journal of Technology
doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x and Teacher Education, 13, 65–84.
Stone, J. (1996). Developmentalism: An obscure Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cam-
but pervasive restriction on educational improve- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ment. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4(8),
Wade, S. E., Fauske, J. R., & Thompson, A.
1–32.
(2008). Prospective teachers’ problem solv-
Syh-Jong, J. (2007). A study of students’ con- ing in online peer-led dialogues. American
struction of science knowledge: Talk and writing Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 398–442.
in a collaborative group. Educational Research, doi:10.3102/0002831207308224
49(1), 65–81. doi:10.1080/ 00131880701200781
55

Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for under- ADDITIONAL READING

standing: The key role of collaborative knowledge
building. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (1995). Computer
teaching: Affordances and constraints. Emerald mediated communication and the online class-
Group. room. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Wells, G. (2009). The meaning makers (2nd ed.). Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2002). Social constructivist
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. teaching: Affordances and constraints (Advances
in research on teaching, Vol. 9). United Kingdom:
Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructiv- Emerald Group Publishing.
ism and instructional design. In C. R. Dills, & A. A.
Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Development Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Con-
Paradigms (pp. 63–80). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: structivism and the technology of instruction: a
Educational Technology Publications. conversation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). A generative model
of mathematics learning. Journal for Research Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for
in Mathematics Education, 5(4), 181–196. active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Hand-
doi:10.2307/748845 book of research for educational communications
and technology: A project of the association for
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning educational communications and technology (pp.
processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 665–692). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
27(4), 531–541. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2704_8 Macmillan.
Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a generative Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich
process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–45. environments for active learning: A definition. The
doi:10.1080/00461520903433554 Journal of the Association for Learning Technol-
Wolcott, H. F. (2007). The Middlemen of MACOS. ogy, 3(2), 5–34. doi:10.1080/0968776950030202
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(2), Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2002). Applying
195–206. doi:10.1525/aeq.2007.38.2.195 the REAL model to web-based instruction: An
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role overview. Proceedings from ED-MEDIA 2002
of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications. Denver,
17(2), 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976. CO.
tb00381.x PMID:932126 Grabinger, R. S., Dunlap, J. C., & Duffield, J. A.
Young, S. (2003). Integrating ICT into second (1997). Rich environments for active learning in
language education in a vocational high school. action: Problem-based learning. The Journal of
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, the Association for Learning Technology, 5(2),
447–461. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00049.x 5–17. doi:10.1080/0968776970050202
56

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance Constructivism: A theory in which learning
education: a systems view of online learning (3rd and knowledge are generated when a student ex-
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. periences learning first-hand and from previous
experience.
Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning en-
Generative Learning: An educational method
vironments: Case studies in instructional design.
in which learners use their past experience and
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology
understanding along with their present understand-
Publications.
ing of a concept to create meaningful products.
Instructional Design Model: A framework
or guide for the structure of delivering an edu-
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS cational course.
Online Instruction: An educational program
Authentic Assessment: Authentic assess- in which the instructor delivers content, instruc-
ments are realistic and ill-defined learning action, and materials over the Internet and the student
tivities used to connect the authentic learning attends class within this online classroom.
contexts and should be implemented to evaluate REAL: Rich Environment for Active Learning
skills developed in the activities. (REAL) is a comprehensive and advanced instruc-
Authentic Learning: Authentic learning tional design model that evolved from constructiv-
contexts can be defined as the construction of ist theories. Students are engaged in their learning
realistic situations, conditions, or tasks given to through collaboration, responsibility, higher-order
students within a learning environment to create thinking processes, and realistic tasks.
a deeper knowledge. Social Constructivism: A theory in which
Blended Instruction: An educational program learning and knowledge are generated when a
in which instruction takes place both online and group of students experience learning.
face-to-face. Student Responsibility: This refers to the stu-
Collaborative Learning: Collaborative learn- dent’s right to make decisions and be responsible
ing is a meaningful interaction of two or more for their own learning; it is not referring to an act
individuals working together synchronously in as simple as a student turning in an assignment;
an attempt to solve a problem. it is bigger than that.
57
58
Chapter 4
Active Learning Strategies
for Online and Blended
Learning Environments
Cynthia Cummings Kaye Shelton
Lamar University, USA Lamar University, USA
Diane Mason Katie Baur

Lamar University, USA Lamar University, USA
ABSTRACT
Students must be engaged in active learning opportunities that allow them to feel connected to the class
and not just a passive spectator. However, that may require the instructor to learn and try different meth-
ods of teaching and learning that are more student-centered and less faculty-centered. The purpose of
this chapter is to assist faculty in developing active learning strategies that will advance their personal
skill sets to better embrace learner-centered instruction with the use of technology tools for online and
blended environments.
INTRODUCTION more readily than monotonous lectures (Neuman

et al., 2009; Penningroth, Despain, & Gray, 2007;
In recent years, models of active learning strate- Ridley, 2007; Whitmire, 1998). Furthermore,
gies have expanded (Gibson & Shaw, 2011). In fostering student engagement through active
the past, lecture was the choice for teaching and learning activities and assessments can impact
written exams were used for assessments. Early comprehension, retention, and problem-solving
on, Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl skills (Bluestone 2000; Bransford, Franks, Vye, &
(1956) noted that the delivery and assessment of Sherwood, 1989; Krain & Shadle, 2006; Michel,
knowledge in this manner did not require students Cater, & Varela, 2009; Switky, 2004). Students
to use any type of critical thinking or analysis of must be engaged in active learning opportunities
content. However, recent studies have proven that that allow them to feel connected to the class and
active teaching strategies support critical thinking not just a passive spectator.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch004

Active Learning Strategies for Online and Blended Learning Environments
Much has been written about passive and active textual meaning, to improve higher order thinking
learning since Piaget’s (1972) theory of Cognitive skills, and to encourage shared exploration (Brind-
Constructivism and Vygotsky’s (1978) Social ley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009; Jonassen, Davidson,
Constructivist Theory provided the foundation of Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995; Simiens, 2002).
a broad constructivist learning theory, also called Because a growing body of evidence indicates
constructivism. Constructivism emphasizes that that inductive teaching and learning methods such
the student creates their knowledge and learning as simulations, role playing, problem or project-
based upon previous experiences. Smith and Ragan based, and case-based learning produce more
(1999) identified the foundational assumptions of positive learning gains than traditional lecture
constructivism: methods (Hovancsek, 2007; Prince, 2004), each
method is explored in this chapter. In addition,
• Knowledge is constructed from experience. in order to support active learning, the following
• Learning results from a personal interpre- tools and approaches are also discussed: Web 2.0
tation of knowledge. tools, collaboration, building community, and
• Learning is an active process in which flipped classrooms.
meaning is developed on the basis of
experience. Simulations
• Learning is collaborative with meaning ne-
gotiated from multiple perspectives. (p. 15) Interactive simulations are defined as programs
that attempt to replicate an authentic system,
More than ever, in both K-12 and higher educa- event, or process and where learners interact with
tion, constructivist teaching methods and active the simulation (Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Blake &
learning strategies are utilized to better prepare Scanlon, 2007; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998;
digital age students. In addition, constructivism Lean, Moizer, Towler, & Abbey, 2009; Mislevy,
has maintained its relevancy in the literature. At 2011). As an active learning strategy, simulation
the same time, the literature acknowledges that encourages students to practice critical thinking
constructivism increases online student engage- skills and reflection on their actions (Morse, 2012).
ment while supporting student success (Shelton, As faculty move to utilize experiential learning
Cummings, & Mason, 2014). in classrooms, interactive online simulations have
become a popular trend (Hanlon, 2008; Lean,
Moizer, Towler, & Abbey, 2009).
BACKGROUND According to Blake and Scanlon (2007), nu-
merous benefits of using simulation in the science
Constructivism teaching and learning methods classroom have been identified. Simulations can
such as active learning are being implemented replace laboratory activities that are considered
more frequently now that students are needing a dangerous, reduce the costs of lab equipment
more student-centered approach. Active learning and supplies, lessen time spent on experiments,
strategies are rooted in constructivist learning allow teachers to interact with students in lieu of
theory because of its emphasis on the student be- management and supervision of the experiment,
ing actively engaged in knowledge construction and promote inquiry-based learning through the
(Cakir, 2008; Jones & Brade-Araje, 2002). Many development of hypothesizing and exploration.
researchers have prescribed the implementation By allowing the learner to control the pace and
of active and collaborative learning processes to content, learning can be individualized to match
guide the development of course content and con- each learner’s needs (National Research Council,
59

2011). Prensky (2007) suggested that simulations derstanding of scientific investigations through
created a risk-free environment where learners support and scaffolding (Colella, 2000; Klopfer,
can experiment, make mistakes, and start over if Yoon, & Um, 2005; Sandoval, 2003; Sandoval &
necessary. He also suggested that simulation is a Reiser, 2004). Later, Mislevy (2011) described an
real-world experience that helps the learner with effective simulation design as one that focused on
understanding complex issues. the learner’s knowledge and skill level(s), allowed
With the rapid technological advancements, multiple, risk-free attempts, and ensured feedback
educational leadership preparatory programs to the learner was timely and informative. Simula-
have also begun to use simulations to provide tion design should also include opportunities for
authentic learning and assessment opportunities. the learner to practice, to identify outcomes, and
Most students enrolled in educational leadership to improve their skills and help them understand
programs are full-time educational professionals what works and what does not work. Hanlon
and this can impact the types of field experiences (2008) agreed that well planned simulations can
they conduct in their internship. According to provide incredible learning experiences that lead
Edmonson (2002), many of these students have to understandings beyond what most textbooks
limited opportunities for administrative practice produce. Kopriva, Gabel, and Bauman (2009)
during the internship and yet when they complete reported that English language learners, students
the program they are expected to have the skills and with learning disabilities, and at-risk students may
expertise of a knowledgeable administrator. This be more proficient at demonstrating mastery of
unfortunate reality has created a necessity for the knowledge and skills through simulations than
classroom to be the ideal environment for students paper and pencil assessment.
to participate in authentic learning opportunities. Jeffries and Rogers (2007) contended that
In a study conducted by Whitaker, King, and Vogel formative or summative assessments can be used
(2004), educational leadership students identified when assessing students interacting in a simulation
simulations that were directly connected to their project or a course. Michelson and Manning (2008)
field as one of the most effective strategies in noted that defining the measurable outcomes and
their program of study. These simulations were then assessing the learner’s performance remained
designed to closely emulate the experiences of a a critical element in effective use of simulations.
school or district-level administrator. In addition According to Brown, Hinze, and Pellegrino
to the students’ positive remarks, course instruc- (2008), simulations were found to be conducive
tors agreed that the simulation project provided an for collecting and analyzing data to develop the
authentic assessment of the students’ knowledge feedback needed for formative assessment. Evi-
and skills that were comparable real world experi- dence can be collected and analyzed related to the
ences of a school administrator. students’ inquiry methods, the order and number
Several research studies recognized the value of attempts when problem solving, the amount of
and effectiveness of using simulations in teaching time spent on different activities, and how they
and learning (Feinstein, 2001; Keys & Briggs, manipulate the features of the simulation which
1990; Ruben, 1999; Wolfe & Crookall, 1998). can result in immediate feedback and individual
Ruben (1999) contended that effective simula- mentoring (National Research Council, 2011).
tions addressed cognitive and affective learning Using simulations as a formative assessment tool
difficulties and enhanced collaboration through can provide opportunities for an instructor to un-
student-to-student interaction and active learning. derstand students’ thinking and help find gaps in
Other research studies suggested with the use of that thinking (Rudolph, Simon, Raemer, & Eppich,
simulations, students acquired a conceptual un- 2008). This can lead to the student’s deeper un-
60

derstanding of concepts and process skills that are Simulation Examples

aligned with summative assessments (Quellmalz
& Pellegrino, 2009). However, it is important to • Budget Hero: (http://www.market-
note that Lunce (2004) suggested that although place.org/topics/economy/budget-hero)
research provided evidence that simulation can Developed by the American Public Media’s
develop the understanding of specific concepts, Newsroom, this simulation allows the
further data collection and assessment are still learner to implement public policy to see
necessary to determine the best use in distance the affect on the National budget (Aldrich,
education. More attention should be placed on 2009).
developing assessment instruments to measure • ChemCollective: (http://collective.chem.
the effectiveness of simulations. cmu.edu/) Virtual lab activities designed
In preparing to design and integrate a simula- to provide interactive, engaging materi-
tion into a classroom, barriers, such as a lack of als that link chemistry concepts to the real
time for faculty preparation, faculty with little world.
or no familiarity regarding simulations, lack of • Educational Leadership Simulations:
funding, and technology issues, proved to be chal- (http://coe.fgcu.edu/faculty/valesky/
lenging factors (Chang, 1997; Faria & Wellington, edleadsims/simulations.html) Thomas
2004; Hanlon, 2008; Moss, 2000; O’Neal, 2007; Valesky’s simulations have been viewed
Prensky, 2007). Additionally, Prensky (2007) and used by professors and students across
contended that as long as teachers feel like stand the world (Valesky, 2012).
and deliver teaching is best, time would be an is- • Learning Edge: (https://mitsloan.mit.edu/
sue. He argued that because there is not enough LearningEdge/simulations/platform-wars/
time in the school year to present everything, new Pages/default.aspx) These innovative and
learning tools such as simulations are not consid- interactive tools create a virtual world in
ered. Moreover, the large majority of faculty had which students explore and participate in
limited exposure to integrating simulations into the critical management issues facing a
teaching and learning. Teachers who were con- range of industries and organizations.
vinced that traditional hands on lab experiences • PhET: (http://phet.colorado.edu/)
should not be replaced by simulations needed Provides fun, interactive, research-based
reminding that many professionals actually learn simulations of physical phenomena from
their jobs through simulations. In spite of this the PhET™ project at the University of
thinking, students indicated utilizing simulations Colorado.
is a preferred tool when learning mathematics and • Prehistoric Climate Change: (http://
science concepts (Partnership for Reform in Sci- www.smithsonianeducation.org/students/
ence and Mathematics, 2005; Project Tomorrow idealabs/prehistoric_climate_change.html)
and PASCO Scientific, 2008). Prensky (2007) A period of sudden global warming 55 mil-
cautioned that citing a lack of money for using lion years ago radically changed the earth.
simulations can no longer be an excuse as more This allows students to determine tempera-
and more simulations are becoming free tools. tures through examining tree leaves and us-
ing mathematical equations.
61

• SimCity: The player is given the task of (De Wever, Shellens, Van Keer, & Valcke, 2008;
founding and developing a city, while Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Strijbos, Martens,
maintaining the happiness of the citizens Jochems, & Broers, 2004) and stimulated greater
and keeping a stable budget. problem-solving (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers,
• The Stock Market Game: (http://www. 2003; Clark & Sampson, 2008) when implemented
smg2000.org) A tool for students to build in a variety of educational settings, including
a fundamental understanding of invest- online learning. Much of the research about on-
ing while providing them with real world line discussion activities has been related to the
skills practice in math, English Language collaborative learning process where instructors
Arts, economics, social studies, and other use role playing techniques to promote active,
subjects. constructive engagement in learning (Hanover
Research Council, 2009). According to Russell
Role Playing and Shepherd (2010), when a person is role
playing, the individual reacts to circumstances
Van Ments (1983) defined role playing as a type of or situations as if he or she were actually in the
communication which involves a person imagining character’s shoes. This type of student involvement
to be a character in a defined situation. In a similar requires the individual to engage in interactions
definition, McKeachie (1986) described role play- and debate which results in the person acquiring
ing as establishing unstructured situations where new skills, techniques, awareness, or attitudes
students’ behaviors are managed to align with a related to the role played activity. Additionally, in
role in which they have been assigned. Clearly a study by Hou (2012), it was recommended that
both Van Ments (1983) and McKeachie (1986) instructors force cognitive engagement by offer-
agreed that role playing required an individual to ing opportunities for students to change roles in
act out with words, feelings, or actions as related many different tasks. Hou (2012) pointed out that
to a character or specified role. Equally important, this design approach may assist students in the
Van Ments (1983) clarified and expanded the development of enhanced knowledge construction
original definition proposing that two different and diversity of thinking.
role playing types exist in educational settings. Role playing typically includes a realistic or
He identified the first type as relating to practic- hypothetical situation and a cast of characters (Da-
ing techniques or skills and the other pertaining vis, 1993). Russell and Shepherd (2010) identified
to changes in attitudes, emotions, or cognition. fundamental aspects for designing online role play
Online learning instructors should consider both activities in higher education settings. First, the
types when designing effective active learning instructor should “create a space for complex social
activities (Hou, 2012). learning” and second, “support explicit reflection
Recent online learning research related to and theorizing as a part of the role-play activity”
active learning has focused upon the effective- (p. 993). Furthermore, the authors noted three ad-
ness of online discussion activities incorporating ditional design parameters worthy of discussion,
activities role playing (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005; “how a teacher or facilitator guides the process”
Hou, 2012; Hou, Chang, & Sung, 2007; Yeh, matters; “how the technological environment
2010). In fact, studies suggested role playing pre-structures the learning experience” affects
increased motivation (Wishart, Oades, & Morris, the outcomes; and “the degree of independent
2007), improved negotiation and decision-making learning expected” should be considered (pp.
(Beach, Anson, Breuch, & Swiss, 2008; Bos & 993-994). To achieve effective implementation
Shami, 2006), enhanced collaborative learning of role playing activities as a form of alternative
62

assessment, Russell and Shepherd (2010), Wills • Hypothetical Characters: Establish a hy-
(2010), and Wills et al. (2009) agreed the learn- pothetical character, such as a baby, devel-
ing environment should be conducive for students op a fictional setting and set of parameters
to occupy roles and clarity of expectations and for students to share co-parenting roles
directions are crucial. Furthermore, the students (Poling & Hupp, 2009).
must be exposed to ample opportunities for role • Avatars: Develop historical, fictional, or
interactions that emphasize negotiation, collabora- realistic situations and use Avatars to role
tion, and debate to increase the real life dynamics play concepts associated with an event such
and understanding of human interaction. Also, as the Russian missile crisis (Wakefield,
there must be time provided to reflect upon the Warren, Rankin, Mills, & Gratch, 2012).
authentic tasks and outcomes directly related to • Scenarios: Use instructor or student cre-
the overall learning experience generated through ated scenarios composed of complex is-
role playing. sues needing resolution that require en-
Similar to role playing, scenario-based learning gagement of roles and research to solve a
is an approach that stimulates deep learning and problem (Sinclair, 2009).
engagement through participation and involve- • Cooperative Learning Strategies: Use
ment in realistic situations with reflection upon small groups for interaction and role play-
the outcomes and learning (Errington, 2005). The ing about a strategy or concept related to
learning experiences typically integrate subject the course content (Johnson, Johnson, &
content with practice in motivating ways often Smith, 1998).
using a team approach. The activities, designed for
deeper learning, regularly facilitate reflection and Problem-Based and Project-
may include an aspect that engages the emotional Based Learning
aspect of learning. Furthermore, the scenarios fre-
quently replicate situations found in the workplace Formally defined, “problem-based learning is an
and address multifaceted relationships. instructional (and curricular) learner-centered
approach that empowers learners to conduct re-
Role Playing Examples search, integrate theory and practice, and apply
knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution
• Higher Order Thinking Questions: Pose to a defined problem” (Savery, 2006, p. 12). It
thought provoking questions in discussion is an active learning activity where students are
boards or chat areas which permit students faced with a problem of which they have little
to role play stepping into the shoes of an- or no knowledge (Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011). The
other individual or point in time (Hanover problem must be ill-structured such that a quick
Research Council, 2009). solution may not be found. The problem should
• Stories, Situations, or Case Studies: also be authentic and relevant.
Share stories, brief situational circum- Similar to problem-based learning, project-
stances, or case studies to guide interaction based learning is another active learning strategy;
and discussion of concepts from varied however, the final outcome for project-based
viewpoints (Jonassen, 2011). learning is usually a required product such as a
63

presentation or paper (Savery, 2006). Barron and Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2006) and students learn-
Darling-Hammond (2008) identified key ele- ing with a deeper understanding while retaining
ments of project-based learning: the problem to content longer (Penuel & Means, 2000) and
be solved is a real world problem; the student will demonstrating better problem solving skills (Mer-
have increased control over the learning; instead gendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2006). Studies
of the knowledge expert, the teacher becomes the also showed that project-based learning may be
facilitator and encourages questions and reflection; more effective in certain disciplines such as math,
and, often, students will work in teams. In addition, language, science, and economics (Boaler, 1997;
Larmer and Mergendoller (2010) found essential Mergendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2006).
elements for successful project-based learning: It is important to note that challenge-based
learning is also similar to project-based learn-
• A problem meaningful to a student that can ing. However, challenge-based learning tends
be supported by student driven questions to be even more of a collaborative experience
and allow both student voice and selection. in which teachers and students work together to
• Student inquiry and innovation should be define the project, rather than having the project
encouraged throughout the process. assigned by the teacher exclusively. The New
• Problem solving should incorporate col- Media Consortium (2009) conducted an in-depth
laboration, communication, critical think- study on challenge-based learning which dem-
ing, technology use, and opportunities for onstrated dramatic gains in student performance
feedback and revision. in US 9th graders, with the highest gains among
• The project solution should be publicly at-risk students. More research can be found at
presented. Challenge-Based Learning (http://www.chal-
lengebasedlearning.org).
For both project and problem-based learning,
the instructor defines the setting, characters, roles, Examples and Resources
resources, the storyline, and problem; students
must then plan, organize, research, analyze, and • Problem-Based Learning Clearinghouse:
solve the learning activity (Stavredes, 2011). By University of Denver (http://www.udel.
Because a clear solution is not provided, students edu/pblc/clearinghouse) - this site provides
must ask questions, collaborate, and seek addi- problems and articles to assist educators in
tional information. Moreover, students must go using problem-based learning. The problems
beyond their current knowledge and understanding and articles are peer reviewed by PBL ex-
of the problem and find a solution. For additional perts in the disciplinary content areas.
evidence of learning gained, Savery (2006) recom- • Buck Institute for Education (BIE):
mended that students should also analyze what was (http://bie.org/) A nonprofit organization
learned and self-assessment and peer assessment that is dedicated to providing Project-
should also be included. Based Learning instructional practices and
The literature revealed many research studies products. They maintain current research,
regarding both problem-based and project-based best practices, and toolkit for instructors
learning. Overall, positive outcomes for academic who are just starting out with PBL.
achievement have been reported including better • Edutopia’s Project-Based Learning
performance on high stakes testing (Parker et al., from Start to Finish Video: (http://www.
2011), improved critical thinking (Mergendoller, edutopia.org/stw-project-based-learning-
64

best-practices-new-tech-video) This video in the flipped classroom with students watching a

details a school wide PBL model at Manor podcast or video lecture before the class actually
New Technology High School. meets. Typically, guided questions or an outline of
• 21st Century Educational Technology the case study is provided for structure. Then, in
and Learning: (http://21centuryedtech. class, students will continue work on the first part
wordpress.com/2010/01/16/free-project- of the case study. Once the instruction is completed,
based-learning-resources-that-will-place- students can continue with the second part of the
students-at-the-center-of-learning) A web- case study by participating in class discussion. The
site that offers multiple resources. authors pointed out that if students reviewed case
study videos at home, more instructional time in
Case-Based Learning the classroom would be available for teachers to
cover more real-world problems.
Case-based learning is described as self-narrated Student exploration and discussion of real life
stories (case study) that were written for classroom situations is a key component of case-based learn-
analysis and discussion. Case studies can come ing (Golich, Boyer, Franko, & Lamy, 2000). In
in the form of role playing, debates, trials, or fact, Golich et al. claimed the goal of using case
even public hearings. Moreover, Herreid (2005) studies is to be learner-centered intertwined with
suggested that case studies can be interactive interaction between the teacher and all students
stories with an educational message that are eas- involved. “Case learning sharpens communica-
ily remembered. Merseth (1996) indicated case- tion and critical thinking skills as students apply
based learning activities typically include three knowledge and evaluate options to solve the
components: a reality-based situation; research problem at hand” (Golich et al., 2000, p. 3). The
embedded throughout the activity; and learner authors suggested that case-based learning con-
exposure to various perspectives. nects the student by active learning and shifts
Case studies are an avenue of applying class- the responsibility of learning to the students.
room learning objectives to “real-life” events However, when the case study being used as
(Eison, 2010). In fact, case-based learning has an instructional tool concludes, the instructor
been praised for its ability to use real life narratives should facilitate a de-briefing of the case. The
to engage students to explore a particular topic authors pointed out important topics that were
while developing critical-thinking skills (Her- mentioned or highlighted by the students should
reid & Schiller, 2013). For example, because of be reviewed. It’s important to be able to connect
the explorative nature of science education, case the specifics of the conversations to the learning
student teaching can benefit the students (Herreid, objective. As part of the case summary, students
2005). In addition, Ulanoff, Fingon, and Beltran should be allowed to report their conclusions to
(2009) determined that case student teaching could end the process (Golich et al., 2000).
be used to assess students’ knowledge while con- A purpose of implementing case studies is be-
necting program content to classroom practice. ing able to explore complicated situations when a
According to Herreid and Schiller (2013), theoretical solution does not exist (Merseth, 1996).
the use of videos in the flipped classroom model Many times, teacher educators utilize case-based
“offers us a new model for case study teaching, learning to provide real life situations as part of the
combining active, student-centered learning with process; then participatory discussion is encour-
content mastery that can be applied to solving real- aged to share the learning outcomes. These learn-
world problems” (p. 65). They illustrated an ex- ing experiences are internalized through personal
ample of case-based learning being implemented reflection opportunities. Merseth (1996) suggested
65

that case–based learning encouraged educators to through collaboration, editing, and publishing
explore new methods, pedagogies, and content. (Park, 2013; Parker & Chao, 2007; Solomon &
The effective use of case studies should result Schrum, 2010; Tapscott & Williams, 2008). Lee
from several guidelines (Carnegie Mellon Eberly (2011) surmised that with the ability to create
Center, n.d.). It is important to ensure that the size content for an authentic audience, learners begin
of the group is appropriate for discussion. Also, to take ownership for publishing quality work. In
the instructor should be familiar with the specific addition, when integrating Web 2.0 into teaching
topic and issues of the case study and have prepared and learning, student engagement and learning are
prompts and questions that pertain to the topic or improved. (Abernathy et al., 2011; Baker, Rozen-
issue. It is imperative to use the relational aspect dal, & Whitemack, 2000; Collis & Moonen, 2008;
to encourage discussion of the case study. Draw- Cormode & Krishnamuthy, 2008; Park, 2013).
ing from the students’ background, experiences, In order to understand Web 2.0 tools and how
and ideologies can further enhance discussion of they transformed the learning environment, it was
the case study. Case studies that covered cultural important to understand the revolution from Web
issues and promoted cultural awareness, resulted 1.0. Flew (2008) identified the differences in Web
in a greater sensitivity toward diversity (Butler, 1.0 versus Web 2.0. Web 1.0 was about connecting
Lee, & Tippins, 2006). computers and Web 2.0 has been about connect-
ing people. Because of this paradigm shift, the
Resources for Case-Based Learning web moved from a read-only, stagnate environ-
ment to a collaborative, interactive environment.
• National Center for Case Study Teaching According to Mills (2007), this shift to Web 2.0
in Science: (http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo. facilitated web-based applications that allowed for
edu/cs/collection/) A searchable repository a new type of communication. Social networking
of cases that can be searched by discipline, sites, blogs, wikis, and other media and interac-
type of case, subject, or educational level. tive web conferencing sites provided a personal
learning space where students created, shared,
Web 2.0 Tools (Wikis, Blogs) and received immediate feedback from peers and
faculty. Park (2013) affirmed that today’s college
According to Bhattacharya and Dron (2009), Web students are Web 2.0 savvy. In a survey of 30,000
2.0 tools such as social networking sites, blogs, college students, Smith, Salaway, and Caruso
wikis, and multimedia applications are considered (2009) found that 90% of the students engaged
to be essential for sharing and collaboration be- with social networking sites and 63% did so on a
tween users. These tools provide the student ways daily basis. Additionally, 40% utilized Web 2.0
to gather information and share that information tools such as video sharing, wikis, and podcasts
with peers. Students can begin to build their own for content creation. These data are evidence of
personal learning network (PLN) in order to im- how important Web 2.0 tools are in the lives of
prove their own learning. Ajjan and Hartshorne students and it is imperative that these technolo-
(2008) reported that despite the fact that faculty gies be integrated into classrooms.
found teaching and learning using Web 2.0 tools Several researchers have reported on the peda-
to be beneficial, there was little evidence of actual gogical value of integrating Web 2.0 into teach-
use in classrooms. ing and learning to impact student achievement
Web 2.0 is defined as various web-based (Cobanoglu & Berezina, 2011; Junco, Heiberger,
technologies that provide opportunities for us- & Loken, 2011; Mason, Abernathy, Abshire, Cum-
ers to be consumers and producers of content mings, & Liu, 2012; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008;
66

New Media Consortium & EDUCAUSE, 2007; and meta-cognition skills. The authors suggested
Rinaldo, Tapp, & Laerie, 2011). Lamar University that learning results from gathering information,
Department of Educational Leadership noted the collaborating to make knowledge, and making it
following examples used in an online master’s and applicable. This knowledge is shared between the
doctoral program. learners as they seek the common goal. The study
found that the instructor should carefully monitor
1. Students placed in PLCs where they upload collaboration of learners. Also, collaboration in
scholarly writing samples for peer review. small groups created a sense of community result-
2. Students are placed in groups to develop a ing in learner satisfaction. Thus, collaboration that
solution based on a scenario. The students is joined with planned instructional strategies were
utilize Google docs, synchronous and asyn- shown to have group benefits such as learning at a
chronous communication tools, social media, deeper level while building confidence and skills
and Google sites for publishing content. (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009).
3. Students work collaboratively to create a
website for PK-12 schools. The students Peer Editing
use tools such as Scratch, developed by
MIT Media Lab, to create animations for Peer editing and assessment permits students to
the website. In addition, students use Web pinpoint areas of strength and weakness, encourage
2.0 tools such as Glogster, Animoto, and learner self-management of learning, and enhance
Tagxedo to design content for the website. individual achievement of learning outcomes
(Gueldenzoph & May, 2002). In addition, Hill
Prensky (2001) pointed out urgency for de- (2010) considered peer editing as opportunities
veloping courses around the use of Web 2.0 tools for assessment options and for student feedback.
for all subjects, at all levels. There was no doubt The peer assessment process encouraged col-
that with the amazing advances in technology and laboration while students are expected to think
design schemes for creating social and participa- critically of what they are learning while tak-
tory networks, educators should acknowledge the ing on the assessor role (Sitthiworachart & Joy,
needs of digital natives population. 2007). Likewise, peer editing and peer teaching
can be utilized through personal interaction and
Collaboration Methods relational activities (Velez, Cano, Whittington,
& Wolf, 2014).
According to the literature, peer collaboration of- According to Hill (2010), peer editing should
fers students opportunities to examine classmates’ provide student learning outcomes, feedback, and
work, question, and have knowledgeable discus- assessment that proves effective. Also, a positive
sions, which can lead to increased critical thinking and supportive learning environment needs to be
and meta-cognitive skills (Chen, Liu, Shih, Wu, & created before administering peer-editing exer-
Yuan, 2011; Topping, 1998). Davis (1993) asserted cises for students. For peer editing to be effective,
that students who are involved in collaborative the instructor must be involved by providing guid-
work are more satisfied with their classes. Ac- ance throughout the entire process (Hill, 2010).
cording to Brindley, Walti, and Blaschke (2009),
online courses allowed opportunities for peer Peer Instruction
collaboration and rich learning activities between
students and instructors. Collaboration among Peer instruction is a teaching and learning strat-
peers is considered social learning that helps egy where students interact and learn from one
develop critical thinking skills, self-reflection, another without initial, direct teacher assistance,
67

or intervention (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 1999). that students are able to improve, Cartney gave
Moreover, peer instruction can be accessed through suggestions on how to improve feedback between
writing assignments, oral presentations, or prod- students. A workshop explaining the process,
uct portfolios (Topping, 2009). Mazur (1997) examples of the reviewed documents, or even a
discovered peer instruction was very successful rubric could assist in proper feedback. This case
with his students, who were becoming bored with study examined if peer assessments would help
his lectures. However, it required him to structure bridge the gap between the feedback received and
the format for the students and establish the pro- the feedback that was used. Findings suggested
cess. To provide resources to support his seminal peer assessments may be an avenue of providing
work, Mazur (2013) developed a comprehensive communication between the learners.
resource website, Peer Instruction (www.peer- Networking tools such as peer feedback can
instruction.net). transform the learning process (Chen et al., 2011).
According to McKenna and French (2010), These authors studied the effectiveness of using
the use of peer instruction is increasing in the peer feedback to improve elementary student’s
teacher education field. The authors suggested writing through blogging. They found that peer
that peer teaching offers a wide range of benefits feedback through blogging was effective for edit-
for the learners. In this study, as experienced ing articles and improving writing skills.
students shared with novice students, the level of
confidence increased between both of them. The Building Online Community
less experienced learners appreciated the instruc-
tion from the peer teacher. Participants admitted Fulton and Riel (1999) defined a learning com-
that appreciation for teaching increased because munity as a group who shares a common interest
of the peer teaching experience (McKenna & in a topic or area and experiences an exchange
French, 2010). The study showed that peer teach- of knowledge and collaboration. Because of the
ing has many beneficial products. It assists in the Internet, learning communities can now develop
development of self-confidence and provides virtually. In fact, Gopez-Sindac (2004) suggested
opportunities for reflective practices for the peer that teaching and learning delivered online can
teacher. Also interaction between the peer teacher become a very effective, engaging, and interac-
and peer learner can result in reduced anxiety and tive learning community. Similarly, Boettcher and
increased practice opportunities. Conrad (1999) believed it was possible to have
an online learning community where the students
Feedback help each other and collaborate to make decisions.
Furthermore, Palloff and Pratt (1999) observed
Discussion boards have served as opportunities that it was students interacting together in an online
for ongoing feedback regarding online course community that led to knowledge transference.
structure, content, and peer evaluation (Klein- Research showed that an effective online
man, 2005; Weller, 2002). Additionally, they learning community was positively correlated to
offer ways for students to collect collaborative outcomes such as increased retention (Rovai &
work and gain feedback on progress related to Baker, 2004). However, developing community
specific course activities (Weller, 2002). In a case in an online or blended class cannot be forced
study by Cartney (2010), the author expressed (Kleinman, 2003) nor does a positive community
concern with the feedback learners are given and usually develop on its own (Shelton, Saltsman,
the feedback being utilized by students. Stressing & Bikis, 2006). Activities that foster robust and
the importance of establishing connections so supportive online communities should be planned
68

and created prior to a course beginning (Palloff • ONE WORD: In the first week introduc-
& Pratt, 1999; Roblyer & Ekhaml, 2000; Shel- tory discussion board, have students cre-
ton, Saltsman, & Bikis, 2006; Weller, 2002). To ate a one word bio about themselves and
further support the development of the learning then explain why they chose that. Students
community, the online course materials should should then respond to those students’
emphasize student-to-faculty, student-to-content, whose words sparked an interest (Conrad
and student-to-student interaction. & Donaldson, 2004).
• SNOWBALL: In the first week of intro-
Online Icebreakers ductions, direct the students to post their
introductions one at a time. The second
Conrad and Donaldson (2004) reported that using student must post their information and
icebreaker techniques in the online classroom have then find something in common with the
facilitated student engagement and interaction, first student. They can also be required to
thus building a sense of community. Furthermore, respond to several students that have post-
online course icebreakers offer opportunities for ed similar interests (Conrad & Donaldson,
scaffolding technology, modeling online engage- 2004).
ment, and creating a supportive, positive learning
environment. Icebreakers can also lead to informal For more online icebreaker examples, see Engag-
conversations and learner presence. ing the Online Learner by Rita-Marie Conrad and
According to Conrad and Donaldson (2004), J. Ana Donaldson.
effective icebreakers must be carefully planned
and not implemented haphazardly. The activity Flipped Classrooms
should be fun, nonthreatening and require the
learners to respond to each other to start com- Flipped classrooms or the flipped learning model
munication flowing. The learning community is a teaching method where students watch video
tends to develop more quickly when students get lectures and read material at home; then, during
to know each other and begin to feel comfortable class time, they engage in active learning activi-
with their peers. ties such as case studies, labs, games, simulations,
or experiments (Herreid & Schiller, 2013). The
Icebreaker Examples for flipped learning model, grounded in student-
the Online Classroom centered, constructivist, learning principles, is also
frequently referred to in the literature as inverted
• BINGO: Create a Bingo activity after the learning (Baker, 2000; Bergmann & Sams, 2012;
first week of class and students have posted Davis, 2013; Finkel, 2012; Hamdan, McKnight,
introductions in the discussion board. The McKnight, & Artfstrom, 2013). An additional
Bingo card can be based on specifics for term, reversed instruction, has also been used
each student in the course. Students would interchangeably with flipped classroom and in-
have 24 hours to try to complete their card verted learning to describe the manner in which
and would post their answers in the discus- students read material, watch video lectures from
sion board (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004). home, and then engage in active learning activities
Similarly, instead of a Bingo card, a class- such as case studies, labs, games, simulations,
mate quiz can be created based upon stu- or experiments during face-to-face classroom
dent introductions. instructional sessions (Herreid & Schiller, 2013).
69

Recent notoriety of the flipped learning implemented open source resources, and flipped
instructional approach emerged as a result of the math classrooms. The results showed that
Bergmann and Sams (2012), Colorado high school teachers acknowledged greater student engage-
chemistry teachers, who were struggling with ment and 73.8% of the student population taking
student absences due to extracurricular activities. the state exam passed the assessment. This passing
The teachers found excessive time was spent on rate more than doubled from the previous three-
reteaching concepts to the students who missed year performance rates. Additionally, ACT com-
face-to-face class time. After conducting some posite scores indicated an improvement to 24.5.
research, the teachers pursued recording lessons in Equally important was that 86.6% of the seniors
media formats such as PowerPoint and video, and enrolled in and completed more math credits than
making them available on the Internet as a form of in previous years.
homework. Then, the face-to-face classroom ac- In a study by Strayer (2012), a classroom envi-
tivities focused on the more traditional homework ronment survey assessed student perceptions of a
aspects of practicing the learning concepts, but in flipped introductory statistics course in a United
a hands-on, interactive approach facilitated by the States university. The areas of personalization,
instructor. Bermann and Sams (2012) found that student cohesion, innovation, cooperation, task
not only did students who were absent view the orientation, equity, and individualization were
videos, but also students regularly attending class examined to determine whether the flipped
viewed the recordings to assist with reinforcement classroom instructional approach was perceived
of the face-to-face lessons. Tucker (2012) noted the as effective. When the survey results were com-
implementation of engaging, interactive activities, pared with students from a traditional course, the
using the flipped model, produced unexpected data indicated the college students preferred the
student reactions. cooperation and innovation aspects of the flip
Although research studies regarding the ef- classroom, but there was no evidence of other
fectiveness of flipped learning are limited, four preferences.
researchers noted some positive effects of the In another university setting, Ferreri and
flipped classroom model when examining achieve- O’Connor (2013) conducted a pilot study regarding
ment and motivation (Alvarez, 2012; Butt, 2014; the redesign of a self-care course which changed
Ferrei & O’Connor, 2013; Fulton, 2012; Strayer, from a content-delivery methodology to a small-
2012). Alvarez (2012) and Green (2012) reported group format to enable better practice working in
a reduction in high school freshmen failures in teams to apply information to a patient self-care
core content areas at Clintondale High School scenario. The results showed students preferred
in Michigan a year after the flipped classroom working in teams and the academic grades sig-
model was implemented. In fact, both authors nificantly improved. Consequently, the course was
documented a reduction in English failures from redesigned to accommodate the student prefer-
52% to 19%; a drop in the number of math failures ences of a flipped instructional model.
from 44% to 13%; a decline in science failures According to Finkel (2012), the flipped learn-
41% from 19%; and less than 10% failure rate in ing approach to instruction permitted the teacher to
social studies from approximately one-third in guide in-depth discussions and offers opportunities
the previous year. for students to seek clarity of concepts. With the
In yet another case study implementation at initial instructional time being replaced by video
Byron High School in Minnesota, Fulton (2012) and other media resources, it allowed additional
observed that after facing a financial crisis in time for instructors to develop and implement
2009, the math department wrote a curriculum, active learning activities better supporting the
70

application of learning concepts (Berrett 2012; Flipped Learning Examples

Findlay-Tompson & Mombourquette, 2014).
Hamdan et al. (2013) noted inversed instruction • Present introductory video podcasts the
enabled educators to better informally assess stu- night before the class engages in a case
dent synthesis of material through the application study, active learning assessment in a face-
of concepts and ensure greater levels of under- to-face setting (Herreid & Shiller, 2013).
standing. This process of using active learning • Watch video lectures accessible from home
assessments supported the work of constructivist and participate in problem-solving scenari-
pedagogy where students are challenged to explore os in the classroom (Ruddick, 2012).
concepts in greater depth based upon their personal • Share content related video clips avail-
level of development (Vygotsky, 1978). able online from home and interact with
The literature clearly denoted a number of colleagues in experimentation (Berman &
beliefs and interpretations of what the flipped Sams, 2012; Herreid & Shiller, 2013)
learning components should include (Baker, • View videos from home, engage in ques-
2000; Bergmann & Sams 2012; Butt, 2014; tion and answer sessions, and learn new
Hamdan et al., 2013). However, Hamdan et al. content in the traditional learning class-
(2013) narrowed the focus to identify four key room on an as needed basis (Simkins,
pillars that permitted flipped learning, using ac- Maier, & Rhem, 2009).
tive learning assessments, to be implemented in • Examine videos from home as a prepa-
effective ways: “Flexible Learning Environment, ratory scene setting the stage to solve a
Learning Culture, Intentional Content, and Pro- problem during traditional instruction
fessional Educator” (p. 5). The model detailed (Brickman, 2006).
that traditional face-to-face classrooms should
be flexible to permit rearrangement of space to
provide engaging experiences through group CONCLUSION AND
work or independent study, thus maximizing the RECOMMENDATIONS
learning prospects in a blended learning approach.
Furthermore, the deliberate cultural learning shift The objective of this chapter was to provide fac-
to using online resources, active learning assess- ulty with alternative active learning strategies to
ments, and student-centered pedagogies offered potentially advance their personal skill sets and
greater opportunities for students to experience to embrace learner-centered instruction with
quality learning in personalized zones of proximal use of technology tools for online and blended
development (Vygotsky, 1978). This personalized environments. Indeed, much has been written
learning required highly trained educators in the about passive and active learning since Piaget’s
implementation of flipped learning strategies. (1972) theory of Cognitive Constructivism and
These trained educators constantly evaluated Vygotsky’s (1978) Social Constructivist Theory
student needs based upon performance on vari- provided the foundation for a broad constructiv-
ous, active engagement assessments, and made ist learning theory, also called constructivism.
intentional adjustments to the content, skills, and Furthermore, the literature clearly supported
concepts as needed to meet individual student a number of engaging learning strategies and
needs (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; EDUCAUSE, methods embracing the foundational constructivist
2012; Hamden et al., 2013; Herried & Schiller, assumptions outlined by Smith and Ragan (1999):
2013). “Knowledge is constructed from experience;
71

Learning results from a personal interpretation of Ajjan, A., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating
knowledge; Learning is an active process in which faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies:
meaning is developed on the basis of experience; Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and
Learning is collaborative with meaning negotiated Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. doi:10.1016/j.
from multiple perspectives” (p. 5). Accordingly, iheduc.2008.05.002
each of the active learning strategies and ap-
Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games,
proaches discussed in this chapter were built on
simulations, and virtual worlds. San Francisco,
constructivist principles where learning supports
CA: Jossey-Bass.
the work of constructivist pedagogy and students
are challenged to explore concepts in greater depth Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia
based upon their personal level of development for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.).
(Vygotsky, 1978). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Specifically, educators should expand the
Alvarez, B. (2012). Flipping the classroom:
implementation of active and collaborative learn-
Homework in class, lessons at home. Education
ing processes guiding the development of course
Digest, 77(8), 18–21.
content and contextual meaning as they have been
found to improve higher order thinking skills and Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.).
encourage shared exploration in the use of tech- (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions
nology tools, resources, and content (Brindley, in computer-supported collaborative learning
Walti, & Blaschke, 2009; Jonassen, Davidson, environments. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995; Simiens, 2002). doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7
Because a growing body of evidence indicated
Baker, E., Pearson, P., & Rozendal, M. (2010).
that inductive teaching and learning methods such
Theoretical perspectives and literacy studies:
as simulations, role playing, problem or project-
An exploration of roles and insights. In E. Baker
based, and case-based learning increased learn-
(Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives
ing gains more than traditional lecture methods
on research and practice (pp. 1–22). New York:
(Hovancsek, 2007; Prensky, 2007; Prince, 2004),
The Guilford Press.
educators should take steps to incorporate these
strategies and approaches into online and blended Baker, J. W. (2000, April). The classroom flip:
learning environments. More than ever, in both Using web course management tools to become
K-12 and higher education, constructivist teaching the guide by the side. Paper presented at the 11th
methods and active learning strategies are utilized International Conference on College Teaching
to better prepare digital age students. and Learning. Jacksonville, FL.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008).
Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of
REFERENCES
research on inquiry-based and cooperative learn-
Abernathy, K., Mason, D., Abshire, S., Cummings, ing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
C., Borel, D., Mixon, J., & Stephens, L. (2011). Beach, R., Anson, C., Breuch, L., & Swiss, T.
Taking K-12 to the cloud: Building an online (2008). Teaching writing using blogs, wikis, and
masters program. National Social Science Tech- other digital tools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-
nology Journal, 1(4). Retrieved from http://www. Gordon.
nssa.us/tech_journal/volume_1-4/vol1-4_toc.htm
72

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999).
classroom: Reach every student in every class Peer learning and assessment. Assessment &
every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426.
Technology in Education. doi:10.1080/0260293990240405
Berrett, D. (2012, February). How flipping the Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sher-
classroom can improve the traditional lecture. wood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction:
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosiadou,
http://chronicle.com/article/How-Flipping-the- & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical
Classroom/130857/ reasoning. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511529863.022
Bhattacharya, M., & Dron, J. (2009, July). Cul-
tivating the web 2.0 jungle. Paper presented at Brickman, P. (2006). The case of the Druid
the Seventh IEEE international conference on Dracula. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Case
advanced learning technologies. Niigata, Japan. Study Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo.
Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2007). Reconsidering Brindley, J., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. (2009).
simulations in science education at a distance: Creating effective collaborative learning groups
Features of effective use. Journal of Computer in an online environment. International Review of
Assisted Learning, 23(6), 491–502. doi:10.1111/ Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).
j.1365-2729.2007.00239.x Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/
irrodl/article/view/675/1271
Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., &
Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational Brown, J., Hinze, S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2008).
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Technology and formative assessment. In T. Good
New York: David McKay. (Ed.), 21st century education. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bluestone, C. (2000). Feature films as a teach-
ing tool. College Teaching, 48(4), 141–146. Butler, M. B., Lee, S., & Tippins, D. (2006,
doi:10.1080/87567550009595832 Spring). Case-based methodology as an in-
structional strategy for understanding diversity:
Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathemat-
Preservice teachers’ perceptions. Multicultural
ics: Teaching styles, sex and settings. Buckingham,
Education, 13(3), 20–26.
UK: Open University Press.
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of
Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. M. (1999). Faculty
a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from
guide for moving teaching and learning to the
Australia. Business Education and Accreditation,
web. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation
6(1), 33–43.
in the Community College.
Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to
Bos, N., & Shami, N. S. (2006). Adapting a face-
learning in science and their implications for sci-
to-face role playing simulation for online play. Edu-
ence pedagogy: A literature review. International
cational Technology Research and Development,
Journal of Environmental and Science Education,
54(5), 493–521. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-0130-z
3(4), 193–206.
73

Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center. (n.d.). Design Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engag-
and teach a course: Case studies. Retrieved from ing the online learner: Activities and resources
http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/ for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA:
instructionalstrategies/casestudies.html Jossey-Bass.
Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer as- Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key
sessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First
feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Monday, 13(6), 1–30. doi:10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125
Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551–564.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San
doi:10.1080/02602931003632381
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chang, M. T. (1997). The use of business gam-
Davis, C. (2013). Flipped or inverted learning:
ing in Hong Kong academic institutions. In J.
Strategies for course design. Smyth, E. G., Volker
Butler, & N. Leonard (Eds.), Developments in
J. X., (Eds.), Enhancing instruction with visual
business simulation and experiential exercises
media: Utilizing video and lecture capture (pp.
(pp. 218–220). Statesboro, GA: Georgia Southern
241-261). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
University Press.
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. (1998).
Chen, Y. L., Liu, E. Z. F., Shih, R. C., Wu, C.
Scientific discovery learning with computer
T., & Yuan, S. M. (2011). Use of peer feed-
simulations of conceptual domains. Review
back to enhance elementary students’ writing
of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
through blogging. British Journal of Educational
doi:10.3102/00346543068002179
Technology, 42(1), E1–E4. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2010.01139.x De Wever, B., Shellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke,
M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing
groups by introducing roles: Do students act in
dialogic argumentation in online environments to
line with assigned roles? Small Group Research,
relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality.
39(6), 770–794. doi:10.1177/1046496408323227
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3),
293–321. doi:10.1002/tea.20216 Edmonson, S. (2002). Effective internships for
effective new administrators. Paper presented
Cobanoglu, C., & Berezina, K. (2011). The impact
at the Annual meeting of the National Council
of the use of blogs on students’ assignment engage-
of Professors of Educational Administration.
ment. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and
Burlington, VT.
Tourism Education, 10(1), 99–105. doi:10.3794/
johlste.101.282 EDUCAUSE. (2012, February). Things you should
know about flipped classrooms. EDUCAUSE
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations:
Learning Initiative. Retrieved from http://net.
Building collaborative understanding through
educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7081.pdf
immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500. doi:10.1207/ Eison, J. (2010, March). Using active learning
S15327809JLS0904_4 instructional strategies to create excitement and
enhance learning. Retrieved from http://www.
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and
cte.cornell.edu/documents/presentations/Eisen-
processes in higher education: Quality perspec-
Handout.pdf
tives. Educational Media International, 45(2),
93–106. doi:10.1080/09523980802107179
74

Errington, E. (2005). Creating learning scenarios. Gilbert, P., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to struc-
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Cool Books. ture online discussions for meaningful discourse:
A case study. British Journal of Educational
Faria, A., & Wellington, W. (2004). A survey of
Technology, 36(1), 5–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
simulation game users, former users and never
8535.2005.00434.x
users. Simulation & Gaming, 29(3), 178–207.
doi:10.1177/1046878104263543 Golich, V., Boyer, M., Franko, P., & Lamy, S.
(2000). The ABCs of case teaching: Pew case
Feinstein, A. H. (2001). An assessment of the
studies in international affairs. Institute for the
effectiveness of simulation as an instructional
Study of Diplomacy. Retrieved from http://www.
system. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Re-
usc.edu/programs/cet/private/pdfs/abcs.pdf
search (Washington, D.C.), 25(4), 421–443.
doi:10.1177/109634800102500405 Gopez-Sindac, R. (2004). Going the distance at the
click of a mouse. Church Executive, 3(11), 47–49.
Ferreri, S. P., & O’Connor, S. K. (2013). Redesign
of a large lecture course into a small-group learn- Green, G. (2012, July). The flipped classroom
ing course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical and school approach: Clintondale high school.
Education, 77(1), 1–9. doi:10.5688/ajpe77113 Paper presented at the annual Building Learning
PMID:23460753 Communities Education Conference. Boston, MA.
Retrieved from http://2012.blcconference.com/
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P.
documents/flipped-classroom-school-approach.
(2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an
pdf
undergraduate business course. Business Educa-
tion and Accreditation, 6(1), 63–71. Gueldenzoph, L. E., & May, G. L. (2002).
Collaborative peer evaluation: Best prac-
Finkel, E. (2012, November). Flipping the script
tices for group member assessments. Busi-
in K12. District Administration, 48(10), 28–30,
ness Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 9–20.
32, 34. Retrieved from www.districtadministra-
doi:10.1177/108056990206500102
tion.com/article/flippingscript-k12
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K.,
Flew, T. (2008). New media: An introduction (3rd
& Artfstrom, K. M. (2013). A review of flipped
ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
learning. Flipped Learning Network. Retrieved
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: from http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/
Flip your classroom to improve student learning. VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/LitRev-
Learning and Leading with Technology, 39(8), iew_FlippedLearning.pdf
12–17.
Hanlon, B. (2008). Considering a simulation?
Fulton, K., & Riel, M. (1999). Professional devel- Benefits + tips to guide enhanced experiential
opment through learning communities. Edutopia, learning. In Proceedings of the Marketing Man-
6(2), 8–10. agement Association, (pp. 90-91). Retrieved from
http://www.mmaglobal.org/publications/Proceed-
Gibson, K., & Shaw, C. A. (2010). Assessment
ingsArchive/2008_FALL_MMA.pdf
of active learning. In R. A. Denmark (Ed.), The
international studies encyclopedia. Blackwell
Publishing.
75

Hanover Research Council. (2009). Best practices Jeffries, P. R., & Rogers, K. J. (2007). Evaluating
in online teaching strategies. Retrieved from simulations. In P. R. Jeffries (Ed.), Simulation in
http://www.uwec.edu/AcadAff/resources/edtech/ nursing education: From conceptualization to
upload/Best-Practices-in-Online-Teaching-Strat- evaluation (pp. 87–103). New York, NY: National
egies-Membership.pdf League for Nursing.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A.
analysis of online discussion in an applied educa- (1998). Active learning: Cooperative learning in
tional psychology course. Instructional Science, the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction
28(2), 115–152. doi:10.1023/A:1003764722829 Book Company.
Herreid, C. F. (2005). Using case studies to teach Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Camp-
science. Washington, DC: American Institute of bell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and
Biological Sciences. computer mediated communication in distance ed-
ucation. American Journal of Distance Education,
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case stud-
9(2), 7–25. doi:10.1080/08923649509526885
ies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve prob-
lems. A handbook for designing problem-solving
Hill, C. (2010). Peer editing: A comprehensive
learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
pedagogical approach to maximize assessment
opportunities, integrate collaborative learning, and Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The
achieve desired outcomes. Nevada Law Journal, impact of constructivism on education: Lan-
11(3), 667-717. Retrieved from http://scholars. guage, discourse, and meaning. American Com-
law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol11/iss3/4/ munication Journal, 5(3). Retrieved from http://
ac-journal.org/journal/vol5/iss3/special/jones.pdf
Hou, H. T. (2012). Analyzing the learning pro-
cess of an online role-playing discussion activity. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011).
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, The effect of Twitter on college student engage-
15(1), 211–222. ment and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 27(2), 119–132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007).
2729.2010.00387.x
An analysis of peer assessment online discussions
within a course that uses project-based learn- Keys, J., & Biggs, W. (1990). A review of business
ing. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3), games. In J. W. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business
237–251. doi:10.1080/10494820701206974 gaming and experiential learning (pp. 48–73).
East Brunswick, NJ: Nichols/GP.
Hovancsek, M. T. (2007). Using simulations in
nursing education. In P. R. Jeffries (Ed.), Simula- Kleinman, S. (2003). Women in science and en-
tion in nursing education: From conceptualization gineering building community online. Journal of
to evaluation (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: National Women and Minorities in Science and Engineer-
League for Nursing. ing, 9(1), 73–88. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinor-
ScienEng.v9.i1.50
76

Kleinman, S. (2005). Strategies for encouraging Mason, D., Abernathy, K., Abshire, S., Cummings,
active learning, interaction, and academic integrity C., & Liu, X. (2012). Evaluation of an online
in online course. Communication Teacher, 19(1), technology leadership master’s program. In J.
13–18. doi:10.1080/1740462042000339212 Tareilo, & B. Bizzell (Eds.), NCPEA handbook
of virtual/online instruction and programs in
Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching
educational leadership (pp. 183–207). Ypsilanti,
complex dynamic systems to young student with
MI: NCPEA Press.
StarLogo. Journal of Computers in Mathematics
and Science Teaching, 24(2), 157–178. Retrieved Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A users
from http://dl.aace.org/16982 manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kopriva, R., Gabel, D., & Bauman, J. (2009). Mazur, E. (2013). Peer Instruction website. Re-
Building comparable computer-based science trieved from http://www.peerinstruction.net
items for English Learners: Results and insights
McKeachie, W. (1986). Teaching tips. Lexington,
from the ONPAR project. Paper presented at the
MA: Health & Co.
National Conference on Student Assessment
(NCSA). Los Angeles, CA. McKenna, L., & French, J. (2010). A step
ahead: Teaching undergraduate students to be
Krain, M., & Shadle, C. J. (2006). Starving for
peer teachers. Nurse Education in Practice. doi:
knowledge: An active learning approach to teach-
doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2010.10.003 PMID:21051284
ing about world hunger. International Studies
Perspectives, 7(1), 51–66. doi:10.1111/j.1528- McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The
3577.2006.00230.x three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society:
Personalization, participation, and productivity.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2010, Septem-
International Journal of Teaching and Learning
ber). Seven essentials for project-based learning.
in Higher Education, 20(1), 10–27.
Educational Leadership, 68(1), 34-37. Retrieved
from http://ascd.org/publications/educational- Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo,
leadership/sept10/vol68/num01/toc.aspx Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based
instruction: A comparative study of instructional
Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M., & Abbey,
methods and student characteristics. The Interdis-
C. (2006). Simulations and games: Use and
ciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,
barriers in higher education. Active Learn-
1(2), 49–69. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1026
ing in Higher Education, 7(3), 227–242.
doi:10.1177/1469787406069056 Merseth, K. K. (1991). The early history of case-
based instruction: Insights for teacher education
Lee, E. (2011). Facilitating student-generated
today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4),
content using Web 2.0 technologies. Educational
243–249. doi:10.1177/002248719104200402
Technology, 51(4), 36–40.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Quality in distance educa-
Lunce, L. (2004). Computer simulations in
tion: Focus on on-line education. ASHE-ERIC
distance education. International Journal of In-
Higher Education Report, 29(4).
structional Technology and Distance Learning,
1(10), 29–40. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/
journal/oct_04/index.htm
77

Michel, N., Cater, J., & Várela, J. (2009). Ac- National Research Council. (2011). Learning sci-
tive versus passive teaching styles: An empirical ence through computer games and simulations.
study of student learning outcomes. Human Re- Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
source Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397–418. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.20025 php?record_id=13078
Michelson, J., & Manning, L. (2008). Compe- Neuman, L. H., Pardue, K. T., Grady, J. L., Grady,
tency assessment in simulation-based procedural M. T., Hobbins, B., Edelstein, J., & Herrman, J.
education. American Journal of Surgery, 196(4), W. (2009). What is an innovative teaching assign-
609–615. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.09.050 ment strategy need to nursing students? Nursing
PMID:18614142 Education Research, 30(3), 159–163.
Mills, B. (2007). The next wave now: Web 2.0. New Media Consortium. (2009). Challenge-based
Education Digest, 73(4), 4–5. learning: An approach for our time. Stanford,
CA: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved
Mislevy, R. J. (2011). Evidence-centered design for
from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/Challenge-Based-
simulation-based assessment (CRESST Research
Learning.pdf
Report No. 800). Los Angeles, CA: National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, New Media Consortium & EDUCAUSE. (2007).
Student Testing (CRESST), Center for Studies The horizon report. Stanford, CA: The New Media
in Education, UCLA. Retrieved from http://www. Consortium.
cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R800.pdf
O’Neal, C. (2007, January 11). How online
Mislevy, R. J. (2013). Evidence-centered de- simulations work in the classroom. Edutopia.
sign for simulation-based assessment. [Supple- Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/online-
mental Material]. Military Medicine, 178(10), simulations-classroom
107–114. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00213
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learn-
PMID:24084311
ing communities in cyberspace. San Francisco,
Moizer, J., Lean, J., Towler, M., & Abbey, C. CA: Jossey-Bass.
(2009). Simulations and games: Overcoming the
Park, S. (2013). The potential of Web 2.0 tools
barriers to their use in higher education. Active
to promote reading engagement in a general
Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 207–224.
education course. Techtrends: Linking Research
doi:10.1177/1469787409343188
& Practice To Improve Learning, 57(2), 46–53.
Morse, C. J. (2012). Debriefing after simulated doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0645-1
patient experiences. In L. Wilson, & L. Rockstraw
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a
(Eds.), Human simulation for nursing and health
teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowl-
professions (pp. 58–68). New York, NY: Springer.
edge and Learning Objectives, 3, 57-72. Retrieved
Moss, B. (2000). The use of large-group from http://ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p057-
role-play techniques in social work educa- 072Parker284.pdf
tion. Social Work Education, 19(5), 471–483.
doi:10.1080/026154700435995
78

Parker, W., Mosberg, S., Bransford, J., Vye, N., Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning
Wilderson, J., & Abbott, R. (2011). Rethinking work: A review of the research. Journal of
advanced high school coursework: Tackling the Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
depth/breadth tension in the AP U.S. Govern- doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
ment and Politics course. Journal of Curriculum
Project Tomorrow and PASCO Scientific. (2008).
Studies, 43(4), 533–559. doi:10.1080/00220272
Inspiring the next generation of innovators:
.2011.584561
Students, parents, and teachers speak up about
Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathemat- science education. Irvine, CA: Author. Available
ics. (2005). Georgia students rank parents as pri- at http://www.tomorrow.org/SpeakUp/pdfs/In-
mary influencers in student success. Available at spiring_the_next_generation_of_innovators.pdf
http://www.gaprism.org/media/news/112905.pdf
Quellmalz, E., & Pellegrino, J. (2009). Technol-
Penningroth, S., Despain, L., & Gray, M. (2007). A ogy and testing. Science, 323, 75–79. Retrieved
course designed to improve psychological critical from www.sciencemag.org doi:10.1126/sci-
thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 153–157. ence.1168046 PMID:19119222
doi:10.1080/00986280701498509
Ridley, R. (2007). Interactive teaching: A concept
Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2000). Designing analysis. The Journal of Nursing Education, 46(5),
a performance assessment to measure students’ 203–209. PMID:17547343
communication skills in multi-media-supported,
Rinaldo, S. B., Tapp, S., & Laverie, D. A. (2011).
project-based learning. Paper presented at the
Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a peda-
Annual meeting of the American Educational
gogical tool. Journal of Marketing Education,
Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
33(2), 193–203. doi:10.1177/0273475311410852
Piaget, J. (1972). To understand is to invent. New
Roblyer, M. D., & Ekhaml, L. (2000). How in-
York, NY: Viking Press.
teractive are YOUR distance courses? A rubric
Poling, D. A., & Hupp, J. M. (2009). Active for assessing interaction in distance learning.
learning through role playing. College Teaching, Online Journal of Distance Learning Adminis-
57(4), 221–226. tration, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.
edu/~distance/roblyer32.html
Popovich, C. (2012). Techtrekers website. Re-
trieved from http://www.techtrekers.com Rovai, A. P., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Sense of
community: A comparison of students attending
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digi-
Christian and secular universities in traditional and
tal immigrants Part 1. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
distance education programs. Christian Scholar’s
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Review, 33(4), 471–489.
Prensky, M. (2007, March 9). Simulation nation:
Ruben, B. (1999). Simulations, games, and
The promise of virtual learning activities. Edu-
experience based learning: The quest for
topia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/
a new paradigm for teaching and learn-
computer-simulations-virtual-learning
ing. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498–505.
doi:10.1177/104687819903000409
79

Ruddick, K. W. (2012). Improving chemical edu- Siemens, G. (2002). Interaction: E-learning

cation form high school to college using a more course. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/
hands-on approach. (Unpublished doctoral dis- Articles/Interaction.htm
sertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Simkins, S., Maier, M., & Rhem, J. (2009). Just-in-
Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Raemer, D. B., & time teaching: Across the disciplines, and across
Eppich, W. J. (2008). Debriefing as a forma- the academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
tive assessment: Closing performance gaps in
Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in
medical education. Academic Emergency Medi-
e-learning: Making the invisible visible. Inter-
cine, 15(11), 1010–1016. doi:10.1111/j.1553-
national Journal of Teaching and Learning in
2712.2008.00248.x PMID:18945231
Higher Education, 21(2), 197–209.
Russell, C., & Shepherd, J. (2010). Online
Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2007). Com-
role-play for higher education. British Journal
puter support of effective peer assessment in an
of Educational Technology, 41(6), 992–1002.
undergraduate programming class. Journal of
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01048.x
Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 217–231.
Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00255.x
aspects of students’ scientific explanations.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-
doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
tice Hall.
Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-
Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Borreson Caruso, J.
driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epis-
B. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate stu-
temic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science
dents and information technology, 2009 (Research
Education, 88, 345–372. doi:10.1002/sce.10130
Study, Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.
learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisci- educause.edu/ecar
plinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1).
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2010). Web 2.0 how to
doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002
for educators. Eugene, OR: International Society
Shelton, K., Cummings, C., & Mason, D. (2014). for Technology in Education.
Strategies for online course development to pro-
Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective online teaching:
mote student success. In V. Wang (Ed.), Encyclo-
Foundations and strategies for student success.
pedia of education and technology in a changing
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
society. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted
Shelton, K., Saltsman, G., & Bikis, J. (2006, Fall).
classroom influences cooperation, innovation
Can a true faith-based education be offered online.
and task orientation. Learning Environments
Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 11,
Research, 15(2), 171–193. doi:10.1007/s10984-
186–202.
012-9108-4
80

Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. Velez, J., Cano, J., Whittington, M., & Wolf, K.
M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of (2014). Cultivating change through peer teaching.
functional roles on group efficiency: Using mul- Journal of Agriculture Education, 52(1), 40–49.
tilevel modeling and content analysis to investi- doi:10.5032/jae.2011.01040
gate computer-supported collaboration in small
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cam-
groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229.
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
doi:10.1177/1046496403260843
Wakefield, J. S., Warren, S. J., Rankin, M. A.,
Switky, B. (2004). The importance of voting in
Mills, L. A., & Gratch, J. S. (2012). Learning
international organizations: Simulating the case
and teaching as communicative actions: Improv-
of the European Union. International Studies
ing knowledge and cognition through Second
Perspectives, 5(1), 40–49. doi:10.1111/j.1528-
Life avatar role play. Knowledge Management
3577.2004.00153.x
& E-Learning: An International Journal, 4(3),
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinom- 258–278.
ics: How mass collaboration change everything.
Weller, M. (2002). Delivering learning on
New York, NY: Penguin Group.
the Net: The why, what and how of on-
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. line education. London, UK: Kogan Page.
T h e o r y i n to P ra c t i c e, 4 8( 1 ) , 2 0 – 2 7 . doi:10.4324/9780203416969
doi:10.1080/00405840802577569
Whitaker, K. S., King, R., & Vogel, L. R. (2004).
Tucker, B. (2012, Winter). The flipped classroom: School district-university partnerships: Graduate
Online instruction at home frees class time for student perceptions of the strengths and weak-
learning. Education Next. Retrieved from http:// nesses of a reformed leadership development pro-
www.edcationnext.org gram. Planning and Changing, 35(3-4), 209–222.
Ulanoff, S., Fingon, J., & Beltran, D. (2009). Us- Whitmire, E. (1998). Development of critical
ing case studies to assess candidates’ knowledge thinking skills: An analysis of academic library
and skills in a graduate reading program. Teacher experiences and other measures. College & Re-
Education Quarterly, 36(2), 125–142. search Libraries, 59(3), 266–273. doi:10.5860/
crl.59.3.266
Valesky, T. (2012). Interactive case study simu-
lations in educational leadership In J. Tareilo & Wills, S. (2010). Learning design for online role
B. Bizzell (Eds.), NCPEA handbook of virtual/ pay versus simulation. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Kep-
online instruction and programs in educational pell, P. Gerbie, & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum,
leadership. Retrieved from the Connexions Web technology & transformation for an unknown
site: http://cnx.org/content/m41596/1.3/ future. Proceedings ascilite Syndney 2010 (pp.
1088-1090). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.
Van Ments, M. (1983). The effective use of role
au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Wills-poster.pdf
play: A handbook for teachers and trainers. Lon-
don, UK: Kogan Page.
81

Wills, S., Rosser, E., Devonshire, E., Leigh, E., Inverted or Reversed Learning: The manner
Russell, C., & Shepherd, J. (2009). Encouraging in which students read material and watch video
role based online learning environments by build- lectures from home and then engage in active
ing, linking, understanding, extending: The BLUE learning activities such as case studies, labs,
Report 2009. Surrey Hills, Australia: Australian games, simulations, or experiments during face-
Learning and Teaching Council. to-face classroom instructional sessions (Herreid
& Schiller, 2013).
Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based
Peer Teaching: A strategy where students
learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and
interact and learn from one another without initial,
how does it achieve its effects? American Edu-
direct teacher assistance, or intervention (Boud,
cational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157–1186.
Cohen, & Sampson, 1999).
doi:10.3102/0002831211419491
Problem-Based Learning: A learner-centered
Wishart, J. M., Oades, C. E., & Morris, M. approach that encourages students to research,
(2007). Using online role play to each Internet integrate theory with practice and apply knowl-
safety awareness. Computers & Education, 48(3), edge learned to solve a problem (Savery, 2006).
460–473. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.003 Project-Based Learning: (Similar to Prob-
lem-Based Learning) A learner-centered approach
Wolfe, J., & Crookall, D. (1998). Develop-
to teaching and learning that requires students to
ing a scientific knowledge of simulation and
research, solve a problem, and create a presenta-
gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 29(1), 7–19.
tion outcome.
doi:10.1177/1046878198291002
Role Playing: A type of communication and
Yeh, Y. C. (2010). Analyzing online behaviors, teaching method that involves a person imagin-
roles, and learning communities via online dis- ing to be a character in a defined situation (Van
cussions. Journal of Educational Technology & Ments, 1983).
Society, 13(1), 140–151. Scenario-Based Learning: An approach to
teaching and learning that stimulates deep learn-
ing and engagement through participation and
involvement in realistic situations with reflection
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS upon the outcomes and learning (Errington, 2005).
Simulations: Computer or online programs
Case-Based Learning: Case-based learning is
that attempt to replicate an authentic system,
described as self-narrated stories (case study) that
event, or process and where learners interact with
were written and analyzed for classroom purposes.
the simulation (Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Blake &
Flipped Classroom: A teaching method where
Scanlon, 2007; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998;
students watch video lectures and read material
Moizer, Lean, Towler, & Abbey, 2009; Mislevy,
at home; then, during class time, they engage in
2011).
active learning activities such as case studies, labs,
games, simulations, or experiments (Herreid &
Schiller, 2013).
82
83
Chapter 5
Cultivating Community
in Online and Blended
Learning Environments
Tracy W. Smith
Appalachian State University, USA
Emory Maiden III

Appalachian State University, USA
ABSTRACT
The popularity of social media networking sites like Facebook and Twitter demonstrates how communi-
ties can develop and flourish in virtual spaces. How can higher education institutions and instructors
leverage the power of community to enhance student learning without compromising the rigor that is
foundational to the academy? Building on the scholarly literature and their own experiences teaching
and providing faculty development in online and blended learning environments, the authors provide
a rationale for cultivating community in online environments as well as provide descriptive cases of
instructors who have effectively used a learning management system to cultivate vibrant learning com-
munities in online and hybrid courses. They also offer multiple faculty development models for helping
faculty develop a social, teaching, and cognitive presence in online environments.
INTRODUCTION development related to effective online teaching

and learning. Since dropout rates among distance
A Rationale for Cultivating education students are 10-20% higher than those
Community of students in traditional face-to-face courses
(Carr, 2000), one research focus has been related
With an estimated 96% of public and private to identifying and mediating factors that might
colleges and universities now offering online contribute to student success, satisfaction, and
courses (Allen & Seaman, 2006), it is not sur- persistence in online courses. Researchers have
prising that the academic community has seen identified a feeling of isolation as one factor as-
increased research, writing, and professional sociated with higher dropout rates among online
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch005

Cultivating Community in Online and Blended Learning Environments
students (Galusha, 1997; Kubala, 1998; Soles & provide a structured and comfortable classroom
Moller, 2001). Some researchers contend that environment that involves the participation of
psychological distance, or lack of community, everyone in the learning activities (Young, 2006).
in the online learning environment, can result in Oriogun, Ravenscroft, and Cook (2005) and Liu et
student isolation, frustration, boredom, overload, al. (2007) posited that online student collaboration
and low course completion rates (Hara & Kling, provides opportunities for students to realize their
2000; Northrup, 2002; Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, potential through meaningful engagement, which
2005). On the other hand, Ascough (2007), Cho, may ultimately increase student persistence rates
Gay, Davidson, and Ingraffea (2007), as well as in education. Teaching strategies that promote
Pate, Smaldino, Mayall, and Luetkehans (2009) classroom community with free and open com-
found that creating online social communities munication facilitate the personal engagement of
creates an encouraging environment of shared students, which in turn may enhance the quality
activities that results in deeper learning, higher of student learning (Meyers, 2008).
final course grades, and successful online courses. Mandemach (2009) proposed that student
Functioning in a community can enhance learn- engagement depends primarily on a number of
ing, improve academic success, and contribute factors, including an instructor’s personal connec-
to persistence in higher education (Hargis, 2005; tion with students and their creation of an active
Kember, 1987; Powers & Mitchell, 1997; Shea, online environment. Mandemach, Gonzalez, and
Li, & Pickett, 2006). Yuen (2003) asserts that a Garrett (2006) asserted that students’ sense of
learning community can help individual learn- instructor presence is most influenced by teaching
ers “achieve what they cannot on their own” (p. presence, instructor immediacy, and social pres-
155). Most researchers point to the instructor as ence. Teaching presence involves opportunities
the critical player in cultivating a sense of com- for frequent and effective interaction with the
munity in online courses. Rovai et al. (2005) as course instructor. Instructor immediacy refers to
well as Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, and Lee (2007) the behaviors that enhance closeness and interac-
found that instructors who facilitate a sense of tion. O’Sullivan, Hunt, and Lippert (2004) found
community and student engagement significantly instructor immediacy is increased with behaviors
affect student satisfaction and quality of online such as initiating discussions, asking questions,
learning. According to Ascough (2007) and Liu using self-disclosure, addressing students by
et al. (2007), a welcoming teaching and learning name, using inclusive personal pronouns (we,
community is central to online student knowledge us), repeating contacts with students over time,
acquisition, which in turn leads to meaningful responding frequently to students, offering praise,
learning experiences. and communicating attentiveness. They also noted
Online courses create unique environments that that visual cues (e.g., color, graphics, or an instruc-
require instructors’ thoughtful care to help students tor’s picture) signal expressiveness, accessibility,
become engaged in their learning and to design engagement, and politeness. Social presence is the
virtual classrooms that enhance a sense of com- degree to which participants in computer-mediated
munity (Meyers, 2008). According to Berge (2002) communication feel affectively connected to each
and Northrup (2002), when instructors carefully other. In a study examining correlates of online
plan ways for students to interact, students are classroom community and student engagement,
less likely to experience feelings of isolation and Young and Bruce (2011) identified three factors
frustration and can, therefore, focus on achieving that contributed to students’ feelings of community
course learning goals. Students who learn the most and engagement within the course: 1) commu-
from online courses have online instructors who nity building with the instructor, 2) community
84

building with classmates, and 3) engagement reflection, and knowledge construction are integral
with learning. Huss and Eastep (2013) examined to learning, especially online learning. The CoI
students’ perceptions of online learning at a Mid- model has guided our inquiry about best practices
western university. Survey items asked students to in cultivating community in online and hybrid
report on learner-instructor interactions, learner- courses. To understand the CoI framework, it is
content interactions, and learner-learner interac- critical to understand the three core elements of
tions. Overwhelmingly, students rated instructor social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching
presence and interactions as most important to presence. Swan, Garrison, and Richardson (2009)
their satisfaction. In open-ended items about provide a comprehensive description of the CoI
successful and unsuccessful practices in online model, including its theoretical underpinnings and
courses, students’ responses focused on either the core elements. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer
presence or absence of community-related ele- (2001) defined cognitive presence as the extent to
ments as critical to their success and satisfaction. which learners are able to construct and confirm
Specifically, students spoke to the necessity for meaning through sustained personal reflection
clear instructions, timely responses, and instructor and shared discourse. Social presence is the de-
availability. In sum, researchers have committed gree to which participants in computer-mediated
to understanding the community phenomenon in communication feel affectively connected to each
online courses because students’ sense of commu- other. Teaching presence is the instructor’s design,
nity can increase retention, learning, engagement, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social
and overall satisfaction. Overwhelmingly, they processes for the purpose of realizing personally
have found that student satisfaction and learning meaningful and educationally worthwhile learn-
are concomitant to the instructor’s effort, ability, ing outcomes. As mentioned, each core element
and success at cultivating community in the online is complex and multidimensional – and then the
learning environment. three together are interdependent. In a single
A body of work initiated by Randy Garrison activity, online teachers and students can exploit
and his colleagues has informed many of the many aspects of the core elements to cultivate a
studies related to community in online courses sense of community.
(Garrison, 2007; Garrison & Anderson, 2003; In this chapter, we contend that “community”
Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, 2001; Gar- in online and hybrid courses does not happen by
rison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Archer, 2000; chance. Rather, community must be intentionally
Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Garrison & “cultivated” by members of the virtual learning
Vaughan, 2008) . Grounded in the work of John environment. Specifically, like so many of the
Dewey’s progressive conceptualization of edu- researchers cited here, we maintain that instruc-
cation (1933, 1938, 1959), Garrison, Anderson, tors in online and hybrid courses are the chief
and Archer (2000) developed the Community of cultivators of community. In an agricultural
Inquiry (CoI) theoretical model of online learning sense, cultivation connotes hard work, digging,
(See https://coi.athabascau.ca/). CoI, a process stirring, fertilizing, and otherwise working the soil
model of online learning, represents the online to ensure a successful crop. Failure to make the
educational experience as arising from the in- initial investment in time, money, and sweat can
teraction of three presences: social presence, be detrimental to the life of crops, livelihood of
cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Each cultivators, and health of consumers. Similarly, we
of these core elements is multidimensional, and argue that cultivating community in teaching and
the three are interdependent. At the heart of the learning, regardless of environment, is important
CoI framework is the idea that community, critical work. In online and hybrid environments, the
85

tools of cultivation are different from those used university. She uses the LMS to deliver hybrid
in face-to-face courses, but the work is at least as and online graduate courses and focuses her own
intense. We will discuss the three core elements of work and collaboration with colleagues on the
the CoI model, providing examples of methods for importance of community in courses, regardless
promoting each presence type within the course of delivery method. Much of these authors’ work
management system. We will use our preferred has resulted in facilitating experiential profes-
term, learning management system (LMS), to sional development for other faculty developing
refer to the software application used to deliver courses for online and hybrid delivery. In their
course content and provide online activities for collaborations, both have variously served as
students. Moodle is the LMS used in these cases, expert, either with technology tools, curriculum
but the activities and practices described could be design, research methodology, or course content.
used in similar platforms. In this chapter, we will This partnership has yielded exemplars of course
provide descriptions of instances within courses design and professional development as well as
at our university where instructors have worked a model of sustained professional development
to cultivate community using the LMS platform. and co-mentorship.
Following the description of each example, we Recently, we have begun collecting survey data
will provide commentary about how interactions related to students’ perceptions of online experi-
within the course are representative of social, cog- ences at our university. These data are confirming
nitive, and teaching presence in the Community what the literature says about the importance of
of Inquiry framework. In the discussion, we will community and interactivity in online environ-
also provide examples of faculty development ments and is helping us to think about the critical
models that are promising for helping instructors nature of cultivating community within our LMS.
develop their community-building capacity. Our One common theme among the student feed-
goal in developing and sharing these examples back has been related to instructors’ engagement
and interpretations is to stimulate discussion about in the course discussions and responsiveness to
ways communities are created and sustained in student questions. One student, indicating a lack
online course environments. of satisfaction in the course and the sense of
community, stated by way of explanation that the
instructor “often does not respond to student ques-
AUTHORS’ PERSPECTIVES tions at all, and when a response is given, it’s often
AND EXPERIENCE vague and not relevant to the question.” Another
student indicated that she considered dropping out
The authors of this chapter have been working of the program as a result of the lack of instructor
together for approximately two years on course responsiveness stating that the instructor “made
design and research projects related to the college much more difficult for me than it had to
university-sanctioned LMS. Emory Maiden is a be…I am so disappointed.”
university instructional designer who has expe- On the other hand, students often credited the
rience as a student in multiple online graduate feeling of community and the responsiveness of the
courses that have used a variety of technology tools instructor as positive factors. One student stated,
for delivery of course content. In his university “Whether it is a webinar, our virtual coffee shop, or
position, he assists faculty in designing courses weekly forums, the professor has done a great job
and using the Moodle LMS with students. Tracy at having a voice in our conversations.” Another
W. Smith is a veteran faculty member in the area student valued “the instructor’s quick responsive-
of education and curriculum design at the same ness and willingness to help me improve.”
86

Students’ comments focused not only on a one-way News Forum, where instructors can post
instructors’ engagement and responsiveness communication to students. However, students
but also their inclusion of course activities that cannot reply to this forum. If instructors want
encourage ongoing student interaction with class- an interactive forum, they must set up additional
mates. A student reporting positive experiences forums that allow for two-way communication. In
in the course points to the course forums stating, some cases, students have resorted to establish-
“Every week we post to a forum and then have to ing or participating in social media groups (e.g.,
respond to two other posts. This is a great way to Facebook, Twitter) so that they can interact about
engage in virtual conversation with peers.” This course concerns or questions.
student’s characterization of course forums as “a Some students cited synchronous web-
great way to engage in virtual conversation with conferencing as a positive strategy for building
peers” suggests her desire to engage in activities community. One student specified, “Blackboard
that build social presence and connection among (Collaborate) is a great program for active par-
participants in the online course. Students lacking ticipation. I love the raise hand feature, as well
opportunities voiced their concerns that “there as the check or x. These work well for quick for-
was NO participation at all in our course. We mative assessments and keeping the participants
simply read the chapter and did the corresponding engaged with the instructor.” Another student in
exercise. I could have gotten the same information a different course provided similar commentary:
from reading the book on my own.” Since ongo- “The webinars through [B]lackboard were very
ing discussion related to course concerns is an successful. I love the multiple opportunities to
important part of developing group cohesion in get involved in the discussion (raise virtual hand,
a community of learners, lack of opportunities to check mark, x mark, talk, type).” The instructor
interact can amplify students’ feelings of isolation lead web-conferencing session allows students the
and therefore jeopardize students’ sense of social opportunity to connect and interact with both the
presence in the online environment. instructor and peers in real-time. The invitation
Some student respondents, noting the absence to participate in synchronous communication can
of instructor-created opportunities to interact with provide a needed sense of connection and presence
classmates in their online courses, explained that for some students and can even simulate familiar
they had sought other means for communicating experiences and protocols (e.g., raising hands to
with classmates. One student commented, “I speak) they know from face-to-face interactions
do wish there was a common discussion board in physical classrooms. Preliminary analysis of
throughout online courses. An open discussion feedback from students suggests that the courses
board where we could go in as students and ask for with student–to-student interaction opportunities
help and others could respond. There were times received more positive comments related to the
that I did email a few of my classmates when I sense of community than courses lacking similar
had questions on certain assignments. This did opportunities.
form an online friendship for the semester, but I Instructors’ course organization and design
do wish there would have been an open discussion was another factor affecting students’ sense of
topic for questions.” Another student, reporting community in online courses. Anderson, Rourke,
that there were no student-to-student discussion Garrison, and Archer (2001) discussed design and
opportunities within the course, indicated that organization as a dimension of teaching presence.
she had “often emailed students in my courses They grounded their discussion of teaching pres-
directly to ask for help or offer guidance.” By way ence in John Dewey’s notion that teachers must
of explanation, in our LMS, a persistent feature is provide purpose, structure, and leadership in the
87

learning process – and that they must give attention ensure that all learners are present and engaged;
to the organization of the social environment to make course expectations clear and explicit; pro-
maximize students’ learning potential. Similarly, vide details about instructor expertise; and model
students at our university reported a need to feel cognitive processes for learning course content. If
secure in the organization of their virtual classroom the course is not “launched” well, the rest of the
environment. Students who perceived their courses journey is compromised. In their comments and
as structured and organized reported higher levels explanations, students at our university confirmed
of overall satisfaction and learning than those who the importance of instructors’ deliberate attention
felt their course or instructor was not organized. to a successful course beginning and intentional
On the positive side, students affirmed satisfaction design. They valued clarity and organization in
when “course expectations and procedures were course design and communication. Though the
clear” and “The design of the course makes sure LMS provides many tools for discussions and
that we all interact with each other.” One student activities that cultivate community, what seemed
linked the course organization to his dispositional to be more important than the kind of activity
state toward learning: “Organization of the mate- planned (i.e., discussion boards, blogs, and web-
rial is huge in helping me create an optimistic and conferencing) was that instructors were intentional
enthusiastic outlook.” in their planning and course design to provide
Conversely, students reporting dissatisfac- opportunities for interactivity and responsiveness.
tion in the course community point to problems Both the literature and the feedback from stu-
in course organization. When asked about the dents suggest some best practices for designing and
course experience, one student responded, “No leading activities in a course where community is
communication, unorganized. Almost as if the present and sustained within the learning manage-
professor forgot that he has an online course.” ment system. Our questions yielded confirmatory
Courses lacking deliberate attention to the struc- evidence from students that they do value social,
ture and organization dimension of teaching pres- cognitive, and teaching presence in their online
ence seemed to lack the sense of connectedness learning activities.
students desired.
Boettcher and Conrad (2010) describe four
phases of online courses and in their elaborations BEST PRACTICE CASES
describe the learner and faculty behaviors and
experiences for each phase: In our work as faculty development providers, in-
structional designers, and collaborators with others
Phase 1: Course Beginnings – Starting Off on in teaching online and hybrid courses, we have
the Right Foot; access to many courses within our LMS platform.
Phase 2: Early Middle – Keeping the Ball Rolling; At times, others assign us the “teacher role” in their
Phase 3: Late Middle – Letting Go of the Power; classes so that we can observe, collaborate, and/or
and provide feedback. Given this access, we are able
Phase 4: Closing Weeks – Pruning, Reflecting, to witness many exemplary practices and their
and Wrapping Up. results within a variety of courses. Here, we will
describe the practices of three instructors who have
In Phase One, the role of the faculty mentor is done the work of cultivating community within
to establish quick trust; promote social presence; the LMS. These instructors have been active in
get acquainted with learner backgrounds, points pursuing professional development to improve
of learner readiness, and personal learning goals; their online and hybrid teaching. In fact, with a
88

group of about five others, they participated in an a collective representation, or word cloud, of the
experiential learning opportunity, taking a hybrid reflections. In the course block for the following
course about teaching hybrid courses. Each of them week, Dr. McIntire created a webpage directing
developed a hybrid course that was reviewed by students to “Click here, then click the image to
instructional designers as well as a content expert see a Wordle of your Self-Reflection Themes.”
at our university. All three instructors are female She provided an image of the Wordle and this
tenure-track faculty in our College of Education. description: “I used Wordle.net to combine some
We understand that their backgrounds may not by of the most powerful statements from each of your
typical or representative of all higher education self-reflections. It was interesting how the word
faculty; however, more than to provide a repre- ‘students’ came up most often, highlighted by
sentative sample, our goal is to describe multiple other themes like ‘learning’ and ‘need.’ It shows
different best practice approaches for cultivating that all of us had common thoughts about the need
community in online environments. With each for formative assessment and how that is useful
case, enough detail will be provided to give the to our students.”
reader an idea of the tools used by the instructors With this simple activity, Dr. McIntire dem-
as well as the demeanor of the interactions because onstrated both social and teaching presence. By
both are critical to understanding the practices. In creating a summary representation of the indi-
addition, when it is illustrative, we will describe vidual responses, Dr. McIntire helped students
or provide examples of student responses. Finally, feel connected to one another (social presence).
we will provide an interpretation of each case She was cultivating affective expression and group
or practice based on the three types of presence cohesion, two categories of social presence. In
that comprise the three core elements of the CoI addition, she was facilitating discourse, a critical
model: social presence, cognitive presence, and dimension of teaching presence. She also pro-
teaching presence. moted metacognitive awareness by highlighting
Undergraduate educational assessment course. the common themes among students’ responses.
All undergraduate students at our university who In this same course, Dr. McIntire created a
are studying to become teachers take an educa- webpage agenda for each week’s learning ac-
tional assessment course. Students in the course tivities. Frequently, she also provided short video
include education majors from up to 20 different presentations to clarify content or directions for
programs (e.g., birth-kindergarten, elementary, activities. In the videos, Dr. McIntire usually
middle grades, secondary mathematics). In this shared her screen and modeled what students were
course students learn how to develop and articu- expected to do independently or in collaborative
late learning targets for their future K-12 students groups. She showed humanity by making com-
based on grade level and content curriculum. In ments such as “Sorry, my computer is running
an online section of the course, Dr. Jayne McIn- slow” and “Oh, I can tell it’s early. My brain isn’t
tire (instructor pseudonym) had students write a working clearly yet.” Students were able to hear
reflection about the week’s topic, including how the instructor’s voice and even view her desktop.
they think they might use the practice (formative The video viewing increases students’ sense of
assessment) when they become teachers. Dr. Mc- social presence in the course, as it is demonstrated
Intire compiled all the individual reflections into in affective indicators such as humor and self-
a document and then used Wordle.net to create disclosure (Swan, 2003). Furthermore, the weekly
89

webpage agenda provides a consistent design and an instructor can move students to deeper mean-
organization convention that students can expect as ings and an enhanced sense of cognitive presence.
evidence of Dr. McIntire’s presence in the course. In the example provided here, the instructor has
Also, in this course, Dr. McIntire promoted developed a task that enables students to develop
question-asking and collaborative learning with their cognitive presence. However, if the instructor
prompts for discussion forums such as the fol- does not participate actively, students’ miscon-
lowing: ceptions could persist and even extend to others.
Graduate instructional technology course. Dr.
After reading the resources provided for this week Dahlia Goodson (pseudonym), the instructor in a
AND watching the videos about NC accountability graduate instructional technology course, makes
and testing, write 3 questions that you still have her social presence evident as soon as students
about this system along with any reaction you login to her LMS site. On the course “front page,”
might have. Dr. Goodson has included engaging images and
quotations, signifying what is important to her
When responding to your peers, try to answer professionally and inviting inquiry among the
their questions with information you might know. members of the course. For example, she has
included the following quotations that are im-
Here, Dr. McIntire provided clear expectations mediately visible in her course:
with regard to discourse, which Anderson et al.
(2001) have cited as a dimension of teaching pres- What is important is not what the technology
ence. This forum provides an example of an activity can or cannot do, but rather whether or not the
for which the teacher may need to respond to stu- technology serves teaching and learning and the
dents’ responses with direct instruction, correcting complete instructional process. (Paul Saetter, The
any misconceptions that students have, either in Evolution of American Educational Technology,
their initial questions or in their responses to each 1990)
other. Direct instruction is a critical element of
teaching presence and is closely linked to students’ Man is limited not so much by his tools but by
capacity for cognitive presence. If the teacher is his vision…our problem today is that our tools
not active and “present” with this forum, students are there, but our vision is limited. (Pascale and
may ask questions about accountability and test- Athos, The Arts of Japanese Management, 1981)
ing, and other students may offer responses with
inaccurate information. Since students are asking These two quotations may provide what Gar-
questions and revealing what they do not yet know rison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) designate a
or understand, it is important that Dr. McIntire “triggering event” because they stimulate students
monitor and participate in the discussion so that in a shared world of online discourse to consider
cognitive presence can be fostered. Garrison and an issue and then shift to a posture of explora-
Arbaugh (2007) and Akyol and Garrison (2008) tion in order to resolve a perceived dilemma.
warn that students in online discussion forums Here, the Saetter quotation asks readers (Dr.
often remain in an exploration phase of cognitive Goodson’s students) to consider and evaluate
development, sharing and brainstorming informa- the purposes of technology in education, not just
tion without integrating or resolving discrepancies to avail themselves of its functions. The second
regarding new content learning. Meyer (2003), quotation invites students to consider their own
Murphy (2004), and Shea and Bidjermo (2008) vision and the visions of those who lead them.
argue that explicit facilitation and direction from Students may also consider these statements from
90

within their cultural and historical contexts. What interactions with other members of the community
is clear is that the instructor has selected “trigger- and with the course content. The instructor here
ing” content that invites exploration, reflection, also invites connections among community or
and shared discourse in a Community of Inquiry. course participants. The invitations to brainstorm
By including quotations and images on her LMS and share imply connecting students’ private world
homepage, Dr. Goodson reveals some details of reflection and contemplation to the public
about her identity. Right away, students can begin world of discourse (See Practical Inquiry Model,
to make connections to her. Of all the quotations Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). Discourse
she could have chosen, she chose these. Already, is developed as the codified language of a field
curious students can make hypotheses about their of inquiry. In the context of an online course,
teacher and the ideas that will be explored in this much of the interaction is text-based, so written
course. To continue with our cultivation metaphor, language becomes the strongest mediator of devel-
Dr. Goodson has prepared the “soil” and has begun oping discourse leading to deeper understanding
to create an environment where students can learn of course content. Both of Dr. Goodson’s open
and flourish in community. forums provide interactive spaces that promote
Dr. Goodson also uses asynchronous discus- “cohesive indicators,” one of the social presence
sion forums to cultivate community. In addition indicator types examined by Swan (2003). As the
to topic-specific discussion forums, Dr. Goodson course continues, students have a sense that they
creates discussion forums that are not specific to can interact with other members of the course to
a particular assignment or task. In her course, she seek support and ask content-laden questions.
includes an “Ask the Instructor” forum that allows Many instructors in online courses ask mem-
students to ask questions directed at the instruc- bers of the course to introduce themselves in a
tor. She can respond within the forum so that the discussion forum. In one online course at our
communication is open and disseminated to all university, the prompt for the Who Are We discus-
enrolled students. This approach also increases sion forum is this: “Post a short bio of yourself,
instructor efficiency because Dr. Goodson is including info about your life, such as where you
providing information to all students in the course live, pets, work, family, hobbies, interests, favorite
at once rather than replying to multiple, similar book/movie/music, etc. Read postings of class-
emails from students. In addition, the instructor mates and think of one question you would like
has a “Break Room” forum. She describes this to ask a fellow classmate. Post your question. If
forum to students as follows: “This forum is like a question is directed to you, answer it.” Students
the water cooler, break room, or teacher’s room. in online courses have told us that after being
Use this space to post concerns/questions/ideas asked this same type of prompt in each online
related to the course or other issues in technology course, they have set up a file from which they
and education that are on your mind. It may be a can simply copy and paste a standard response.
helpful place for brainstorming and connecting Because the responses become very text-laden,
with each other as well.” It seems noteworthy students have also told us they soon lose interest
that the instructor’s invitation for brainstorm- in reading their classmates’ responses. In her
ing and connecting promote both cognitive and instructional technology course, Dr. Goodson
social presence. “Brainstorming” and “sharing” provides a slight but powerful modification to
are early manifestations of cognitive presence, in the “Who I Am” forum. It is significant that this
which students are forming issues, problems, or instructor is pursuing her own line of inquiry
dilemmas that need resolution. With appropriate asserting the importance of place and space in
facilitation, students can enjoy more advanced online communication. She maintains that it is
91

critically important for students who meet in This class bridges both interests as we discuss
virtual spaces to remember and recognize that both students and teachers (and other profession-
members of their virtual communities are also als).
members of communities in physical places that Dr. Goodson used this activity to address
matter. Her research perhaps raises her awareness the connections students might have to place in
about the importance of cultivating community a virtual learning space. She states, “I feel that
and minimizing transactional distance through people come from particular places, and even
meaningful interactions in virtual spaces. more importantly, they are particular people in
Dr. Goodson’s introduction forum, titled “Who those places. Therefore, though we are teaching
Am I?” asks students to “Post a PowerPoint with 3 and learning in an online learning space, we still
images that represent you with a short paragraph bring our places, and who we are in those places,
describing yourself (NOTE: This could be turned into that space. Having the students post images
into a video, if you wanted to upload one here).” In from those places that show who they are is a way
the instance of the course we observed, Dr. Good- to bridge the place they come from and who they
son had uploaded her slides first, calling the set of are with the space they are in when participating
three slides her PowerPoint Autobiography. Here in the online class. With still images, we can see
is the commentary included with her three slides: who they are in multiple examples of place.” Dr.
Goodson demonstrated all three of the dimensions
Slide 1: This is a picture of me taken a couple of of teaching presence described by Anderson et al.
weeks ago. I’m the “foreman” in the kids’ (2001). By modeling the assignment, including the
construction site at the Children’s Museum. I selection of images, the provision of annotations
included this photo to show you that though for the photos, and the uploading of the slides
we all take our work very seriously in this into the forum, the instructor provided direction
class, we also have other parts of our lives about design and organization. By using images
that bring us lots of joy. This class can have from her personal life to illustrate concepts about
room for both. ☺ media use and representation and inviting students
Slide 2: This is my wonderful family: my partner to do the same, she was initiating and facilitating
Aaron, and the two kids we raise together, discourse. By explaining that simple tools such as
Ella, 5 and Silas, 3. My sister also lives in a whiteboard and markers can be used to create a
town, which is lots and lots of fun, too. media production, she was providing early direct
Slide 3: In my professional life, I study how young instruction about course content and definitions
people use media and what they produce of media. In addition, Dr. Goodson cultivated the
using media tools. This picture represents social presence element of community. Her self-
how our little girl represents herself and her disclosure, sharing of family values, and even use
family using the simple tools of a White- of an emoticon (Tu & McIsaac, 2002) contribute to
board and markers. These types of media the social presence being cultivated in the course.
productions can tell us a lot about kids and In kind, students created PowerPoint slides and
how they learn. commentary characterized by affective indicators
such as self-disclosure, humor, and representation
My past work has been studying how young of values. Specifically, the student PowerPoint
people create movies about their lives in non- postings and images demonstrated their fam-
profits across the United States. Now, I am also ily structures (e.g., adoption, siblings, marital
interested in how teachers use technological tools status, children); secret identities (e.g., World
in their own teaching and their own professional Champion Powerlifter, Cat Lady); passions and
learning. obsessions (e.g., organizing, bringing fine arts to
92

rural communities, family, public service, football, asynchronous interaction in the course. To as-
NASCAR, Broadway plays); favorite quotations; sert her teaching presence, Dr. Sullivan posted
musical talents (e.g., playing saxophone, piano, in the Virtual Coffee Shop every few days. This
and guitar); travel destinations (e.g., Bahamas, section provides dated messages that Dr. Sullivan
Jamaica, Guatemala, European countries); home- posted in the Virtual Coffee Shop, followed by
towns; hobbies (riding motorcycles, hunting, commentary related to the type of presence that
fishing, ice skating, riding horses, playing golf, is illustrated in the text.
doing Zumba, gardening, cooking, and creating
art projects). One student even used this forum Virtual Coffee Shop
to announce her engagement.
In responses to each other, students made Instructor Post from May 9
connections about siblings and children, types of
pets, places traveled, family members serving in I have posted this message in the Virtual Coffee
the military, common undergraduate experiences, Shop forum for our course. This is a virtual sharing
spouses’ careers, musical talents, exercise pas- space for all of us. Unlike the regular news forum,
sions, career joys and challenges, twin siblings, this forum allows students to reply. I encourage
and best professional practices and experiences. you to use this space to post announcements of
Swan (2003) characterizes such connections as in- interest to the group, pleas for help or resources,
teractive indicators that help community members ideas for feedback, etc.
identify and seek acknowledgement, agreement In the orientation section of our course, I have
and disagreement, approval, invitation, and per- posted some videos for you to watch prior to our
sonal advice. Since most experts and researchers meeting next week. I’m no famous movie pro-
agree that social presence is a necessary precursor ducer, but I hope the information provided would
to cognitive presence in online learning (Garrison, be helpful and save us some time in our precious
2007), it is significant that Dr. Goodson is using face-to-face meeting next week. I know most of
social presence and teaching presence to estab- you know each other well, and I know a couple of
lish a foundation for establishing and enhancing you, but I am looking forward to spending some
cognitive presence. time learning together this summer.
Graduate course on educational law and Please send me any questions you have - or I’ll
policy. Dr. Teresa Sullivan taught a summer respond to questions about the syllabus, assign-
session course on Educational Law and Policy. ments, and other items that pertain to everyone
Students met face-to-face about once per week, when we meet next week.
which was just fewer than 50% of the typical seat Commentary: This post illustrates an effort to
time for a summer graduate course. Dr. Sullivan cultivate social presence with language such as
created a Virtual Coffee Shop to allow two-way “sharing space,” “announcements of interest to
communication between her and the students – the group,” “pleas for help,” and the acknowledge-
and to maintain connections between face-to-face ment that “most of you know each other well.”
meetings and online interactions. In this particular Teaching presence is illustrated in Dr. Sullivan’s
group, Dr. Sullivan was an outsider. The students effort to create and post videos for students to
had been taking classes together as a cohort for watch prior to the class meeting. These videos
two semesters before they had this class with Dr. provided an overview of the syllabus and other
Sullivan. The students had already developed a expectations of the course, characteristic of the
social presence in the cohort. Dr. Sullivan used design and organization dimension of teaching
the Virtual Coffee Shop forum as a space for presence (Anderson et al., 2001).
93

Instructor Post from May 13 read each person’s post, though you don’t need to
respond to all of them. The idea is that we will all
Hi, everyone. Thank you to the five of you who learn more as we read those definitions and ideas.
have completed the background questionnaire. I Please be sure to provide a thorough answer to
hope the rest of you might find time to do that your own question for Part II. We are involved this
soon. It is helping me to know a bit about your weekend in a 25th Anniversary Celebration of our
background and current positions as I finalize plans daughters’ school as well as a church community
for the course. Also, as a reminder, [the LMS] will service project all day tomorrow. I didn’t want you
be down for a while tomorrow, so if you try to to worry if you didn’t hear from me until Monday.
login and have problems, please be patient. I’ve I’ll be reading your posts more thoroughly then,
been promised all will be ready (or our tech folks and I’m looking forward to it.
will create a Plan B) for our meeting tomorrow I hope Thursday’s class went well and that you
evening. I’d love for you to update your [LMS] are working out the details of your internship. You
profile with a photo so that I can learn your faces guys are on the home stretch now! How exciting.
and names more quickly. See you tomorrow! I’m happy to be spending some time with you at
Commentary: This post implies that Dr. Sul- the end of your journey.
livan had created a questionnaire for students Commentary: Dr. Sullivan commented on the
to complete prior to the first class meeting. She weather in her physical location, thereby affirming
acknowledged those who had completed the task that she is a real person in a computer-mediated
(interactive indicator of social presence, Swan, environment. She exists in a physical place. She
2003) and provided information about how she let students know that she was reading their work
would use the information to plan the course, but then self-disclosed a detail about her weekend
suggesting that she would consider their authentic (social presence). She affirmed students’ power
contexts and problems to promote higher levels of to affect change in the places they live and work
cognitive presence. She gave students advanced (real circumstances and cognitive presence). She
warning that the learning management system promoted the idea that, in this forum and this
service would be interrupted, thereby directing course, “We will all learn more as we read those
and clarifying their use of the learning tool. She definitions and ideas.” She let students know
asked students to update their profiles and include when they could expect her to focus on their work
photos and interjected that she wanted to know (teaching presence). Finally, she acknowledged
their names and recognize their faces (social the importance of this course in the context of
presence). their program and expressed her emotional state
(affective indicator, social presence) about their
Instructor Post from May 18 shared journey.
Hi, everyone. Happy Saturday. It’s a rainy day Instructor Post from May 27
here in [university town]. I am seeing that your
posts are beginning to come in. I am glancing at As mentioned in your syllabus and in our course
each one as they show up in my email. They are orientation, I will schedule some Sunday evening
looking great - very informative for our entire synchronous virtual class meetings as needed. I
learning community as we prepare to be movers thought you might need a meeting this week prior
and shakers in our respective policy environments! to our next face-to-face (F2F) meeting, in case
You’ve selected some important terms to define you have some last-minute questions about your
for each other for Part I. I hope you’ll take time to legal memorandum or quiz questions that are due
94

on Tuesday, June 4. In the meantime, feel free to our Cafe Conversation. You will definitely need
email your questions. Also, I have set up a forum doodle paper! Can anyone help me? The University
for sharing drafts of legal memoranda. Please feel doesn’t have that kind of paper, and I can’t even
free to post your work and request feedback. We find a place in [university town] to buy it!
are in this together, right?! Commentary: In this post, Dr. Sullivan made
I will be online fifteen minutes before we a request of the Community of Inquiry. She asks
begin. The link for our session is in this week’s for a resource for an upcoming activity in the
course block. The webinar “room” is open right face-to-face environment. She made a connec-
now if you would like to click on the link to access tion between the virtual and face-to-face learning
the room. It would be great if you can check the environments, a connection Caulfied (2011) sug-
machine you plan to use prior to Friday afternoon gests as critical to successful learning in hybrid
so that I can request technical assistance for you environments. She also called on participants in
if needed. the community to take action, and Dr. Sullivan
Commentary: In this post, Dr. Sullivan re- indicated that within an hour, a student had re-
minded students of the original design of their sponded positively to the request. Dr. Sullivan
course and the opportunity for synchronous virtual aroused students’ curiosity about the upcoming
class meetings. The three dimensions of teaching face-to-face meeting. She mentioned the strategy
presence (Anderson et al., 2001) of design and that would be used, Café Conversation, which has
organization, facilitating discourse, and direct a social presence connotation.
instruction are all exemplified in the opportunity The Virtual Coffee Shop provides a virtual
for the synchronous meeting. Dr. Sullivan gave space for teachers and students to interact – to
students an opportunity to interact synchronously know and be known. This set of posts provides an
online with a platform that allows speaking aloud example of how one instructor used this type of
and text chatting, thereby providing an oppor- discussion forum to promote community among
tunity for public discourse. She also mentioned students.
an assignment that was due soon and offered to Descriptive feedback to strengthen cognitive
provide direct instruction related to the format and and teaching presence. For Dr. Sullivan, an ad-
content needed for the assignment. Dr. Sullivan ditional challenge in this course was to cultivate
mentioned a forum students could use to share her teaching presence and to promote cognitive
drafts and provide feedback. She fostered group presence with content that was viewed as highly
cohesion and social presence when she stated, technical and politicized to this community of
“We are in this together, right?!” She inserted educators. In some ways, the group’s cognitive
teaching presence and support when she offered presence and their interest and engagement around
technical directions and support related to web issues of educational law and policy were bolstered
conferencing. by the politically charged context of pending
educational policy which most of the students saw
Instructor Post from June 4 as threatening to their profession. In subsequent
feedback about the course, all students rated the
For our class next week, I need four sheets of content as highly relevant and highly challenging.
white bulletin board paper. You know how some Assignments in the course asked students to
restaurants (e.g., Macaroni Grille) have paper on write legal memoranda and policy briefs and to
the table for doodling while you wait for your read historical perspectives on educational policy.
meal? That’s what I need. I hope to use the tables Though these were new experiences for every
out front, in the [City] Center lobby, next week for student, these experiences were cautiously em-
95

braced because they provided authentic means for discourse (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001).
participants to examine, critique, and sometimes Dr. Sullivan’s feedback to volunteers was positive
resolve relevant, timely problems they were facing and descriptive. Examples of her comments and
in their schools, districts, and state. In addition, questions, usually highlighted with specific text
at the close of the summer, all of these students from students’ papers are included in column 1
were taking an examination required for their of Table 1. Column 2 provides an explanation of
advanced licensure. A major component of the how the comment or question contributed to the
exam was educational law and policy. Because cognitive presence of the Community of Inquiry
of the context of the course, Dr. Sullivan was within the course.
able to leverage students’ immediate needs for Huss and Eastep (2013) found that, more
knowledge and understanding to stimulate and than cutting-edge technology strategies, students
cultivate cognitive presence. favored descriptive feedback and other simple
Because students were reading new informa- strategies for increasing social presence and
tion and writing in new genres, Dr. Sullivan cre- satisfaction. Dr. Sullivan’s practice of facilitat-
ated open discussion forums for students to share ing the sharing of drafts and feedback within a
drafts of their work. These forums were optional, Community of Inquiry promotes cognitive and
but Dr. Sullivan told students that she would read teaching presence; however, without a sense of
the work of those who volunteered early and then a safe social environment, students would likely
she would post feedback (using the track changes be less willing to share early drafts and consent
feature) back into the forum. Volunteers had to to public feedback. Students in this cohort knew
finish drafts early, and they had to be willing to each other and therefore, this task likely seemed
let others view their work before and after Dr. Sul- an extension of the social presence they already
livan provided feedback. Dr. Sullivan was able to shared. In fact, the open sharing may have made
provide feedback on particular pieces of writing the group feel more cohesive. In a sense, every-
that pushed the entire community forward in their one was getting the same feedback. There was
understanding. She provided comments about less asking the instructor for private feedback on
features of the rubric, drawing students’ attention early drafts. In addition to sharing drafts, students
back to the assignment criteria. In the case of the often asked questions and communicated frustra-
policy brief, for example, Dr. Sullivan provided tion about writing in what seemed like a foreign
feedback on the strength and clarity of the argu- language of law and policy. The presence of the
ment, the authenticity of the issue, the appeal to the teacher was critically important to help students
intended audience, the synthesis of research, the understand assignment expectations, to facilitate
language and writing fundamentals, the presenta- the development of new knowledge and sustained
tion of data, and the visual cues and formatting. discourse, and to provide direct instruction when
In volunteers’ drafts, she could offer language and it was most needed.
precise words to help writers express their ideas.
An analysis of course logs reveals that nearly all
the other students looked at the initial feedback CULTIVATING THE CULTIVATORS
provided to volunteers. In this way, Dr. Sullivan
was able to increase cognitive presence, correct- The cases of these three instructors provide ex-
ing misconceptions early and guiding students amples of the tools and methods for cultivating
toward deeper understandings. All students could community in online environments. Certainly,
benefit from the feedback and could “construct the community goal can be reached using other
and confirm meaning” through early and sustained tools and methods. “Presence” is, in some ways, a
96

Table 1. Relationship between instructor feedback and cognitive and teaching presence
Instructor Comment or Question How this Comment Cultivates Cognitive and Teaching Presence
Good to state your position early, clearly, and directly. Instructor emphasized the importance of a clear position statement in
the policy brief, making the expectation clear for all students.
Rubric criterion: Strength and Clarity of Argument
Can we really link “catch up sleep” to traffic accidents? Instructor encouraged student to think about the language of the policy
I think we might be able to cite a correlation, but stating brief and choosing appropriate words to represent concepts. In this case,
causation is too strong, I think. she used direct instruction to correct a misconception.
Rubric criterion: Language and Writing Fundamentals
Is there data to support this assertion? Dr. Sullivan asked a question to remind writer that data and research are
needed to support assertions.
Rubric criteria: Synthesis of Research, Data Presentation
Are educators your audience? It seems other stakeholders Instructor reminded student that the policy brief needs to meet an
are also interested – and perhaps more so – in this dynamic. authentic need of the audience and to give attention to the needs and
Are you trying to give educators information to advocate to perspective of the audience. In this way, all students’ attention is drawn
state and local school boards and state government officials to the importance of the audience with the policy brief.
mentioned later in the paragraph, or are you writing to those Rubric criterion: Authenticity/Audience
officials?
How was “low performing school” defined? You might want Instructor reminded student that language must be precise, clear, and
to mention that the composite score was used to categorize specific.
schools. It is interesting and terrifying that we are now headed Rubric criterion: Strength and Clarity of Argument
toward using a similar model to categorize teachers!
You are right about condensing this. I feel there are missing Instructor acknowledged that this task is complex and that it requires
details, but perhaps you have chosen the more important judgment on behalf of the writer to determine which details are most
ones. It is a tall order and complex task to condense this important.
information. Rubric criterion: Strength and Clarity of Argument
Very effective graphic. Instructor reinforced that the particular graphic was effective as a
representation of the data.
Rubric criterion: Data Presentation
I like this statement – strong and decisive. Student had written, “If we want our educational systems to improve,
we have to expose the deficiencies and decide on a course of action.”
Instructor reinforced the importance of a clear argument.
Rubric criterion: Strength and Clarity of Argument
See rules for parallel structure Instructor asked student to take responsibility for language and writing
fundamentals but also provided direct instruction about the error.
Rubric criterion: Language and Writing Fundamentals
Quotations must be integrated into your text. They cannot Instructor provided direct instruction about how and why quoted text
stand alone. They are buttresses for your argument; therefore, must be integrated into text.
you must introduce them, and then include them, and then Rubric criteria: Language and Writing Fundamentals and Synthesis of
explain why they are significant. See information about Research
creating a “quotation sandwich,” available at [website
specified].
highly personal enterprise. Therefore, instructors ted to providing quality learning experiences for
should be encouraged to use tools and methods that online students, they must also be committed to
make sense to them individually. Otherwise, the providing quality professional development and
community that is cultivated may feel inauthen- support to instructors of online courses.
tic to both the instructor and students. The three Certainly, there are challenges to cultivating
instructors highlighted here have participated in community in online environments. At times,
collaborative and individual professional develop- faculty resist online instruction. They often
ment and exploration. If universities are commit- experience worry that they will have to make
97

compromises and cut corners in their teaching and in the program to discuss their aims for teaching
in students’ learning. Sometimes, they lack the and their desired outcomes for program gradu-
technical skills to feel confident in their abilities to ates. She also thought it would be important for
facilitate online learning. In addition, instructors, students to experience some common elements
who feel they have successfully built community and expectations across their courses. What was
in traditional face-to-face environments may find it proposed and then implemented was an example
challenging to move into virtual and asynchronous of experiential learning (see Kolb, 1984). Over
spaces. Large enrollment may also impact online the summer, program faculty took a hybrid course
environments and the building of community as about teaching hybrid courses. Only one of the
it is harder to engage a larger class. In a face-to- program faculty had ever taken an online course
face environment, there can be a single focus of before. In the course, they read Jay Caulfield’s
attention and engagement – a demonstration or How to Design and Teach a Hybrid Course (2011).
image or even an interactive discussion or lecture. This text provided common themes and ideas for
These same trusted activities may not facilitate an ongoing discussion that was conducted both
community effectively in an online environment. online and in face-to-face sessions. Later, faculty
Students can also thwart efforts to cultivate members commented that the discussions they had
community. Huss and Eastep (2013) found that in this course were richer than those they had in
nearly 85% of students who take online classes previous weekly face-to-face meetings about the
take them because face-to-faces courses do not “online issue.” In their first online discussion, the
fit their schedules or because online classes program director wrote the following in response
are more convenient. Only 7.7% indicated that to the discussion prompts Learning Technology
they “learn best in an online environment” (p. Services (LTS) consultants provided based on
7). Therefore, students are taking a course in an the Caulfield text (Smith, 2013, question prompts
environment and with methods that may not be are in italics):
their preference. That online learning is not the In what ways can blended learning courses be
preferred learning environment may also suggest considered the “best of both worlds” (i.e., face-
that students enrolled in online courses may not to-face and online)? What could make blended
be proficient in the technologies they will need learning the “worst of both worlds?”
to be most successful.
The research related to cultivating community Although I’ve certainly been skeptical of online
in online environments and the three cases pre- courses at times, I think my skepticism was mostly
sented here could inform university faculty devel- born of fear and, let’s face it, lack of understand-
opment initiatives. Often, faculty development is ing, about the possibilities with online learning.
provided in short workshops, where faculty attend Like the author of the chapter we read, I think I
face-to-face or web-based sessions to learn about a now see blended learning as a transition toward
tool or skill that they can presumably incorporate more online teaching and learning. Though I
into their courses. What seem to make more sense think it is inevitable, I am also excited about
are more holistic and integrated approaches that the possibilities now that I’ve had more time to
connect tool-based faculty development to course investigate them. I am excited about the blend
outcomes and design. of participants that might be possible with more
One very successful initiative at our university online components and less travel. I have also
was to design a summer experience for faculty read that the learning outcomes, particularly
who taught in the same academic program. The the writing and critical thinking are often more
program director felt it was important for faculty advanced in online environments. This has been
98

one of the most fascinating things I’ve read. The am teaching two sections of the same class right
idea (both empirically-studied and student self- now, one face to face and one online. I am tracking
reported) is that in an online environment, when what seems to be the strength of each. The split
the instructor makes all communication public, personality comment you made is so interesting
the students have a greater sense of audience and to me. I taught an all online course to a cohort.
responsibility. In addition, students say they have I swear they did not get know to me at all...nor
more models of good writing. I am really interested I them really. I wonder how this affects course
in these ideas and think they represent the best of evaluations? When you wrote, “they needed to
both worlds. I also like the idea of spending less be doing” something that they could not do from
time on the road myself! The worst of both worlds a distance,” it made me think of how important
might happen if my colleagues, our students, and that is too. I now think there is so much more I can
I don’t feel particularly comfortable in either do with students face to face that I can’t from a
environment because we are trying to negotiate distance. Maybe that will change as I learn more.
something new. I think it will be an adjustment for I’m glad you are kicking this whole thing off for
us to figure out which “special” activities need to us. Partly for selfish reasons (do I really want to
happen F2F and which can best be taught online do this?), but mostly because I think you will be
and done independently. Also, I wonder if, for a able to give us some really good insight and ideas.
while, teaching in both environments requires such (Forum post, May 29, 2012)
different skills that we will feel that we have split
personalities? I am very optimistic about blended These excerpts from the online discussion fo-
learning at this point, but I am looking forward rum are representative of the faculty conversations
to hearing what others think. What am I miss- during this initiative. The online forum provided
ing - besides that fact that blended isn’t going to an opportunity to discuss teaching approaches
yield filled cohorts? (Forum post, May 28, 2012) and apprehensions in a faculty learning commu-
nity. As faculty discussed the ideas in the text as
In response to this initial post, another faculty well as their own concerns, they likely deepened
member wrote the following, which demonstrates their understandings of their own teaching ideals
that all faculty were not thinking about this effort because they were “forced” to articulate them
in the same way or with the same perspective: for an audience of colleagues, all investing in a
common effort. In addition, this set of excerpts
I’m glad you are excited...maybe some of your demonstrates how faculty began to identify simi-
positivity will rub off on me! I am not sure about larities and differences in their teaching approaches
the idea that having a public audience really and specific concerns. Faculty members noted
increases the quality of thought or writing as that in their regular F2F program meetings, they
much as we would like...maybe it did more a few had rarely had these types of discussions about
years ago. Now that kids text all of the time, and the intricacies of their individual teaching. Each
even post constantly on Facebook, etc., I think faculty member had individual challenges to face
that they are not as concerned with quality as in this effort, but they also had support from each
timeliness. From the forum posts I have had in other and the LTS consultants to navigate those
my classes, the quality, thought, and effort still challenges.
varies widely, just as it does in class. I do think During the course, each program faculty mem-
reading posts, though, gives me perhaps more ber designed a course that was to be taught in the
insight into all students’ conceptualization than program. Together, they discussed the courses,
in a face to face class. It is kind of cool because I assignments, evaluation methods, and activities.
99

As a result, the program had a continuity that it development is that the sessions can be recorded
might not have had if each faculty member worked and offered to participants who were unable to
independently. Another important aspect of this attend the live session, but felt they would benefit
experience was that each faculty member also had from the recordings.
one of the two LTS project consultants as a “coach” In the webinar workshop evaluations, par-
while they worked on their courses. They could ticipants noted two main benefits. First, many
ask questions about the tools and course activities faculty members appreciated the opportunity to
that were specific to a particular class. In the end, participate in a webinar and use the related tools.
each faculty member had as a “final assignment” They were able to experience a webinar as students
the development of a course guide and course might experience it before trying to facilitate one
built within the LMS. Also, the relationships in their own online courses. One participant’s com-
formed between program faculty and the LTS unit ments indicated how carefully he paid attention
have been lasting and fruitful. Frequently, these to the facilitator’s skills: The moderator’s “ease
program faculty co-deliver face-to-face or web- of delivery eased some of my anxieties about
based professional development sessions based teaching in BB Collaborate. Great role modeling.
on their course development or course delivery He set a good pace for participants and provided
experiences. What has been powerful and evident frequent opportunities for us to ask questions and
about this faculty development initiative is that try some of the features ourselves. Thank you for
these faculty members and the LTS consultants a great learning opportunity.”
developed and have maintained a Community of A second benefit of webinar faculty develop-
Inquiry characterized by the same core elements ment noted by participants was that it provided
that cultivate community in online environments: more flexibility than a face-to-face workshop.
social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive One participant wrote, “Please keep offering more
presence. Webinars!! It is way more convenient than attend-
In addition to this sustained faculty learning ing in-person sessions!” Some feedback from the
community within a hybrid course, we have begun webinar workshop indicated that participants had
to develop other experiential models of faculty some difficulty with technical aspects of the we-
development. Though we continue to have face- binar (e.g., issues with the browser, Java, internet
to-face workshops and consultations with small connectivity); however, participants also saw these
groups and individual faculty members, we have sessions as a valuable time to engage in using the
also developed online webinar professional devel- tools and troubleshooting potential issues before
opment sessions. These sessions have engaged a leading a webinar session on their own. Some of
community under-represented in the face-to-face the most successful and well-attended webinar
campus offerings. Instructors who have been un- sessions were webinars dedicated to topics not
able to attend time-bound, place-bound workshops directly related to a tool in the LMS. A series
offered on campus have found that the webinars of “Webinar Wednesday” sessions were offered
offered opportunities to connect from afar to re- during the semester, hosted by the Learning
ceive real-time professional development. Regular Technology Services unit but featuring teach-
participants have included adjunct instructors who ing faculty facilitating webinars on developing
live at a distance and faculty who were traveling blogging activities, building community, creating
abroad or had situations that kept them from cam- instructor videos, and discussing implications of
pus. Another advantage to webinar professional online place and space. Here, participants experi-
100

ence a webinar in the context of a broader topic terrific instructor and a quick responder…I look
related to teaching and learning. Several of the forward to using the skills learned and am now
session participants attended multiple webinars interested in more online courses designed to
and voiced their appreciation for an experiential help me be a better professor.” This professor’s
learning opportunity in a web-conference related comment highlights his need for flexibility and
to their own practice and courses. his value of the facilitator’s teaching presence.
Another example of flexible professional An additional benefit of this faculty development
development that we have begun to offer is a format is that participants can stay enrolled in the
fully online, self-paced workshop in the LMS. online course and refer to it later when working
The courses are available for several weeks at a on their own courses: “I really liked having it set
time, allowing participants to interact with the up as an online (work at my own pace) class. I
tools, resources, and activities they choose. In this was able to refer back to the workshop resources
case, participants completed a course designed as I worked on my own classes.” The facilitator’s
to explore the new features in the Moodle LMS teaching presence was important in the design and
after the university upgraded to the newer ver- organization of this faculty development. One
sion. They were able to participate in discussion participant noted, “I like being able to check in
forums, use other communication tools, upload when it was convenient to me, and to retry the
files, complete writing activities, watch video quizzes until I got the answers right. Everything
tutorials, and self-check their progress in quizzes. was laid out well and easy to follow, too.” Faculty
Evaluation feedback suggests participants enjoyed have demonstrated their interest in learning about
the flexibility provided by a self-paced online teaching in the LMS, but now we have been able
course and valued the opportunities to customize to use the LMS to reach faculty in new ways that
their own learning by returning to course topics provide the flexibility they need. Many faculty
and electing the topics they chose to explore. To cannot attend face-to-face sessions on their topics
receive credit for completing the workshop, par- of need and interest because they are scheduled at
ticipants needed to complete 75% of the activities. times that conflict with their other responsibilities.
Therefore, they could choose which activities to The online workshop model provides flexibility
complete and could leave some for another time. and choice for instructors who want to learn more
Some instructors were not as interested in receiv- about using the LMS in their teaching.
ing workshop credit as they were in maintaining Cultivating community is important work
access to the course even after the workshop had in higher education teaching and learning. In
officially closed. this chapter, we have offered examples of how
The majority of those who completed the instructors have prepared and nurtured online
online course evaluation indicated the experi- environments for fertile and fruitful interactivity.
ence was as good as or better than the experience We have also discussed ways to support growth
they had had in the face-to-face workshops. One and community-building capacity among instruc-
comment from the evaluation sums up many of tors, the chief cultivators. The work continues as
these points: “I enjoyed engaging the material we seek new ground and unearth fresh ways to
at times that were convenient to my schedule. I promote social, cognitive, and teaching presence
also really enjoyed the hands-on format of taking in online courses. The fruit of student engagement,
the class this way… (the workshop leader) was a satisfaction, and learning are worth the labor.
101

REFERENCES Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (rev.ed.). Boston:

D.C. Heath.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2008). The devel-
opment of a community of inquiry over time in Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (7th
an online course: Understanding the progression printing, 1967). New York: Collier.
and integration of social, cognitive, and teaching Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J.
presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net- Dewey (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 19–32).
works, 12(3), 3-22. Retrieved December 1, 2013 New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
from http://www.editlib.org/p/104059 University. (Original work published 1897)
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the Galusha, J.M. (1997). Barriers to learning in
grade: Online education in the United States 2006. distance education. Interpersonal Computing and
Needham: Sloan Center for Online Education. Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Century, 5 (3-4), 6-14. Retrieved from http://files.
Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416377.pdf
in computer conferencing context. Journal of Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching
Ascough, R. (2007). Welcoming design: Hosting a presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learn-
hospitable online course. Teaching Theology and ing Networks, 11(1), 61–72.
Religion, 10(3), 131–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467- Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-
9647.2007.00340.x Learning in the 21st century: A framework for
Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflec- research and practice. London, UK: Routledge/
tive e-learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Falmer. doi:10.4324/9780203166093
Education, 3(2), 181–190. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W.
Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. M. (2010). The (2000). Critical inquiry in a text based environ-
online teaching survival guide: Simple and practi- ment: Computer conferencing in higher education.
cal pedagogical tips. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.
doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Carr, N. (2000). As distance education comes of
age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39–A41. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and
computer conferencing in distance education.
Caulfield, J. (2011). How to design and teach a American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1),
hybrid course: Achieving student-centered learn- 7–23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
ing through blended classroom, online, and expe-
riential activities. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Re-
searching the community of inquiry framework:
Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. Review, issues, and future directions. The In-
(2007). Social networks, communication styles, ternet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
and learning performance in a CSCL com- doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
munity. Computers & Education, 49, 309–329.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.07.003
102

Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A trans- Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S.
actional perspective on teaching-learning: A (2007). Does sense of community matter? An
framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, examination of participants’ perceptions of build-
UK: Pergamon. ing learning communities in online courses. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1),
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005).
9–24.
Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning:
Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Mandemach, B.J. (2009, March). Three ways to
Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.1207/ improve student engagement in the online class-
s15389286ajde1903_2 room. Online Classroom, 1-2.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blending Mandemach, B. J., Gonzales, R. M., & Garrett,
learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA: A. L. (2006). An examination of online instructor
Jossey-Bass. presence via threaded discussion participation.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(4),
Hara, & Kling. (2000). Students’ distress with a
248–260.
web-based distance education course. Information,
Communication, and Society, 3, 557-579. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded
discussions. The role of time and higher-order
Hargis, J. (2005). Collaboration, community, and
thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
project-based learning: Does it still work online?
Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
International Journal of Instructional Media,
32(2), 157–162. Meyers, S. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy
when teaching online. College Teaching, 56(4),
Huss, J. A., & Eastep, S. (2013). The perceptions
219–224. doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.4.219-224
of students toward online learning at a Midwestern
university: What are students telling us and what Murphy, E. (2004). Identifying and measuring
are we doing about it. i.e.: inquiry in education, ill-structured problem formulation and resolution
4(2), Article 5. Retrieved from http://digitalcom- in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian
mons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(1), 5–20.
Kember, D. (1987). A longitudinal process Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners’ prefer-
model of drop out from distance education. The ences for interaction. The Quarterly Review of
Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 278–301. Distance Education, 3(2), 219–226.
doi:10.2307/1982251
O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experi- (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of af-
ence as the course of learning and development. filiation in a technological age. Journal of Lan-
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. guage and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464–490.
doi:10.1177/0261927X04269588
Kubala, T. (1998). Addressing student needs:
Teaching on the Internet. T.H.E. Journal, 25(8), Oriogun, P. K., Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2005).
71-74. Retrieved August 30, 2013 from http:// Validating an approach to examining cognitive
www.editlib.org/p/84770 engagement within online groups. American
Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 197–214.
doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1904_2
103

Pate, A., Smaldino, S., Mayall, H. J., & Luet- Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C.
kehans, L. (2009). Questioning the necessity of (2009). A constructivist approach to online learn-
nonacademic social discussion forums within ing: The Community of Inquiry framework. In
online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information Technology and
Education, 10(1), 1–8. Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive
Learning Frameworks (pp. 43–57). Hershey, PA:
Powers, S. M., & Mitchell, J. (1997). Student
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.
perceptions and performance in a virtual class-
ch004
room environment. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of
Association. Chicago, IL. social presence and interaction in online classes.
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3),
Rovai, A., Wighting, M. J., & Liu, J. (2005).
131–150. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
School climate. The Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 6(4), 361–374. Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online
teaching in higher education. American Journal of
Shea, P., & Bidjeramo, T. (2008). Community of
Distance Education, 20(2), 65–77. doi:10.1207/
inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epis-
s15389286ajde2002_2
temic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in
online education. Paper presented at the Annual Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom
Meeting of the American Educational Research community and student engagement in online
Association. New York, NY. courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teach-
ing, 7(2), 219–230.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study
of teaching presence and student sense of learning Yuen, A. H. (2003). Fostering learning communi-
community in fully online and web-enhanced col- ties in classrooms: A survey research of Hong Kong
lege courses. The Internet and Higher Education, schools. Educational Media International, 40,
9(3), 175–190. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005 153–162. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092198
Smith, T.W. (2013). Hybrid and sustainable: An
Appalachian model for developing online teach-
ing and learning. North Carolina Middle School KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Journal, 27(1).
Cognitive Presence: The extent to which
Soles, C., & Moller, L. (2001). Myers Briggs learners are able to construct and confirm mean-
type preferences in distance learning education. ing through sustained personal reflection and
International Journal of Educational Technology, shared discourse.
2 (2). Retrieved from http://education.illinois.edu/ Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework:
ijet/v2n2/soles/index.html A process model of online learning, represents
Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in the online educational experience as arising from
online discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning the interaction of three presences: social presence,
and Teaching with Technology: Principles and cognitive presence, and teaching presence. At
Practices (pp. 147–164). London: Kogan Page. the heart of the CoI framework is the idea that
104

community, critical reflection, and knowledge Learning Technology Services (LTS): The
construction are integral to learning, especially unit at our university, supporting the LMS and
online learning. providing professional development and assis-
Discourse: The use of words to exchange tance in effective use of technology, e-learning
thoughts and ideas. and instructional design.
Discussion Forum: An activity in the LMS Social Presence: The degree to which partici-
that can be setup to allow communication be- pants in computer-mediated communication feel
tween participants in the course through posts affectively connected to each other.
and comments. Teaching Presence: An instructor’s design,
Learning Community: A group of people facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social
who share common emotions, values or beliefs, processes for the purpose of helping students
are actively engaged in learning together from realize personally meaningful and educationally
each other. worthwhile learning outcomes.
Learning Management System (LMS): The Web-Conferencing: An activity inside the
software application used to deliver course content LMS that allows a synchronous online meeting
and provide online activities for students; this term environment for course participants. The web-
is synonymous with course management system conferencing tool currently used by our institution
(CMS). Some common LMS platforms in higher is Blackboard Collaborate.
education include Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai and
Desire2Learn.
105
106
Chapter 6
Serving Nontraditional Students:
Meeting Needs through an
Online Writing Program
Dianna L. Newman
University at Albany (SUNY), USA
Meghan Morris Deyoe

University at Albany (SUNY), USA
David Seelow
Excelsior College, USA
ABSTRACT
The role of technology and educational media in supporting nontraditional adult learners is growing.
One key area in which more research and development is needed is the improvement of writing, especially
writing that is related to formal education. This chapter presents findings related to the use of online
writing modules developed to support English as a Second Language and nontraditional English speak-
ing college students. Participants reported improved content-specific writing skills, transfer of writing
skills to other content areas, and increased self-efficacy in writing. Differences continued to be noted by
key student characteristics. The study has implications for continued development and use of digitally
supported writing tutorials for nontraditional adult learners.
INTRODUCTION and performance. Progress in learning domains

related to English Language Arts (ELA) education,
As the availability of educational media resources including reading, comprehension, and writing are
and their functionality grows, their inclusion in particularly vulnerable for these at-risk popula-
meeting the needs of diverse students from dis- tions. Although a great deal of research investigates
similar backgrounds is increasing. Technology reading literacy development, instructional strate-
is frequently recommended and used as a way to gies, and language learning on sub-populations
close the access and accountability gaps between of diverse students—non-native English speaking
these diverse learners’ needs and their presence students or English Language Learners (ELL) at
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch006

Serving Nontraditional Students
the K-12 level (e.g., August, Carlo, Dressler, & education. In a national study, Tucker (2006) found
Snow, 2005; August & Shanahan, 2006; Graham & that ESL courses are overcrowded, overbooked
Perin, 2007)—there is a dearth of research regard- and generally unavailable to those most in need.
ing writing development and non-native English A second underserved adult population of stu-
speaking students in higher education (Danzak, dents consists of nontraditional English speaking
2011). Even less research exists on writing devel- students who are returning to the higher educa-
opment for diverse populations of adult learners, tion classroom; according to the National Center
both non-native English and English speakers. on Educational Statistics (2010), enrollment
Writing, particularly academic writing, is of students ages 25 and over increased by 42%
complex in nature. Writing requires authors to between the years 2000 to 2010. These learners
express their thoughts and ideas digitally or on are frequently mis-served by direct instruction
paper to communicate to others. In addition to due to financial, family, career or learning style
expressing thoughts and ideas, academic writing preferences. Kim, Sax, Lee, and Hagedorn (2010)
requires the use of correct grammar, spelling, and noted that it is important to recognize the needs of
an organizational format that is logical for convey- these unique U.S. educated students, noting that
ing the message at hand. The ability to produce their reasons for wanting to learn indicate high
quality academic writing demands a wide array of motivation and commitment, but require accom-
skills in: 1) mechanics (e.g., handwriting, spell- modations to instruction.
ing, punctuation, and syntax); 2) the processes As a result of these needs, digital technology
surrounding writing (e.g., language generation, and media resources including webinars, tutori-
planning, organizing, and revising); and 3) abstract als, online assistance, and blended instruction,
components (e.g., voice, and audience) (Camhi are being used to address nontraditional learner
& Ebsworth, 2008; Graham & Perin, 2007; Olive instruction. Newman and Murphy (2011) note the
& Kellogg, 2002). importance of these methods in meeting the ELA
Many adult students are institutionally-exclud- needs of “special” or “nontraditional” learners
ed from learning advanced skills and knowledge and providing preliminary success of media and
because of limited writing and reading fluency. digitally enriched instruction; the authors indi-
One especially vulnerable high-risk group consists cated, however, that further research on specific
of adults for whom English is not their native approaches and populations should be conducted.
language. For these students, learning to write in To determine the overall impact of using
a second language requires them to do double the technology to meet the needs of nontraditional
work. For example, students for whom English students, learning and variables related to learning
is a second language have to focus on not only must be taken into account. In its broadest sense,
learning the course content, but also on learning learning is defined as acquiring new knowledge,
the writing processes and skills required for com- behaviors, skills, values, or preferences and in-
munication in the English language. These adult volves synthesizing different types of information
learners, who are continuing their education, need (Mayer, 2001). Both learning style and learning
to possess proficient reading and writing skills self-efficacy serve as confounding variables that
in English if they are to be successful in higher result in different approaches or ways of learning.
education settings. Crandall and Sheppard (2004) When students also are learning in an unfamiliar
noted that one in four enrollees in community setting, the role of these variables places even more
colleges falls in this category, and that the adult demands on learner control; demands that may be
English as a Second Language (ESL) population magnified again when technology and multimedia
is the largest and fastest-growing segment of adult are involved (Lee, 2000). Although much is known
107

about learning styles and self-efficacy in a face- impact do the modules have on affective outcomes
to-face setting, only limited information is known (i.e., perceptions of knowledge generation and
about the roles of these variables within the cyber transfer) for students in a blended learning course;
world and even less is known for nontraditional 2) What impact do the modules have on affective
learners in these settings as we develop online outcomes (i.e., perceptions of knowledge genera-
support. There is a need to investigate the role of tion and transfer) for students as the modules are
learning style and learner self-efficacy amongst replicated and transferred across all three sites
these nontraditional adult users when using a (and all four classes); and for a specific module
web-based multimedia enhanced tutorial. related to plagiarism, 3) What is the relationship
between user characteristics (i.e., learning styles,
Purpose of the Chapter computer self-efficacy, and writing self-efficacy)
and writing outcomes across all sites; and 4) What
This chapter presents findings related to the use impact does participating in the module have on
of an online multimedia supported writing tutorial student cognition across all sites.
developed for nontraditional students. The tuto-
rial under study is composed of a series of self-
contained modules addressing writing processes, BACKGROUND INFORMATION
available either through instructor assignment or
self-selection. The students in this study represent A review of evidence-based learning practices
adult learners enrolled in community colleges or indicates that learning style is a major confound-
exclusively online institutions. The classes serve ing variable of learning processes and outcomes,
students from different disciplines, but all include especially in technology-supported constructivist
a focus on improving writing and composition. instruction. Constructivism and student-centered
Learners were nontraditional in one or more of the learning, coupled with social cognitive psychol-
following categories: age entering higher educa- ogy, have identified multiple confounding user
tion, non-native English speaker, or late entry or variables related to the acquisition of outcomes
shift in career status. The content consists of five of technology-supported transfer of knowledge
web-based modules offered to students as a tutorial (Cheng, 2006). Newman, Reinhard, and Clure
within face-to-face classrooms at a community (2007) found that when multimedia tools were
college or in online courses. Results represent used to support STEM related learning, students
findings across four pilot sites, two semesters, with different learning styles used the resources
and three institutions. Variables of interest include differently. Similarly, Rodd and Newman (2009)
domains of perceived relevance/usefulness of the noted a difference in outcomes based on the use of
material to current course content and transfer- technology in STEM related areas for adult learn-
ability to other courses, as well as self-reported ers that appeared to be confounded by learning
learning, preparedness to write, and knowledge style. Computer self-efficacy also has been shown
of writing. Selected demographic/cultural vari- to be an important confounding factor for users in
ables also were assessed to examine the need for technology-supported settings (Murphy, Coover,
control of confounding or concomitant factors. & Owen, 1989). Newman and Passa (2007) and
The relationship of student learning style and Newman and Clure (2007) found that technology
self-efficacy on the process of use, affect toward self-efficacy were concomitant variables when
technology-based learning, and self-reported studying the impact of multimedia and online-
learning patterns and outcomes are presented. supported learning for traditional college students.
Specific questions to be addressed are: 1) What Similarly, Newman and Murphy (2011) found
108

that self-efficacy was important when studying credit and found that these participants fell into
outcomes of technology-supported K-12 English three categories: 1) ESL students; 2) students
Language Arts. Understanding learner character- enrolled in non ESL composition courses; and
istics will assist course developers in the creation 3) students in courses which required writing
of online, technology supported materials. In but did not teach writing. Upon examination of
these settings, the optimal goal is to structure writing assignments supposedly developed to
the instructional conditions in a manner that will serve these students, Fregeau found that the pri-
facilitate internal learning and information pro- mary feedback given did not meet student needs;
cessing within each learner’s zone of proximal rather formative instruction was more related to
development (Law & Havannberg, 2007; Newman a grade, correction of surface errors, and reword-
& Gullie, 2009). ing of text. As a result, many of these potentially
Newman’s (1998) multi-stage process for team English proficient students quit school, dropped
leaders to use in designing, validating, and docu- courses, or developed negative attitudes toward
menting technology and multimedia supported writing. Arslan and Şahin-Kızıl (2010) found that
learning systems has been shown to be effective English Language Learners using writing software
in balancing learner needs with instructor goals. (e.g., blogs and website posts) have an increased
Each stage of the model involves acknowledg- writing potential which promotes more effective
ment of users’ characteristics, their prior levels writing instruction. Crandall and Sheppard (2004)
of knowledge, skills and experiences, and the also found that many non-native English speakers
external, contextual variables that influence the enrolled in community colleges and other post-
formation of new learning systems (Newman & secondary programs needed additional English
Passa, 2007). This model was used to investigate instruction in writing; they noted that the majority
the role of the concomitant variables and selected of ESL adult offerings emphasizes listening and
outcomes in this study. speaking skills but excludes writing. This omis-
To understand the learner characteristics of sion makes it very difficult for these students to
nontraditional students, it is important to un- continue in higher education. More specifically,
derstand the definition of what it means to be a learners from diverse cultural backgrounds may
nontraditional student. A review of literature on create different meanings from the same learning
students enrolled in community college and higher task or take different paths to the same meaning
education settings indicates that the definition of (Hutchison, 2006) and students who cannot express
a nontraditional learner includes more than age their understanding of course content in written
and that for many, their needs are directly related English may have problems understanding the
to a life changing event that focuses on their status content and need interventions that will teach or
as workers, students, and parents (America.gov enhance these skills (Weaver & Jackson, 2011).
Archive, 2008; Jinkens, 2009; Kim et al., 2010). The use of technology, multimedia, and other
These learners, coupled with non-native English digital resources has been suggested as a way of
speaking students, create a broader, more com- helping to meet the diverse writing needs of these
prehensive category of “nontraditional” students. nontraditional students. For instance, Engstrom
These nontraditional students have been found (2005) reported that when assistive technology
to struggle with academic writing (Angelora & was integrated into the development of college
Riazantseva, 1999; Bitchener & Basturkmen, curriculum, students increased their writing abil-
2006; Melkin, 2012). Fregeau (1999) studied ity; Newman and Clure (2007) found that ESL
best approaches to working with students who students in engineering who had user-controlled
needed to improve the writing they do for college multimedia and digital access to course content
109

reported greater content learning including that proper citations, consequences of plagia-
expressed in written work and also exhibited rism in the United States, video skits that
improved attitudes on indicators of self-efficacy. communicate the seriousness of plagiariz-
Similarly, Mahfouz and Ihmeideh (2009) reported ing, vocabulary, and informal formative as-
that using online chat rooms improved listening, sessments assisting users in practicing the
reading, and writing skills and Fang (2010) found new concepts and knowledge.
that use of a computer assisted writing program • Getting Ready to Write: The Getting
for ESL college students improved their ability Ready to Write Module consists of the
to revise written work and increased perceptions various processes related to planning and
of ability. Additionally, Black (2009) found that outlining ideas including ways to generate
English Language Learners benefit from online ideas, develop a thesis, and mapping ideas
learning environments; through a mediated plat- prior to writing. Content includes videos,
form (i.e. chat rooms, social media, etc.) they examples, and interactive practice to assist
encompass multiple aspects of daily life (work, in understanding ideas.
school, and home life). Similarly, when looking • Developing Your Ideas: The module,
at English speaking, returning adult students, Developing Your Ideas, shows viewers how
Rodd and Newman (2009) found different needs, to read and take notes from sources, how
learning patterns, and outcomes in STEM related to use others ideas (i.e., through citations
online writing requirements than are typically paraphrasing and summarizing), and an
evidenced by emerging adult learners; while not actual composition of the essay following
as familiar with technology and hesitant to write, an outline. Information is provided through
these nontraditional learners more readily see video presentations and demonstrations.
the need for written communication in work and • Revising Your Work: The module,
social skills and have a high interest in learning Revising Your Work, focuses on dissemi-
relevant procedures. nating information about different ap-
proaches to revising written work includ-
ing, re-reading writing out loud, using a
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY revising checklist, and writing notes in the
margin (i.e., “Glossing”). Information is
The technology supported approach developed and presented through demonstrations and pre-
studied for this paper consisted of five standalone sentations using video.
online tutorial modules.1 All modules are conveyed • Editing and Polishing: Editing and
on the Moodle™ platform. The five modules in- Polishing informs the viewer about auto-
cluded: plagiarism and the processes involved in mated writing software that helps iden-
getting ready to write, developing ideas, revising, tify errors within writing and specifically
and editing. Each standalone module can be viewed explains to the viewer common errors and
in approximately 30-45 minutes, providing users areas of writing that need to be checked in-
with a succinct and easy to use unit of study. The cluding spelling and grammar, punctuation
five modules consisted of the following: (fragments, types of sentences, etc.), and
the format of the paper. This module also
• Avoiding Plagiarism: The Plagiarism includes presentations and demonstrations
module includes a variety of multimedia to as well as practice exercises and document
convey the content to the viewer. The con- templates to utilize for independent writing
tent includes examples of proper and im- after viewing the modules.
110

The modules were developed with the as- Future developers of modules of supporting ma-
sistance of an advisory panel with expertise in terials for these audiences should note that initial
writing, online education, and working with feedback on the design process identified a need
nontraditional students. After their initial develop- for clearly stated learner objectives reflecting the
ment, all modules underwent cycles of extensive purpose of the modules to be written in terminol-
external reviews to document fidelity of content ogy appropriate to these users, and the need for
and use of appropriate instructional design meth- continuity in presentation of the organizational
ods. A modification of the process developed by information, student-centered objectives, and
Newman and presented with validating evidence multiple applications as well as the opportunity to
in Newman and Passa (2007) was used to provide practice. The latter opportunity to practice, was of
internal and external validation of content and special importance for these nontraditional users.
appropriate use of instructional design. External The need to accommodate the modules for users
experts reviewed and offered independent assess- with visual or hearing disabilities, discourage-
ments of the modules; these reviews were used ment of use of Wikipedia as an online resource,
to guide revisions and refinement of the module. and the need for model papers and more practice
Following is a summary of the process and find- activities for students to use as self-guided for-
ings of module development. mative assessment also were noted. In addition,
external content reviewers provided feedback on
Content Review the instructor manual, the pre- and post-content
tests, and potential internal formative assessment
A total of 13 content reviews were conducted questions. At the end of development, reviewers
across the five modules; four external experts were verified the fidelity of the modules’ curriculum,
involved in the process. These external reviewers noting that they addressed the needs of returning
worked in higher education settings and had de- adult learners and ESL college students, and others
grees in English with specialties in ESL teaching, who are either learning English or enhancing their
online English as a Foreign Language or English skills in writing (e.g., “…the module is a strong
as a Second Language learning, online teacher self-paced lesson on the meaning and problems
training, and English for Specific Purposes. The associated with [writing].”).
content of each module was reviewed at least twice;
some portions had additional reviews depending Instructional Design Review
on needs identified by extended comments and/
or suggested changes. All issues were addressed A total of 10 instructional design reviews were
via changes incorporated into the final versions conducted across the five modules; two external
of the modules. Final content review indicated experts were involved in the process. Each module
that material presented was suitable for the target was reviewed at least twice to ensure reliability of
audience; the presentation of information was the reviews. Early reviews of the modules identi-
paced appropriately in terms of amount, length fied areas for improvement which were addressed
of segments, and learning level for the intended through revisions and refinement of presentation.
audience. Vocabulary, examples, and illustra- Professional expertise of the reviewers included
tions were deemed appropriate for introductory general curriculum development, as well as spe-
college level ESL students and returning adults, cialties in academic writing, English as a Second
and use of multimedia, actors, and settings were Language, and technology-based instruction.
identified as appropriately diverse to provide Some portions of each module received multiple
user buy-in and support perceptions of relevance. reviews, and depending on the need for revisions,
111

extended comments, and/or suggested changes. At areas of difficulty in use especially those related to
completion, reviewers verified that the modules navigation and transitioning. Through think-aloud
met expected standards for high quality college procedures and post-use interviews, participants
level instruction using online methodology. Re- noted the effectiveness of the embedded videos
viewers noted that the modules made appropriate and offered suggestions on placement that can
use of evidence-based design structures, user- be used by the developer of the resource (e.g.,
guided management, and offered differentiated that it would be advantageous to display videos
instruction that would support ESL learners, at the beginning of the tutorial as opposed to at
enhance prior concepts, and offered opportuni- the middle, to better engage the learner and em-
ties to rehearse skills and knowledge. Overall, phasize the severity of writing issues). Positive
at time of completion, reviewers perceived the aspects frequently identified included the value of
modules as meeting current standards for online short segments of material, and most notably, the
instructional design, noting high quality in use use of the videos (e.g., “I liked the videos” and
of multimedia, flexibility of use, and ability to “The videos helped me understand. They made
support stand-alone learning. it more clear with a real life example, plus it was
a lot less dry then just reading.”). Following their
Usability Studies first usability study, the modules were refined by
the project director and staff. An evaluation team
A total of fifteen controlled usability studies, subsequently re-tested the modules. Participants
conducted in two cycles, were completed for (n=4) were similar demographically to those who
the modules. Twelve of the users who tested the participated in the first usability study: non-native
modules were students for whom English was not English speakers attending a higher education
their primary language enrolled in higher educa- setting, representing both Roman and non-Roman
tion courses. Additional reviews were conducted languages. These participants verified the success-
with three native English speaking returning adult ful inclusion of revisions and further suggested
students. Completion time for participants per minor changes that were implemented before the
module ranged from 40 minutes to 1 hour and full pilot testing of the modules. Overall, usability
30 minutes. The first round of usability reviews participants provided comments that were positive
had eight participants. As part of the screening and enthusiastic, indicating fidelity of the modules
process, students were given a protocol which and their use.
verified demographic information, computer
self-efficacy, and also assessed learning styles. Content Assessments
Four of the ESL students reported using a Non-
Roman Alphabet in their primary language (two Each of the five modules contained a 10 ques-
Chinese-speaking, one Japanese-speaking, and tion pre- and post-test used for formative and
one Korean-speaking), while the remaining four summative module assessment of cognitive gain.
used a Roman alphabet in their primary language At the time of initial pilot implementation only
(two French-speaking, one Turkish-speaking, and the Plagiarism module included the assessment
one Spanish-speaking). Half of the participants presented in this study. The presence of this op-
(n=4) self-reported that they were highly proficient tion was viewed by the advisory panel as positive
in the use of computers while the other half (n=4) and subsequently necessary and it was requested
self-reported a familiarity with computer usage that all modules include a form of assessment. As
at the novice level. Evaluators documented users’ a result, short quizzes for each module, consist-
interactions with the module and noted particular ing of 10 multiple choice items, were developed
112

and validated by external reviewers and added to of the four pilots, participants were enrolled in
each of the modules in the tutorial. To ensure the regularly offered courses; each of these classes
accessibility of these assessments, an abridged had a major writing component as part of the
usability review was conducted. Results indicated course requirement. In the fourth pilot, students
that students (n=4) were able to successfully access were engaged in self-managed instruction.
and complete both the pre- and post-assessments Prior to using the web-based tutorial, students
(e.g., students were able to take the pre-test, suc- were asked to complete an online affective survey;
cessfully move to the module with no evident questions assessed learning style, writing efficacy,
problems, and then return to the post-test). It was and technology efficacy. At the conclusion of
also noted that data from the pre- and post-tests the tutorial, students were instructed to complete
were easily accessible and available for instruc- post-surveys assessing perceived relevance and
tor review, thus providing formative assessment usability of the material, self-reported impact on
for both students and teachers. A second round writing, examples of use and perceived value.
of external reviews of the items’ content was Based on the findings of Newman and Clure
conducted on these five modules with reviewers (2012), learning style and writing efficacy were
confirming the validity of the questions and their examined to determine need as a control variable
suitability for ESL students. when analyzing the data. A summary of the four
pilot sites follows:
Final Verification
• Pilot Site 1: (n=22) was a community col-
Revisions of the modules and all supporting lege, located in northeastern U.S., serving
instructional materials were completed with con- approximately 14,000 students annually.
tinued piloting conducted by potential instructors Many students come from the local re-
with small groups of users. At the completion gion, yet significant numbers of minority
of the project, five fully functioning modules to students are from other states and coun-
be used either as comprehensive or standalone tries. The populations used for this study
tutorials were completed and made available via included nontraditional returning native
the internet for integration in classrooms or for English speaking students taking both re-
individual, self-managed learning. quired and elective courses in psychology
and science. The modules were offered on-
line on a voluntary basis as a means of as-
METHODS sisting with required writing assignments;
students were referred to the module by the
The data presented summarize four pilot applica- instructor, but no instructor feedback was
tions of one or more of the modules at one or all received.
of the three institutions (total n=73 students). All • Pilot Site 2: (n=10) was a distance educa-
students were deemed nontraditional based on age tion center using online courses and testing
of entry, status as a non-native English speaker, programs to receive course credit; its major
or current career status. The institutions of higher cliental is the adult learner. This institution
education included two community colleges and primarily awards degrees at the associate
one distance education institution. The course and bachelor’s levels. The pilot students
content areas reflected remedial writing, writing volunteered to participate in a non-credit
composition, science and psychology. In three bearing workshop on writing. All work
113

was conducted online. Students did receive Study 1: Affective Impact of

support from an instructor and online writ- All Modules at One Site
ing tutors.
• Pilot Site 3: (n=21) was a community col- A pilot study of full implementation of all five
lege located on the west coast of the U.S. modules was conducted at Site 3. Participants in
It serves almost 25,000 students annually. this pilot (n=21) represented ESL undergraduates;
Participants in this study were enrolled in first languages included Spanish and a variety
a blended (online and face-to-face) English of Asian/Indo-Asian dialects. All students were
for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) enrolled in a blended (online and face-to-face)
writing course serving non-native English ESL writing course serving non-native English
speakers. The course focuses on reading speakers. The course focused on reading and writ-
and writing skills that will support students ing skills that support students at the advanced
at the advanced level required for college level required for college credit. In this blended
credit. In this blended setting, students re- setting, students received instruction in a tradi-
ceive instruction in a traditional classroom tional classroom supported by online learning
as well as participate in online learning activities. Use of the online modules was required
activities. The tutorial was required of all as part of the course; both the instructor and a
students participating in the class. During writing tutor were available to assist students
Pilot 3, only limited instructor feedback and when using the modules. Student participants
assistance with the module was provided. were assigned module use in a sequential pattern
• Pilot Site 4: (n=20) utilized the same com- by the instructor, and after each tutorial, were
munity college and instructor as in Pilot asked to indicate their perceptions of the overall
Site 3. In Pilot 4, however, a writing tutor value of the specific module; their preparedness
was available to assist the students in gain- to use that information in course assignments;
ing and practicing content. Students also and potential use of knowledge gained in future
received formative feedback on writing writing endeavors. Finally, students were asked to
exercises. indicate, via examples, how module usage would
benefit them and if they would change anything
in the module to make it more relevant.
RESULTS Findings indicated that students reported us-
age of the tutorials to be beneficial in improving
This section documents the effectiveness of the specific areas of ESL course writing, promoting
modules in these four “real time” settings. As better writing in other courses, and increasing
noted above, the participants involved in these student control over the learning process (see Table
studies were representative of Level 2 ESL learn- 1). The majority of responding students perceived
ers enrolled in community college and workforce the Plagiarism, Getting Ready to Write, Develop-
related educational settings and reflect module ing Your Own Ideas, Revising Your Work, and
usage for both non-credit and for-credit use. Data Editing and Polishing modules to be successful
sources included students’ responses to affective in assisting them to recall specific technicalities
and cognitive content surveys, and interviews with of the respective module, indicating a high level
instructors and project staff. of immediate retention of content. Students also
114

Table 1. Participant responses to key outcome constructs In all modules percent agreement
Module Response*
Construct Getting Editing and

Plagiarism Developing Your Revising Your
Ready To Polishing
(n=20) Ideas (n=17) Work (n=21)
Write (n=18) (n=19)
Recall Immediate Knowledge
Gained knowledge of module. 90 96 100 95 100
Recall technicalities of module. 100 100 94 100 79
Transfer Knowledge
Increased ability. 95 94 100 95 100
Outside this course. 85 100 94 95 84
Improve Writing
Develop better writing skills. 75 94 100 95 95
Motivated to learn more about
85 94 88 95 90
writing.
General Learning
Self-direction and responsibility. 95 94 94 81 84
*Percent responding either “strongly agree” or “agree” on a 6 point Likert-type scale.
indicated that they gained new knowledge of these Students identified value in becoming better
technical issues through their use of the module. writers and saw a valid need for the modules,
Students not only reported gains in knowledge commenting, “It will help me to use techniques I
specific to each module, they also reported transfer have not used before” and “I just want to say that
of that knowledge to their other courses’ writing I like the details in these tutorials because they
assignments. The majority of participants indi- are very useful and helpful. I keep all the notes
cated that knowledge and skills supported by the that I got from them in order to use them when I
modules increased their ability to be successful need to write on any topics now and in the future.”
in improving their ESL course required writing Students also related transfer of the work in some
assignments. All five modules were reported as modules to other courses and writing techniques,
beneficial in increasing the students’ writing abil- stating, “The modules are beneficial because of
ity in other areas of coursework. using different resources … and expanding on
Affective gains that support writing and your thoughts.”
general education achievement were noted to be
influenced by module usage. Student responses Study 2: The Role of User
indicated that use of the modules motivated them Characteristics
to learn more about writing and to develop better
general writing skills. This was especially true A series of multivariate multiple regression
of the module Developing Your Ideas. Students analyses was used to determine the role of learner
self-reported a secondary benefit to module use; characteristics and the degree to which they should
they perceived themselves as more in control of be considered for this audience when developing
their general learning by being able to self-direct online resources by combining available data
their activities. across all sites (n=95). Because of its ubiquitous
115

need, variables related to instruction pertaining moderately well prepared in the use of specific
to plagiarism are presented here. Globally, the technology tools (other than word processing), but
major predictor constructs were learning style (four having limited knowledge about tools that could
dimensions: active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, be specific aids to writing.
visual/verbal, and sequential/global); computer Learning style, however, was related to
self-efficacy (three dimensions: general ability, students’ perceived outcomes with the greater
use of specific tools, and use of tools related to relationship established for verbal and global
writing); and writing self-efficacy (six dimen- learners. Status as a visual/verbal learner was
sions: importance in real work; importance in positively related to plagiarism knowledge with
classwork; importance in general learning; work verbal learners reporting more gain. The more
habits; role of help; and transfer to other subjects.) verbal the learner, the greater the impact reported
For all series, the five criterion constructs were: in increased knowledge of plagiarism, the ability
plagiarism knowledge, plagiarism avoidance/ to avoid plagiarism, and assistance in course work.
usage, plagiarism knowledge impact on writing, Similarly, status as a visual/verbal learner also
transfer of plagiarism content to other settings, was related to the sub-construct of learning about
and transfer of knowledge of plagiarism to self- plagiarism; the more verbal the learner, the more
improved learning. See Tables 2 and 3 for an recall of plagiarism technicalities reported. Recall
overview of the findings. of plagiarism technicalities also was related to the
Analyses for computer/technology self-effica- students’ status as sequential/global learners; the
cy indicated that none of the predictor constructs more global the learners, the more they reported
were related to the students’ reported outcomes. technical aspects of plagiarism.
Overall, very little predictive ability was found Students’ learning style also was found to
for students’ computer/technology efficacy. Ex- be related to their ability to transfer information
amination of the data indicated that the majority learned via the tutorial to other settings, and, as
of students consistently perceived themselves was found with direct knowledge/use of plagia-
as high in the use of general technology tools, rism. The greatest relationships were found by
Table 2. Summary of learning style as a predictor of writing outcomes
Predictor* Plagiarism** Plagiarism Transfer Improve Improve My

Learning Usage** Plagiarism to My General
Other Settings** Writing** Learning**
(-)Active/Reflective(+) NS NS NS NS NS
(-)Sensing/Intuitive(+) NS NS NS NS NS
(-)Visual/Verbal(+) + recalling + increased + transfer plagiarism + develop self-
plagiarism knowledge info to other areas direction and
technicalities + avoiding responsibility
plagiarism, + work
+helped in course collaboratively
work
(-)Sequential/Global(+) + recalling - develop specific + more + develop self-
plagiarism writing skills motivated direction and
technicalities + transfer plagiarism to write and responsibility
info to other areas learn writing
*-/+ indicates the ends of dimension for learning style; NS=not significant
**-/+ indicates direction of relationship
116

Table 3. Summary of writing efficacy/affect as predictors of writing outcomes
Predictor Plagiarism Plagiarism Transfer Improve Improve My

Learning* Usage* Plagiarism to My General
Other Settings* Writing* Learning*
Feelings:
-comfortable asking -writing is easy with -comfortable
Classwork questions developing skills and asking questions
-information will transferring knowledge and working
help me -comfortable asking collaboratively
questions and
transferring to other
courses
Writing Performance +important to do well +important to do +important to do well
with need help with well with need to with writing skills that
my course work avoid plagiarism avoid plagiarism
-satisfied with my -satisfied with my
writing ability with writing ability with
need help with my developing skills and
course work transferring knowledge
about plagiarism
Related to Future -career in writing -career in writing -career in writing -career in -career in writing
writing
Experiences:
Work Habits + need help with + need help with + need help with using +attendance
confidence my grade others’ works with
+attendance with +work alone with +attendance with other interest,
confidence my grade courses skills, and
motivation
in writing
+ work alone with + help from other +help -help to other
Help confidence students with transfer to from other students in self-
+help from other other courses students direction
students with -help to other students with -help to other
confidence with thinking about, motivation students in my
-help to other students developing skills, and to write grades
transferring to other
courses
-teacher help with
transfer to other courses
-other courses with -other courses +real life -other
Teacher Examples my confidence and my with my work and examples courses with
recall my learning with collaborative and
+real life examples motivation getting a better
with confidence to write grade
*+/- indicates direction of the relationship
status as a visual/verbal learner or as a sequential/ however, sequential learners were better able to
global learner. Students who were verbal or global develop specific writing habits that would avoid
leaners reported greater ability to transfer the plagiarism. The students’ learning style also was
knowledge of plagiarism learned in this course to related to their perceived growth as a student in
their other courses. Global learners reported that general. Verbal learners reported greater growth
they were more motivated to learn about writing; in their ability to work collaboratively and greater
117

growth in their ability to self-regulate their learn- fer of knowledge about plagiarism to other areas.
ing through self-direction and self-responsibility. Working on learning the content by themselves,
In addition, the more global the students’ learning being uncomfortable asking for help, limited input
patterns were, the greater the perception of self- from the teacher, and low affect toward writing
direction and responsibility; sequential learners (not enjoying the process and not seeing it related
reported less self-direction and self-responsibility. to future jobs) were negatively related to transfer
Regression analyses continued to support of knowledge, skills and practice. Attendance rate
indicators of content efficacy as an important was the greatest predictor of general perception of
contextual variable. Data from these students the writing process and use of skills in other areas
yielded a series of relationships between concepts of writing. Students with higher attendance rates
reflecting writing efficacy and perceived learning reported greater gains in general writing skills as
outcomes. Students’ perceptions about the impor- well as in plagiarism. Impact on general learning
tance of writing performance (both currently and habits was noted to a lesser degree. Students who
in the future), their work habits, and their teacher’s already possessed positive work habits perceived
use of real examples were related to perceptions those skills as increasing, especially in the areas of
of the need to learn about plagiarism. Students collaboration; however, teachers’ use of examples
who recognized that they needed help with writ- related to other content domains was perceived
ing, attended class on a regular basis, and worked as a negative indicator.
on writing both alone and with others indicated When queried at the completion of the tutorial,
that the information would help them with their students confirmed a generally positive perception
coursework. of the online tutorial but some also noted nega-
Teachers’ use of real world examples also tive feelings and/or barriers (e.g., “it helped me
helped increase perceptions of usage while use of to understand not to use other people’s words as
examples from other courses did not. Similarly, your own, to make sure you site [sic] the words
students’ work habits and teachers’ use of examples of others” and “not much benefit pur fur [sic]
impacted perceptions of students’ immediate classroom learn rather than online”). Some stu-
learning outcomes. Students who recognized that dents noted specific benefits related to lower level
they needed help and who were not satisfied with learning (e.g. “helped me improve my language
their writing ability, who had high attendance, and and learn more vocabulary”) while others noted
who worked alone and with others on their writ- increases in general writing ability and writing
ing tasks had greater confidence in their ability affect (e.g., “to think more and express my own
with and mastery of plagiarism. These “type A” ideas better and clearly” and be “comfortable
(e.g., high achieving, high stress) students also with [what] I’m doing”. Others explicitly noted
had positive perceptions of the teachers’ use of transfer to other settings (e.g., “plagiarism can
“real world” examples but did not have positive hurt our lives” and “knowing more about pla-
perceptions of “other class” examples. giarism and its conscusences [sic] make my life
Students’ ability to transfer their knowledge easier”). When queried further as to what might be
about plagiarism and knowledge of writing also changed, students requested more internal forma-
were related to several indicators of writing ef- tive assessment that would help them self-evaluate
ficacy. Attendance in class, comfort level with their progress throughout the tutorial, changes in
writing, perceived importance, and willingness vocabulary level (to a lower level compatible with
to seek help resulted in positive development of their limited English skills), and more specific
writing skills that avoided plagiarism and the trans- examples. A few students clearly stated that they
118

did not want to use an online tutorial; they wanted academic expectations. More specifically, when
direct access to an instructor with “just-in-time” queried about how the tutorial would assist them
assistance. beyond its present usage, users noted that the
module helped them with specific academic tasks
Study 3: The Importance of and would also be helpful in their future career.
Use on Knowledge Generation: Users’ self-reported learning supported these
A Comparison of Populations comments. Approximately 40% of the respondents
on Plagiarism Outcomes strongly agreed that they had increased recall and
recognition skills (knowledge about writing, 40%
A key goal of the project was to document and knowledge of how to be a better writer, 43%);
transferability and replicability of the modules however, more than 80% of all respondents across
as useful and relevant at different sites. The all sites reported they had made some gain in
findings presented in this section summarize the knowledge. Students were less confident in their
four pilot applications of the Plagiarism module ability to apply the material; only 26% were very
at three institutions (n=95 students) using four confident that they could write better and that they
different modalities of instruction.2 All students could recall or transfer the knowledge in another
were deemed nontraditional based on age of entry, area (over 70% indicated some increase in con-
status as a non-native English speaker, or current fidence). Student responses did indicate that the
career status. The course content areas reflected tutorial had some long-term learning impact; over
remedial writing, writing composition, science one-fourth of the respondents indicated that work-
and psychology. As noted earlier, in three of the ing on the tutorial helped them develop a sense
four pilots, participants were enrolled in regularly of responsibility and improved their ability to be
offered courses; each of these classes had a major independent learners. Again, over 75% indicated
writing component as part of the course require- some growth in this domain. Several students
ment. Prior to using the web-based tutorial, stu- noted that, after studying the plagiarism unit, they
dents were asked to complete an online affective would like more coursework or tutorials related to
survey. Questions on the survey assessed learning ethics in academic settings and more about ethics
style, writing efficacy, and technology efficacy. within their chosen careers. For a limited number
At the conclusion of the module, students were of students where the instructor reviewed pre- and
instructed to complete post-surveys assessing per- post-writing samples, it was reported that students
ceived relevance and usability of the Plagiarism decreased plagiarism.
module, self-reported impact on writing, examples
of use, and perceived value. Specific Learning Variables
Overall Outcomes Examination of specific outcome variables, as

shown in Table 4 and Figure 1, indicate that stu-
Analysis of the data indicated a positive impact dents in Site 2 reported the most positive results in
on several of the domains assessed. The majority direct learner outcomes. These students, however,
of students (78% and 92%) in Pilots 1 (nontradi- represented a unique ESL audience in that they
tional adult learners) and 3 (ESL course required volunteered and have no direct course credit tied
use, no feedback) respectively reported that the to their workshop participation; they represent a
process of learning supported by the tutorial and highly motivated population. Students at Site 1,
its content was interesting, relevant to the im- nontraditional English speaking adult learners who
mediate course, and also relevant to continued volunteered, had lower responses on motivation
119

and knowledge gained. These students were en- Examination of Figure 1 graphically portrays
gaged in a course that required written papers and these outcome subscales and reveals the support of
were receiving no assistance from the instructor. the tutorial for expected student outcomes. Recall
They represent the more traditional “volunteer” and Recognition learning is high in all areas, fol-
population (i.e., in a course, needing help, with lowed by transfer of learning. Overall Improved
offered resources, and are motivated to volunteer Writing varies by volunteer status, indicating that
because of grades). Students in Site 3 and 4 (ESL outcome may need additional support beyond
students, same institution and instructor) reported what is required by a particular class or degree.
moderate to high responses on knowledge gained Perception of General Learning, especially self-
and transferability. These students are enrolled direction and responsibility are high in all areas
in a for-credit remediation course; the work is and are indicative of adult learner motivation.
required if they are to complete the course, and
course completion is required for continual enroll- Learner Characteristics
ment. In Site 3, the students received only limited
feedback; in Site 4, a writing tutor is assisted and As indicated, user characteristics identified by
monitored their work. Site 4 students have higher Newman and Clure (2012) continued to be impor-
reported outcomes than Site 3 students in immedi- tant moderating variables for these participants.
ate knowledge gains and transfer gains. Transfer Adults who had greater writing efficacy and
outside the course is equivalent, but perceptions more autonomous learning styles reported greater
of being a better writer are lower. improvements and a more lasting impact on their
Table 4. Participant responses to key outcome constructs*
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Participant Status: Volunteer Volunteer Required Required
ESL Status: English ESL ESL ESL
Class Content: Psych/Science Tutorial Writing Writing
Instructional Mode: Blended Online/Feedback Blended Blended/
Feedback
Construct: n=22 n=10 n=21 n=20
Recall Immediate Knowledge
Recall technicalities of plagiarism 86 90 81 100
Gained knowledge of plagiarism 71 90 86 90
Transfer Knowledge
Avoid plagiarism 90 90 81 100
In this course 71 90 91 95
Outside this course 70 100 86 85
Improve Writing
Better at writing 70 100 81 75
Motivated to learn more about writing 45 100 81 85
General Learning
Self-direction and responsibility 75 100 81 95
*Numbers represent percentages of students reporting self-attainment in each outcome area.
120

Figure 1. Attainment of key outcomes by pilot site
learning. Students who had the least training in the Study 4: Impact on
English language had the greatest difficulty work- Knowledge/Cognition
ing through the tutorial but indicated the greatest
impact on current and future academic success. At the conclusion of the pilots, data were avail-
able from two sites to determine if the modules
Student Needs positively affected the cognition of ESL students
when assessed via external resources. To docu-
When queried about areas where the tutorial ment this outcome, baseline knowledge and post-
could or should be modified to make it “better,” course knowledge were assessed using pre- and
students indicated a need for more practice and post-course content assessments. Information on
more formative assessment. They also noted a need the Plagiarism module were available for analysis
for more help with “vocabulary”; users did not from two of the pilot sites. A 10-item multiple
want the vocabulary decreased, but wanted more choice content test was designed and validated;
vocabulary set within context and immediate links students at Sites 2 and 4 were asked to complete
to a glossary/dictionary. Overall, the users found the assessment prior to accessing the Plagiarism
the tutorial and modules valuable (83% rated a module and again at completion. A comparison of
“6” or higher on a 10-point scale and 50% rated the pre-post data at each site was then conducted
a “9” or higher) with over two-thirds believing to verify student knowledge gains.
that they were now prepared to write papers for Data indicated that use of the online Plagiarism
other classes. module resulted in significant learning gains in
121

content knowledge and cognition. A comparison clear objectives, direct ties to life experience, and
of the Plagiarism module pre-content mean and multiple opportunities as part of the design were
post-content mean yielded an 8.9% increase after necessary to yield easy and effective use. Results
usage of the Plagiarism module. Site 2 students, indicate that users, reflecting different languages,
ESL students who voluntarily participated in tuto- career aspirations, and learning needs, improved
rial use without a course requirement or instructor their writing ability, and to a lesser degree, their
feedback, evidenced a 10% gain in scores from attitudes toward writing. For these students, with
pre to post. Students in Site 4, who were required known language and writing issues, the changes
to use the module and who did receive some as- in affect related to interest in and motivation
sistance from the instructor, averaged a gain of toward writing was important. Users gained in
almost 6% in reported knowledge. Further indi- self-confidence, perceived ability, and motivation
cations of knowledge acquisition were observed to take more courses in writing. In addition, stu-
in student qualitative feedback from tutorial dents evidenced increased writing skills related to
post-assessments (e.g., “[Use] will help improve specific content and reported being able to transfer
my writing in the future and also has taught me these writing skills to other areas. Subsequent
how to cite, how to paraphrase, how to plan for gains also were noted on instructor designed
my writing, how to review, and how to edit and cognitive tests. Areas in need of further investi-
polish my final work.”). gation include the role of technology-supported
formative assessment including the frequency of
feedback and the source of input. Data from this
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS study indicate that when and how feedback is
provided may make a difference.
The findings for this series of studies supports Though limited, these pilot studies repeatedly
continued investigation of the efficiency and ef- found evidence that learning style and content
fectiveness of multimedia supported online writ- efficacy were related to students’ self-perceived
ing tutorials for nontraditional students in higher learning outcomes. When using an online module
education settings. The successful development that provided tutorial information, English Lan-
procedure validates the cyclical process proposed guage Learners’ preferred mode of learning, self-
by Newman and Passa (2007) and evidence the reported need for the content, and their perceptions
need for multiple external reviews by content and of ability to learn were related to their perceived
design specialists as well as potential user audi- benefits of the process. The audio laden module,
ences. For this particular audience, comprised of with frequent options that allowed students to
nontraditional college students, it was noted that enter, exit and access additional materials, was
Table 5. Plagiarism module comparison of pre-post content scores*
Site Pre-Content Mean St. Dev. Post-Content Mean In Percent St. Dev. T value Eta
In Percent Squared
Site 2 82.50 12.88 92.50 4.52 2.57** 35%
(n=12)
Site 4 79.47 13.53 85.26 9.63 1.93*** 17%
(n=19)
*Site 2 is a distance education center, Site 4 is a community college blended ESL setting; see Section I for additional information.
**p<.05
***p<.10
122

perceived by verbal learners as more helpful than online support to help their education process, we
it was for visual learners. Global learners also must continue to identify specific areas of need
perceived the information as more beneficial than and best practices in development and use. This is
did sequential learners. These findings differ from especially important as we address the writing and
those of Newman and colleagues (Newman, 1998; communication skills of this growing population.
Newman & Clure, 2007) in the engineering field; The study indicates that the nontraditional higher
in those studies, ESL students were frequently education student has unique needs different from
noted to turn off audio over-lays so that they could those of traditional emerging adults. Although
concentrate on the visual words and graphics. In these traditional students also need help in writing,
the current pilot of ESL students, computer ef- the processes, form, and style of the help needed
ficacy was not found to be an important variable, by nontraditional students appears to differ. For
contrary to previous studies (Newman, Clure, both types of students, online writing modules
Rodd & Morris, 2010; Newman & Passa, 2007); have the potential to improve their skills, interest,
however, unlike those studies, the users in this and overall college success.
pilot evidenced a pattern of computer familiar-
ity that varied within the context. The findings
related to writing efficacy support previous work ACKNOWLEDGMENT
by Newman and Passa (2007) and Newman and
Clure (2007). In the current study, students’ affect The authors would like to acknowledge the con-
toward and experience with writing is related to tributions Claire Bradin Siskin, project director.
their perceived uses and benefits of the writing
tutorial. Newman and colleagues noted a similar
finding and documented the need for content ex- REFERENCES
pertise to part of initial usability studies. Overall
the findings for this study support the continued America.gov Archive (2008). Nontraditional
investigation and documentation of student learner students enrich U.S. college campuses: Older
characteristics as part of module development. If students value challenging courses with real world
designers and developers are aware of the end-user applications. Retrieved from http://www.america.
and the potential confounding user characteristics, gov/st/educ-english/2008/12//9/2011
more versatile and usable curriculum materials Angelora, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). “If you
can be developed. don’t tell me, how can I know” A case study of
Much of the current research on usability re- four international students learning to write the
flects samples of learners from traditional K-12 U.S. way. Written Communication, 16, 491–525.
and higher education markets; it is important that doi:10.1177/0741088399016004004
we begin to look at the needs of those users “out-
side the norm,” especially those users who reflect Arslan, R. Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, A. (2010). How
different languages and discipline groups. In this can the use of blog software facilitate the writing
study we found both commonalities and differ- process of English Language Learners? Computer
ences related to online use by nontraditional users Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183–197. do
that merit further investigation. As the number of i:10.1080/09588221.2010.486575
these students increase, and as we continue to find
123

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. Engstrom, E. U. (2005). Reading, writing and
(2005). The critical role of vocabulary develop- assistive technology: An integrated develop-
ment for English Language Learners. Learning mental curriculum for college students. Journal
Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57. of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(1), 30–39.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.1.4
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). De- Fang, Y. (2010). Perceptions of the computer-
veloping literacy in second-language learners: assisted writing program among EFL college
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Lan- learners. Journal of Educational Technology &
guage-Minority and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Society, 13(3), 246–256.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Percep- Fregeau, L. (1999). Preparing ESL students for
tions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis college writing: Two case studies. The Internet
student writing the discussion section. Journal TESL Journal, 5 (10).
of Education for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Ef-
Black, R. W. (2009). English-Language Learners, fective strategies to improve writing of adolescents
fan communities, and 21st-century skills. Journal in middle and high school – A report to Carnegie
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(8), 688–697. Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Al-
doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.8.4 liance for Excellent Education.
Camhi, P. J., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2008). Merg- Hutchison, C. B. (2006). Cultural constructiv-
ing a metalinguistic grammar approach with L2 ism: The confluence of cognition, knowledge
academic process writing: ELLs in community creation, multiculturalism, and teaching.
college. TESL-EJ, 12(2), 1–25. Intercultural Education, 17(3), 301–310.
doi:10.1080/14675980600841694
Cheng, Y. C. (2006). New paradigm of learning
and teaching in a networked environment: impli- Jinkens, R. C. (2009). Nontraditional students:
cations for ICT literacy. In L. T. Wee Han, & R. Who are they? College Student Journal Part A,
Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of Research on 43(4), 979–987.
Literacy in Technology at the K-12 Level. Hershey,
Kim, K. A., Sax, L. J., Lee, J. J., & Hagedorn,
PA: IDEA Group, Inc. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-
L. S. (2010). Redefining nontraditional stu-
494-1.ch001
dents: Exploring the self-perceptions of com-
Crandall, J., & Sheppard, K. (2004). Adult ESL munity college students. Community College
and the community college (Working Paper 7). Journal of Research and Practice, 34, 402–422.
New York: CAAL Community College Series, doi:10.1080/10668920701382633
Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy.
Law, E., & Havannberg, E. (2007). Quality models
Danzak, R. L. (2011). The interface of language of online learning community systems: Explora-
proficiency and identity: A profile analysis of tion, evaluation, and exploitation. In N. Lambro-
bilingual adolescents and their writing. Language, poulos, & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), User-centered design
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, of online learning communities (pp. 71–100).
506–519. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0015) Hershey, PA: IDEA Group, Inc.
PMID:21844398
124

Lee, I. (2000). Learner perceptions, learning Newman, D., Clure, G., Rodd, J., & Morris, M.
styles, and learning strategies: In an asynchronous, (2010). Moving the lab to the classroom: The im-
open text-based, task-oriented, and gender-mixed pact of an innovative technological teaching tool
web environment. In Proceedings from the World on K-14 learning and cognition. Paper presented
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyper- at the 2010 conference of Society for Information
media and Telecommunications (pp. 1415-1416). Technology & Teacher Education. New York, NY.
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Newman, D., & Gullie, K. (2009).Using construc-
Mahfouz, S. M., & Ihmeideh, F. M. (2009). At- tivist methods in technology-supported learning:
titudes of Jordanian university students towards Evidence of student impact. Paper presented at
using online chat discourse with native speakers of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
English for improving their language proficiency. Research Association. San Diego, CA.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3),
Newman, D., & Murphy, K. (2011). Technology
207–227. doi:10.1080/09588220902920151
supported instruction: Best practices for at-risk
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Learning multimedia. and underserved learners. Paper presented at the
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2011 Annual American Evaluation Association
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139164603 Conference. Anaheim, CA.
Melkin, C. H. (2012). Nontraditional students Newman, D., Reinhard, D. E., & Clure, G. (2007).
online: Composition, collaboration, and com- Using constructivist methods in technology-
munity. The Journal of Continuing Higher Edu- supported learning: Evidence of student impact.
cation, 60(1), 33–39. doi:10.1080/07377363.20 Paper presented at the American Educational
12.649128 Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. Newman, D. L., & Clure, G. (2007). Reaching
(1989). Development and validation of the beyond the invisible barriers: Serving a community
computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and of users with multiple needs. Paper presented at the
Psychological Measurement, 49, 893–899. Human Computers Interaction (HCI) International
doi:10.1177/001316448904900412 Conference. Beijing, China.
Newman, D. (1998). Rensselaer Polytechnic Newman, D. L., & Passa, K. (2007). The role
Institute Project Links: Mathematics and Its of user characteristics in the development and
Applications across the Curriculum. Evaluation evaluation of E-learning systems. In W. K. Law
Consortium, University at Albany/SUNY. (Ed.), Information resources management: Global
challenges. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Newman, D., & Clure, G. (2012). The importance
doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-102-5.ch015
of learner characteristics for nontraditional users.
Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Society for Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent
Information Technology and Teacher Education activation of high- and low-level production pro-
Conference. Austin, TX. cesses in written composition. Memory & Cogni-
tion, 30(4), 594–600. doi:10.3758/BF03194960
PMID:12184560
125

Rodd, J., & Newman, D. (2009). The impact of Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2009). Digital technologies
multi-media on learning specific to user charac- in higher education: Sweeping expectations and
teristics. University at Albany/SUNY. Paper pre- actual effects. New York, NY: Nova Science.
sented at the Annual Conference of the American
Hanna, B., & de Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing
Evaluation Association. Orlando, FL.
happened on the way to the forum: Electronic dis-
Tucker, J. T. (2006). The ESL logjam: Waiting cussion and foreign language learning. Language
times for adult ESL classes and the impact on Learning & Technology, 7(1), 71–85.
English learners. Washington, DC: National
Klassen, J., & Milton, P. (1999). Enhancing Eng-
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
lish language skills using multimedia: Tried and
Officials Educational Fund.
tested. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Edu- 12(4), 281–294. doi:10.1076/call.12.4.281.5706
cation Sciences, National Center for Education
Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in
Statistics. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics
language learning. ELT Journal, 52(4), 282–290.
2010. Author.
doi:10.1093/elt/52.4.282
Weaver, R., & Jackson, D. (2011). Evaluating an
Leppisaari, I., Herrington, J., Vainio, L., & Im,
academic writing program for nursing students
Y. (2013). Authentic e-learning in a multicultural
who have English as a second language. Con-
context: Virtual benchmarking cases from five
temporary Nurse, 38(1-2), 130–138. doi:10.5172/
countries. Journal of Interactive Learning Re-
conu.2011.38.1-2.130 PMID:21854244
search, 24(1), 53–74.
Logan, L. (2012). Replicating interactive graduate
student writing workshops in the virtual classroom:
ADDITIONAL READING
Best practices for meeting learning objectives and
Allen, G. J. (1984). Using a personalized system controlling costs. Journal of Applied Learning
of instruction to improve the writing skills of Technology, 2(3), 11–15.
undergraduates. Teaching of Psychology, 11(2), McCune, V. (2004). Development of first-
95–98. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1102_10 year students’ conceptions of essay writing.
Arslanyilmaz, A. (2012). An online task-based Higher Education, 47(3), 257–282. doi:10.1023/
language learning environment: Is it better for B:HIGH.0000016419.61481.f9
advanced- or intermediate-level second language New, E. (1999). Computer-aided writing in French
learners? Turkish Online Journal Of Educational as a foreign language: A qualitative and quantita-
Technology, 11(1), 20–35. tive look at the process of revision. Modern Lan-
Coryell, J. E., & Chlup, D. T. (2007). Implementing guage Journal, 83(1), 80–97. doi:10.1111/0026-
E-Learning components with adult English Lan- 7902.00007
guage Learners: Vital factors and lessons learned.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3),
263–278. doi:10.1080/09588220701489333
126

Newman, D., Coyle, V., & Meredith, H. (2011). English Language Learner (ELL): Individu-
Schenectady City School District Enhancing als whose native language is not English and are
Education through Technology—The SCALE learning the English language.
Project 2010-2011. University at Albany/SUNY. Global Learners: Learners who immediately
Evaluation Consortium. begin an activity and jump from task to task. They
are typically involved in more synthesis than
Sox, A., & Rubinstein-Ávila, E. (2009). Web-
analysis and look at the overall big picture of the
Quests for English-Language Learners: Essen-
learning task. These students do not look so much
tial Elements for Design. Journal of Adolescent
at directions provided by instructor, but come up
& Adult Literacy, 53(1), 38–48. doi:10.1598/
with their own ways to complete the tasks.
JAAL.53.1.4
Intuitive Learners: Learners who look for
Sull, E. C., & Seelow, D. (2013). Try this: The meaning and conceptual information, they rely on
ESL program: A crucial component of distance their hunches and insight to carry them through
learning. Distance Learning, 10(2), 39–42. the tasks.
Learning Style: The natural patterns an indi-
Zhou, Y. (2007). Attitudes and motivation toward
vidual takes when obtaining and processing new
learning a second language in an internet-based
information.
informal context: Perceptions of university ESL
Level 2 ESL: A level of learning English for
students. M.Ed. Dissertation. University of Wind-
nonnative English speakers considered “High Be-
sor, Canada.
ginning” where speakers can generally understand
the language, but still have misunderstandings and
have difficulty reading and writing in English.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Nontraditional Student: Students 25 years
of age or older that delayed enrolling in postsec-
Active Learners: Learners who learn best by ondary education immediately after completing
engaging in discussions, brainstorming, question- high school.
ing, arguing, doing something externally with Online Learning: Also called distance learn-
content information (testing it, explaining it, etc.). ing. Refers to learning via electronic media and
Active learners would rather “try it out and see communication methods using the Internet.
how it works”. Reflective Learners: Learners who learn best
Auditory Learners: Individuals who learn by listening to explanations, watching presenta-
best when involved in discussion or are listening tions, figuring out problems on their own. Reflec-
to instruction. Generally, auditory learners ask tive learners take time to process and think through
questions to receive verbal explanation and engage information before discussing (e.g., writing things
in explaining information to others. down), evaluate their options before attempting
English for Speakers of Other Languages work, and may work more by themselves.
(ESOL): English taught to individuals whose Sensory Learners: Learners who are more
first language is not English who live in English- involved with the detail-oriented aspects of the
speaking countries. learning tasks. They solve problems using the
127

methods they know work. Typically sensory ENDNOTES

learners look for facts when they have questions.
Sequential Learners: Learners who go
1
Partial funding for this project was provided
through and complete work in a linear fashion (i.e., by the U.S. Department of Education Fund
step-by-step). They typically look at the “pieces” for Improvement in Postsecondary Education
of the tasks or assignments to try to understand Grant, number P116W090076.
the assignment or main idea.
2
A more complete version of these results
Type A Student: Individuals who are highly is available in: Newman, D., & Clure, G.
competitive and ambitious. They tend to be very (2012). The importance of learner char-
impatient and work under high pressure situations acteristics for nontraditional users. Paper
by juggling multiple deadlines simultaneously. presented at the 2011 Annual Society for
Visual Learners: Individuals who learn best Information Technology and Teacher Educa-
when looking at pictures, diagrams, timelines, tion Conference, Austin, Texas.
flow charts, demonstrations. These learners read
from the visuals to make sense of information.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): A
developmental level where a learner can achieve,
accomplish and learn a new task with guidance.
128
129
Chapter 7
Blended for Student
Engagement and Retention:
The Case of Cinema and Visual Culture
and Healthy Lifestyle Studies
Ishmael I. Munene
Northern Arizona University, USA
Flower Darby
John Doherty
ABSTRACT
Facetiously described as the “third generation” of distance learning, blended learning is now the new
kid on the block in the deployment of technology to support teaching and learning. Its versatility as a
pedagogical strategy for creating learner-centered instruction lies in the capacity to exploit the potentials
of both the traditional face-to-face instruction and online learning modality in order to provide students
with multiple pathways of learning. Yet, developing a blended course to take advantage of these duo
capabilities is a monumental challenge for faculty. This chapter presents an analysis of approaches and
models employed by faculty at Northern Arizona University to develop and deliver two blended courses
as part of the institution’s strategy of using technology to enhance undergraduate student engagement
and retention. The analysis shows that a multimodal approach that infuses technologies and media and
a proactive institutional policy in favor of blended learning, coupled with strategic faculty development,
provides the best pathway to developing robust blended courses that are truly learner-centered.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch007

Blended for Student Engagement and Retention
INTRODUCTION which determine whether a blended course will

function well to maximize the learning potential
Blended learning is the new darling of higher in that course.
education. Blogs, conferences and scholarship To delineate these determining factors, we ex-
on teaching and learning strongly emphasize the amine what the contemporary studies demonstrate
(almost) unbelievable benefits blended learning about blended learning; then we analyze exemplary
offers. Higher education institutions worldwide cases of blended learning at Northern Arizona
are also extolling the virtues of this most recent University. We then discuss lessons learned from
development of online learning, almost without poorly executed blended courses, drawing conclu-
discretion as to its appropriate pedagogical appli- sions regarding the required contextual factors
cations. As is often true with any trend, blended for effectively designed and delivered blended
learning in many cases is being implemented courses. The analysis illustrates the centrality
‘willy-nilly’ with very little rhyme or reason. of a proactive institutional policy in favor of
Often defined as the intentional and comple- blended learning coupled with strategic faculty
mentary merging of online and face-to-face development in providing the best pathway to
learning into one harmonious whole, blended developing robust blended courses that are truly
learning certainly has much to offer. The potential learner-centered.
advantages of well-designed blended courses are
significant: students demonstrate better perfor-
mance in blended courses compared to those in BLENDED LEARNING THROUGH
either fully online or face-to-face classes (US THE SCHOLARLY LENSES
Department of Education, 2009). In that they
combine the strengths of both online and face-to- The recent avalanche of scholarly literature on
face courses, blended courses deliver improved blended learning is indicative of the centrality
outcomes and increased student satisfaction (Zhao, that this pedagogical model has attained in the
Lei, Yan, Lai, & Tan, 2005; Dziuban, Hartman, & discourse on teaching. It also gives a false impres-
Moskal, 2010). And blended learning synthesizes sion that this teaching approach has been late in
several increasingly recognized approaches such as coming. A scrutiny of literature, however, suggests
learner-centered teaching, active and collaborative that a “Johnny-come-lately” nomenclature for
learning, and social constructivist learning. As blended learning is off the mark. It ignores the fact
such, blended learning initially appears to have that face-to-face instruction in combination with
no faults, no flaws or weaknesses. aspects of a non-classroom technology-mediated
However, whereas the empirical literature delivery system has been in use for the last couple
clearly demonstrates the superior learning expe- of decades. A sense of recent novelty in pedagogi-
rience offered by blended courses, the design of cal practices is driven largely by new pedagogical
blended courses presents a formidable challenge emphasis (from teacher-led to student-centered
to faculty who may not be experienced with this learning paradigm), new technological innova-
format. When executed properly, blended delivery tions (the internet, social media and personal
leads to optimal learning. But the challenge lies in computers including mobile computing devices)
proper design and execution of blended courses. and new learning theories (brain-based learning
Faculty are often ill-equipped to succeed in this and social constructivism). All these have elic-
modality, and there are other contextual factors ited a reconsideration of traditional approaches
130

to teaching and learning thereby contributing to the new mantra in delivering education via learn-
a paradigm shift in higher education (Buckley, ing technologies. BL, as the name suggests, is the
2002; DeZure, 2000; Barr & Tagg, 1995). fusion between two teaching paradigms employ-
It is now accepted that the platform that has ing two divergent philosophical assumptions. We
provided the node for the evolution of these begin with a definition which allows us to share
new teaching and learning models is the online a common perspective of an important phenom-
environment. This environment challenges the ena. Garrison and Vaughan (2007) define BL as
traditional approach to teaching and, thus, invites a “the thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online
reconceptualization of pedagogical practices. This experiences….such that the strengths of each
is in contrast to earlier technologies such as in- are blended into a unique learning experience….
structional television that replicated the traditional Blended learning is a fundamental redesign that
face-to-face environment (Dzuiban, Hartman, & transforms the structure of, and approach to, teach-
Moskal, 2004). It is not surprising, therefore, that ing and learning” (p. 5). Staker and Horn (2012)
online-based teaching is now the fastest growing of the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive
model of providing higher education globally. Innovation, on the other hand, define it as “a formal
The surge in online-based teaching and learn- education program in which a student learns at
ing coincides with scientific evidence indicating least in part through online delivery of content and
increased student satisfaction with this mode of instruction with some element of student control
instructional delivery (Sampson, Leonard, Bal- over time, place, path and/or pace and at least in
lenger, & Coleman, 2010; Aman, 2009; Dren- part a supervised brick-and-mortar location away
nan, Kennedy, & Pisarski, 2005; Chickering & from home” (p. 3). The two definitions illustrate
Ehrmann, 1996). Of the factors contributing to the remarkable differences in emphasis. While
the success, the following are identified as the Garrison and Vaughan focus on the strengths
most overarching: flexibility in program struc- that face-to-face and online delivery bring to an
ture thereby permitting more time for students instructional environment, Staker and Horn con-
to complete work, cost effectiveness (Vaughn, centrate on the student control (or lack thereof)
2007; Richardson & Swan, 2003); pacing of of the learning environment, with supervision
students’ learning in a scaffolding format thus of student learning being an integral part of the
permitting additional time for reflection on the process. In all, both definitions acknowledge, if
course content (Mathews, 1999; Berge, 1997). only incidentally, the transformative nature of the
In the Sampson, Leonard, Ballenger, & Coleman new instructional modality.
(2010) study, student satisfaction was highest in Two important considerations are germane
the area of instruction but lowest in teamwork. to BL. First, what proportion of time should be
These advantages notwithstanding there have been dedicated to online and in-class activities? This
criticisms voiced on the quality, delivery model is always a challenging question for BL instruc-
in online courses and the cultural consequences tors and course designers and there are no hard
of reliance on computers for instruction (see for and fast rules. A classification scheme adopted
instance, Goldbert & Riemer, 2006; Manochehri by Educause, a nonprofit agency dedicated to the
& Young, 2006; Bowers, 2000). However, we intelligent use of technology in instruction, cata-
shall not delve into details about these censures. logues blended courses based on the amount of
The new kid on the block in online-based time spend on each modality. Accordingly, blended
instruction is blended learning (BL). From cor- courses have between 30% and & 79% of activities
porate to K-12 institutions, from virtual colleges online, and a fully online course can include up
to brick-and-mortar universities, BL has become to 20% of face-to-face activities (Allen, Seaman,
131

& Garrett, 2010). Second, what models of BL research undertaken between 2001 and 2003, the
are in existence? Four models relevant to higher blended model was comparable or even better
education can be discerned (Friesen, 2012; Staker than the face-to-face instruction in terms of suc-
& Horn, 2012). The rotation model involves the cess rate (students attaining grades A, B, or C).
combination or embedding of online engagement In terms of students withdrawing from classes,
within a range of face-to-face forms of instruction blended learning attrition rates were comparable
in a cyclical manner. In the Flex model, multiple to the face-to-face modality for all ethnic groups
students are engaged primarily online but under (Dziuban et al., 2010).
the supervision of a teacher who is physically The combination of online and in-class activi-
present. The Self-blending model entails students ties in a course allows students the opportunity
choosing different courses to take independently, to learn in different styles and at different paces.
but they do so in a setting where a supervising Placing rote knowledge tasks online gives students
teacher and other students are co-present. Finally, the freedom to undertake self-directed asynchro-
in the Enriched-virtual model, online experiences nous study. Class time can then be dedicated to the
are viewed as enriching only periodically through elaboration of foundational knowledge acquired
arrangements of physical co-presence. online or in textbooks. This combination makes
Research studies point to student satisfaction the teaching flexible, approachable, and, most
and improved learning outcomes in BL courses of all, motivating to students (Behnke, 2012).
relative to purely online and face-to-face ones. In A corollary advantage of this blended learning
a meta-analysis involving 51 studies undertaken strategy is the inculcation of lifelong learning
by the United States Department of Education, skills in students. Since a significant proportion
it was established that students enrolled in fully of learning is leased to the students at a relatively
online and blended courses performed better early stage, they are likely to develop a desire and
than their face-to-face counterparts with blended the skills to continue learning throughout their lives
learning students performing significantly better (Glazer, 2012). They gain skills in acquisition,
(U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Another organization and presentation of information that
meta-analysis study by Zhao et al. (2005) identi- helps them acquire knowledge about the world.
fied three types of interactions germane to good These skills are the linchpin for success in the
course design. These are instructor and students, knowledge-driven economy that we live in today.
student and their peers, and student and content. Additionally, BL encourages active and col-
They established that blended courses reported laborative learning by students. Students not only
more positive outcomes than wholly asynchronous acquire information but also process it to ensure
courses. Dziuban et al. (2010) document the level they understand it, can organize it as well as make
of satisfaction with blended courses among the connections with their existing knowledge. After
three generations of Boomers (57%), Generation this, they then have to share it with colleagues
X (41%) and Millennials (33%) confirming that either in class or online (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPi-
older students are more satisfied with this teaching etro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010; Svinicki, 2004).
modality than their counterparts. So the combination of both synchronous and
BL has also the potential to reduce course asynchronous learning strategies leads students to
attrition rates in addition to increasing student greater learning than would otherwise have been
learning outcomes in tandem with fully online feasible. It is also significant that the flexibility
courses. At the University of Central Florida, in of the blended option helps students navigate the
132

multiple demands on their time; blended learning and structurally. It represents a paradigm shift in
may ameliorate some of the pressure on family, both teaching and learning. In keeping with this
work and commuting time. transformation of pedagogy using the technology
Faculty also gain from BL courses. A major medium Osguthorpe & Graham (2003) propose
relief for faculty is the resuscitation of chronically six attributes cardinal to the creation of success-
low-enrollment courses thereby protecting jobs ful blended courses: (a) pedagogical richness,
and averting loss of income. Hartwell & Bark- (b) access to knowledge, (c) social interaction,
ley’s (2012) use of blended learning strategy in (d) personal agency, (e) cost effectiveness and
their redesign saw their music class enrollment (f) ease of revision. Our case analysis of the vari-
increase from the perpetual low of 45 students ous BL courses developed at Northern Arizona
to 1,200 students annually. Not only did this lead University (NAU) document the extent to which
to job protection but it also resulted in hiring of these design attributes have been articulated in
additional faculty. Since blended classes also the development of the classes.
raise student enthusiasm, engagement levels and
overall student satisfaction, they play a critical
role in cushioning disinterested students from BLENDED LEARNING AT NAU
sabotaging the morale of the class. The differenti-
ated instructional structure and scaffolding of the Northern Arizona University has had an official
class permit such students to control aspects of course designation for hybrid learning for at
the learning process outside the class. This is a least 10 years. This form of learning has a very
major relief for instructors who need not worry flexible definition, including classes that meet
about class management issues from such disin- once or twice a semester in person and the rest
terested students. of the time online, or classes that meet in person
Finally, faculty enjoy the benefits of increased once a month and the rest of the time is online.
flexibility in their available time to pursue schol- There are as many iterations to hybrid learning as
arly or service activities arising from time saved there could possibly be. Indeed, the term hybrid
from decreased attendance in class. Because of learning has begun to be used interchangeably
releasing a portion of the course for independent with blended learning, though it is only recently
study by the student coupled by reduced hours that the University has begun work on a specific
of face-to-face instruction time, faculty have definition for blended learning.
additional time for other professional pursuits. The interest in hybrid or blended learning was
Furthermore, with a course using a team teach- very informal until just a couple of years ago. Until
ing structure, it is conceivable for one faculty then the modality of the blend was entirely in the
member to handle the online portion while the individual faculty member’s purview. The only
other specializes in the face-to-face segment caveat was that the face-to-face meetings had to
which also contributes to freeing the instructors be listed in the course catalog. Faculty could not
for other engagements. require face-to-face meeting times that were not
In sum, BL represents the third sector in the listed. This was also true for fully online courses.
continuum of distance learning. It blends the The recent Great Recession saw funding to the
strengths of the traditional face-to-face instruc- university severely cut by the State. However, there
tion and online asynchronous learning to develop was no commensurate cut in the State’s expecta-
a new learning strategy, both philosophically tions of the university, especially as it concurrently
133

dealt with an increase in student enrollments. NAU and homework assignments being rated particu-
has seen enrollments increase by over 6,000 full larly low. In terms of active learning strategies,
time equivalent students since 2005. the students ranked discussion of classroom topics
On campus enrollment was particularly a con- outside as the highest but this was only slightly
cern as the university saw an influx of students above 50%. It is this student concern and the risk
without fiscal resources to support them. Also, as of additional student attrition in subsequent years
the leadership looked ahead demographics sug- that has been the catalyst for reframing instruction
gested that increasing enrollments were here to at the undergraduate level with a blended learning
stay. At one point, the strategic plan called for a approach being the focal point.
potential 35,000 FTE by 2020. Clearly there was a Therefore, in 2011 the university instigated the
need to accommodate this increase, with less state President’s Technology Initiative, a program spe-
funding than was available in 2008. Technology cifically supported by the Office of the President
was seen as one potential solution, and blended that was designed to encourage high enrollment
learning in particular as a way to begin to more lower division courses to explore a blended ap-
effectively use the physical and human resources proach to course design and delivery. As of writing,
available without sacrificing the high quality, there have been four calls for proposals for this
high touch, learner-centered education that the program, out of which 10 course redesigns have
university was credited with offering. been funded. The faculty coordinator receives a
Also, new thinking on student success as stipend to fund the redesign, a budget to bring in
epitomized by rigorous courses and independent resources to enable the redesign, and one or two
learning skills is in consonance with what the semesters in which to pilot the redesigned version
students would like to see in their courses. Table of the course. Full implementation of the redesign
1 summarizes the findings of some key variables means that the course would be delivered in a
of course rigor that first year students ranked as blended learning format across all of its sections,
being low. Academic challenge has been perceived except those that were being delivered online.
as being low with exam performance expectations Additionally, departments that support these
redesigns are awarded up to $30,000 and they
keep any cost savings realized from the redesign.
Table 1. First-year student academic experience NAU developed two forms of support for fac-
at NAU, 2010 ulty who intended to apply for the grant and for
those that were successful and were working on
Courses Rigor Percent (%)
their projects. First, a blended learning workshop
1. Academic Challenge
• High Faculty Expectations 52 was developed and required for anyone interested
• More than 15 hours/week homework 33 in submitting a proposal. This workshop, led by
• Exams require best performance 47
instructional designers at the university’s e-Learn-
2. Active Learning
• Class topics discussed outside 58
ing Center, introduced participants to blended
• Students work collaboratively inside & 49 learning designs and modes and also modeled
outside class one particular blended learning approach. The
• Student applying classroom learning to 50
real life focus of the workshop was twofold: developing
• Student opportunities to tutor each 24 an integrated and intentional approach to blended
other
learning that was not just an online course with
3. Student-Faculty Interaction
• Faculty members accessible & 42 a social hour; and, assisting faculty in complet-
supportive ing the application process and in developing a
Source: (Northern Arizona University (2010) cost savings and program assessment plan. Also,
134

during the pilot and implementation phases the out-of-class activities. However, a course that
faculty would have priority access to a team of replaces as little as 25% of the seat time with out-
instructional designers, instructional technolo- of-class activities can still be considered blended.
gists, creative designers, and assessment experts. (see http://www.nau.edu/blendedlearning/).
The projects highlighted in this chapter were
successful applicants for this program. Both have This group has also opened up the President’s
demonstrated the need to build in a pilot phase Technology Initiative to include a broader focus on
to any institution-wide blended learning initia- courses that are not strictly lower division and high
tive. Also, they clearly called for a peer group of enrollment. As of writing, 27 faculty coordinators
faculty developers and instructional designers to representing all colleges are taking the Blended
share ideas, challenges, brainstorms, and prob- Learning Workshop with a view to submitting a
lems. Consequently, the e-Learning Center and proposal for funding a blended learning course
the Faculty Professional Development Program redesign. Also, the Faculty Learning Community
invited participants and other faculty to join a on Blended Learning Redesign is in its second
Faculty Learning Community on Blended Learn- iteration, with 12 faculty participating who are
ing Course Redesign, the second form of support also eligible to apply for the grant.
that was co-facilitated by one of the first course
coordinators to avail themselves of the grant, an Case 1: CINE 101: Introduction
Instructional Designer, and the director of Faculty to Cinema and Visual Culture
Professional Development. This learning commu-
nity built on the peer aspect of the blended learn- The Need for a Blended Approach
ing workshop with a focus on working through and Pedagogical Orientations
the meaning of and the pedagogy behind blended
learning at Northern Arizona University. It is not always the case that the world of humani-
Concurrently to these initiatives the Office of ties, cinema studies and critical analysis will find
the Provost appointed a senior faculty member and fusion in blended learning. Conventional wisdom
returning American Council on Education (ACE) dictates that humanities are best experienced
Fellow to bring a stronger focus to blended learning through instructor-student interaction in a class-
at the university. One of Dr. Denise Helm’s first room setting. The cardinal traits of a successful
actions was to call together a Blended Learning humanities program rest on the ability to provide
Leadership Team to begin discussions on what students with dispositions that enable them to
exactly blended learning meant for the campus. be receptive, critical and constructive. Further,
The group developed a working definition of wise rack from yore has consistently held that
blended learning and shared it with the university academic study of movies is best achieved when
community for feedback and further refinement. they are watched and critiqued in a classroom,
Currently, the definition states: a deviation reminiscent of today’s popcorn-
enhanced movie theater entertainment experience.
NAU defines blended learning as an approach So, the academic study of movies has remained a
that combines the best elements of face-to-face consistently predictable affair, translating into a
teaching with a variety of technologies, resulting boring routine for the instructor and disengaged
in increased learning effectiveness and improved students. That enrollment numbers in such classes
efficiency. Ideally, a blended course at NAU re- have remained consistently low is not surprising.
places 50% of the conventional class time with It is this reality that propelled Astrid Klocke of
135

the humanities program at NAU to redesign CINE an easy and “cool” option comprising of watch-
101 Introduction to Cinema and Visual Culture ing movies followed by a few discussion points.
from a face-to-face class to a blended one. When students enroll in a course on cinema with
Necessity is the mother of invention. It forces its visual, artistic and entertaining attributes but
reflection on goals, re-examination of strategies do not attain and develop skills, knowledge and
and a consideration of the consequences. The aptitudes in film analysis, then the class becomes
truism of this age old wit could not have been an inevitable ritual of movie screening followed
enunciated better in blended learning at NAU than by discussions.
in Cinema 101. A triumvirate of student needs, The professor’s intrinsic motivation to rede-
university interests and instructor necessity pro- sign the class was driven by the need to eschew
vided the impetus for course redesign. Looking at any semblance of a “sage on stage” with its
the horizon, the potential reward was a stimulating inevitable practice of standing before a class to
and engaging curriculum for students, a course deliver lectures on cinema. Though the lecture
that supports the university’s freshmen academic method appears to be the most ubiquitous teach-
programming and a professionally satisfying ing method in higher education on account of
course for the instructor. its efficiency, its functional limits in creating an
Students’ needs were at the apex of the instruc- engaging student-centered learning experience
tor’s concern. Nothing is more injurious to a class are well enough documented not to warrant ad-
than disengaged and demotivated students; they ditional considerations here (see for instance Khan,
are disruptive and indifferent to the content being 2012). Nonetheless for the Cinema 101 instructor,
delivered. Their demeanor, most often, is infec- lecturing was no longer intellectually engaging:
tious, rendering havoc to the teaching-learning
climate of the whole class. In a class like Cinema ….standing there and repeating myself semester af-
101, students, according to Klocke: ter semester doing the same very basic telling them
what they needed to do seemed very superfluous,
….expected to sit disengaged in class and watch seemed tiring and unnecessary because we have
a cinema and then discuss it, meaning pseudo people doing it online, they have short videos….I
psychologize the meaning and characters and then could even tape myself and put it online…why do
empathize with them. That is it. What they need I have to deliver the lecture? (Klocke, personal
is a critical analysis of the film. They need the communication, November 15, 2013)
ability to know the techniques that went into film-
making and the tools of the trade of film analysis The course redesign was also driven by two in-
which includes things such as mise en scene and stitutional imperatives. The first was the First Year
cinematography. All these tools of analyzing a Learning Initiative (FYLI) program, “a unique,
film, they do not have but they do not think they locally-developed and faculty-driven program for
need them. (Klocke, personal communication, building academic success in the early college ca-
November 15, 2013) reer” (Northern Arizona University, 2013). FYLI
is based on the premise that students need—and
For a long time, that had been the pedagogical want—high standards in the lower level courses in
approach the class had taken—movie screening order to be successful at the undergraduate level.
in class followed by discussions. Furthermore, Students want such standards clearly articulated
since this class fulfills the NAU liberal studies in the first session in the course and, in order to
requirements for the freshmen class, most of be successful, they need, throughout the course,
those who had signed up assumed it would be support, guidance, highly engaging pedagogy
136

and clear, frequent feedback. Courses selected for move the class from teacher-centered lecture-based
FYLI designation, as CINE 101 was, must conform instruction to a cognitively-rich student-centered
to three important principles during the redesign environment.
process: socializing students for excellence, maxi-
mizing student engagement, and aligning learning Course Structure
outcomes to learning activities and assessments.
To incorporate these elements effectively in CINE Like many blended courses in the humanities (see
101, a blended approach employing a combina- for instance Gau, 2012) Cinema 101 is divided into
tion of the best practices in humanity pedagogy learning modules consisting of a scaffolding of
and modern technology was the most appropriate learning activities both in-class and out-of-class.
pathway. This course redesign was facilitated by a There are 4 modules that mirror the class text, The
generous grant from the NAU President’s Technol- Film Experience: An Introduction (3rd Edition) by
ogy Initiative, a competitive funding program for Timothy Corrigan and Patricia While. Each mod-
100 and 200 level courses with large enrollment ule contains a number of chapters, and consists
taught by multiple instructors. of: (1) chapter summary that highlights the key
Efficiency in the use of lecturer room, as the points of the pertinent chapter in the course text,
institutional imperative, required that instructors, (2) chapter quizzes, (3) chapter discussion topics,
if need be, structure their courses for optimal (4) movies linked to the chapter, and (5) additional
use of such resources. With the healthy growth readings. The course assessment structure encom-
in undergraduate numbers, current classrooms passes the following: (1) class attendance, (2) 3
have become inadequate and efficient use of surveys, (3) chapter quizzes which are generated
existing ones is imperative. Where permissible, from the test bank provided by the class text pub-
instructors have been encouraged to use modern lisher, (4) 7 written discussions, (5) group project,
instructional technologies to deliver content that (6) midterm exam, and (7) final exam portfolio.
may not warrant frequent face-to-face sessions. These study and assessment activities keep the
Lower-level factual activities like watching mov- students engaged throughout the semester.
ies and discussing the plot can best be undertaken Rather than two face-to-face class meetings
outside the class. of 75 minutes each week, only one is held. The
The pedagogical underpinnings informing instructor uses the in-class meetings to provide
Professor Klocke are borrowed heavily from a forum for critical analysis and discussion of
her background in linguistics. Communicative the course text and the movies associated with
language teaching, a language teaching approach the particular chapter. The class format calls for
that focuses on interaction as a means and goal students’ application of the concepts identified
of study, meant that students would acquire skills in the readings to movies that they have watched.
in the use of language to communicate ideas They are required to demonstrate, with solid
meaningfully. Equally important is task-based evidence from the assigned movies, that they
language teaching where students undertake an have internalized the cinematography concepts
activity arising from the text they have covered. they encountered in the readings. They are also
Students are expected to generate a product from presented with an opportunity to demonstrate
the content rather than merely asking questions why their perspective on the film matters to them.
of the professor. This is a decentered, facilitative Some of these in-class activities are undertaken
approach that puts emphasis on learning rather in class groups. In-class activities are geared to-
than teaching. These pedagogical approaches wards what Krathwohl (2002) refers to as medium
could best be facilitated by technology in order to level conceptual learning skills—where students
137

use factual knowledge to make interpretations documenting their experience in the internship.
and inferences through application, analysis and The comprehensive final exam portfolio, which
interpretations of information acquired. each student is required to produce at the close
Out-of-class activities include chapter and of the semester, includes: a one-page reflective
supplemental readings, online discussions, chapter essay, a two-page analysis essay and the final
quizzes, and watching movies. The preference is for exam. In all, the course assessment is structured
the students to watch the movies on the weekend as presented in Table 2.
after they have undertaken the readings and the The course taps into a variety of learning styles
chapter quiz. Doing so provides important back- through visual, audio, interaction and collabora-
ground materials with which to critique the movie. tion. The course is recursive in structure with both
After watching the movie, students participate in in-class and out-of-class activities complementing
an online discussion using the topic provided by and reinforcing each other as captured in Figure 1.
the instructor. Online discussion is also under- The recursive process employs technology to de-
taken in class groups. These semester-long class liver large scale efficiency, profound engagement
groups consist of about 8 students constituted by opportunities and unlimited learning possibilities.
the instructor at the beginning of the semester.
Another out-of-class activity is a mini-intern- The Blended Benefits
ship. Here students can opt to volunteer in the fall
Flagstaff Mountain Film Festival or they take The rewards arising from blending Cinema 101
part in the various film series on campus. They are the aspiration of every student, instructor and
then write a reflective group paper arising from institution. Pedagogically, students have registered
this mini-internship experience. Online activities increased satisfaction with the course both in terms
provide the student with opportunities to learn at of content, organization and delivery. Remarkable
two levels as per Krathwohl’s (2002) classification. evidence of student satisfaction is found in stu-
First is the low level learning skills (literal and
factual) where they build essential foundational Table 2. Cinema 101 course assessment structure
knowledge through recall, recognition and clas-
sification such as watching movies and online Assessment Activity Points
discussions. Second is the high level metacogni- Class Attendance 12
tive knowledge where students begin to evaluate, 3 Surveys 3
construct and create as seen in the collaborative 7 Chapter Reading Quizzes 14
group projects and internships.
7 Written Online Discussions 14
Course assessment takes place through a vari-
Group Project 10
ety of activities. Besides class attendance, quizzes,
Midterm Exam 10
3 surveys, online written discussions and the group
Essay Paper 20
internship project, the course assessment also • 1st draft (5points)
involves midterm and final exams, an essay paper • Peer review (5 points)
• Revised draft (10 points)
as well as a comprehensive final exam portfolio.
The group internship project forms the basis of Final Exam Portfolio 17
• 1-page reflective essay (2 points)
the semester-long essay paper in which they are • 2-page analysis essay (10 points)
required to not only write a reflective piece but • Final exam (5 points)
also to undertake a class presentation critically Total Points 100
138

Figure 1. The recursive structure of cinema 101

Case 2: HS 200: Healthy Lifestyles
Revitalizing a Course through

Blended Delivery
Redesigning HS 200: Healthy Lifestyles for

blended delivery has caused the course to “come
alive,” according to Professor Ellen Larson. Faced
with apathetic students, limitations in available
classroom space and faculty salary, and her own
desire to encourage active learning among the
primarily freshmen students in this class, Larson
applied for and received institutional support in
the form of two initiatives underway at NAU. Of
primary importance was the necessity of restruc-
turing the use of class time:
I wanted the in class time spent applying knowl-

dents’ written evaluation narratives, in which they edge. In order for this to happen, I needed a
comment that the course has changed their entire mechanism for students to learn the basic content
perspective on watching movies. A substantial knowledge prior to class. Building the content into
number indicate that they now watch films with the course shell, and holding students accountable
a critical-entertainment mindset as opposed to for learning it (online quizzes, self-assessments,
only entertainment as was the case previously. online discussion, etc.) made the difference.
At the departmental level, enrollment in the (Larson, personal communication, December
course has quadrupled from 35 students a se- 13, 2013)
mester in one section to around 150 students in
4 sections. As a result, the humanities program The factor that created the greatest impact on
has had to hire 4 adjuncts to match the increased blended HS 200 was Larson’s focus on student
enrollment. Though this has entailed an additional responsibility for their own learning. Holding
supervisory role for Prof. Klocke, the satisfaction students accountable through intentionally de-
of being instrumental in developing and growing signed online activities “made the difference” for
a cinema studies minor in the humanities program this course. Like CINE 101, HS 200 was redevel-
far outweighs the added responsibilities. In addi- oped using a blended approach according to the
tion, since there is only one in-class session per parameters of the First-Year Learning Initiative
week in contrast to the two sessions each week (FYLI) and the President’s Technology Initiative.
that took place prior to blending, classroom uti- The result is an engaging, dynamic and successful
lization in the humanities building has improved. blended course that showcases the best of what
There are now more classrooms available for other blended learning can be. As described above for
classes in the College of Arts and Letters despite CINE 101, FYLI certification requires a course
the resurgence in student numbers in the last two to intentionally support student success through
years in CINE 101. careful monitoring and frequent communication
139

with students regarding their progress. The Presi- active and collaborative learning activities, which
dent’s Technology Initiative provides the support were Larson’s preference. Indeed she often felt
to redesign classes for blended delivery to promote frustrated at her students’ passive learning experi-
efficient use of faculty time and classroom space. ence as she was forced to cover basic knowledge
Together, these two programs afforded Larson the in class. Lecturing to a roomful of disengaged
opportunity to dig in and rebuild HS 200 from undergraduates was neither a successful strategy
the ground up. Having piloted the course for two for Larson nor for her students.
semesters before delivering it across multiple Redesigning HS 200 has allowed the basic
sections taught by multiple instructors, Larson content delivery to be moved online. Students
testifies to the benefits of blending this course: can now benefit much more from interactive and
dynamic class meetings. Similarly to CINE 101,
I am able to use my time well. I don’t think 70 HS 200 students now meet once per week in a
students need me to stand in front of them and 75-minute session. The other class content takes
go over what’s in the textbook, the basics…. The place online. Larson meets with one section of
thing I like best about the blended class is I get the students on Tuesday, the other on Thursday.
to do what I love best. And that’s working with Students reserve the class meeting time on both
the students, establishing relationships with them, days in order to be able to meet as a large group
and having a very interactive, experiential type of for a guest speaker or exam. This additional flex-
classroom environment. (Larson, personal com- ibility enhances the success of the asynchronous
munication, November 1, 2013) element of the blended format.
In deciding which learning activities were best
Larson claims increased personal job satisfac- delivered online vs. in-person, Larson turned to
tion as one of the primary benefits of the blended Bloom’s Taxonomy. Basic knowledge acquisition,
approach. Delivering this content is “so much the lower level of the taxonomy, takes place online.
more rewarding” than it was in a more traditional Interpretation and application of the content are
in-person format. The ability to focus her time and reserved for class meetings. Students come to
energy on engaging with her students, rather than class prepared to engage with the content, with
delivering the same basic knowledge semester each other, and with the instructor. “There is never
after semester, has brought new life to Larson’s more than 15 minutes of passive learning in a class
teaching methodologies and is the most successful period”, according to Larson. “The rest of the
element of the redesign. class time must be interactive” (Larson, personal
communication, October 25, 2013).
Blended Course Structure
and Redesign Process Fostering Active Learning and
Student Responsibility
HS 200 bears many similarities to CINE 101.
Larson delivered the first iteration of blended HS As part of the FYLI structure, students who are
200 in Fall 2012. In that initial semester, Larson not motivated to do the online work are identi-
taught two sections of 35 students each. Like CINE fied early in the semester while they have time to
101, prior to redesign HS 200 met twice weekly change their approach. “[Blended delivery] does
for 75 minutes per session. So much of in-class not work for every student. But it works for many
meeting time was devoted to content delivery— students…. In class, we build community; we build
content that students were to have acquired before camaraderie” (Larson personal communication,
coming to class—that little time was left over for October 25, 2013). Improved connection to the
140

learning community has had a direct impact on variety of tasks including reading, listening to a
student engagement and success in this course. mini-lecture, participating in an online discussion,
Larson acknowledges that students’ ability to evaluating their own lifestyles using an online
adjust to blended courses vary, but argues that self-assessment, and “submitting other materi-
with appropriate instructor support, they can be als to help prepare them for engagement as soon
successful: as they walk through the door [for the next class
meeting]” (Larson, video). The online material is
Some students quickly grasp the blended concept; divided into clear tasks with labels such as “Read
some need nudging, some need shepherding all It,” “See It,” “Hear It,” “Do It,” and “Review It.”
semester. I’m not willing to drag the students Helping students come to class prepared for active
through. I’m willing to meet them halfway… to help learning has been one of the primary benefits of
them and show them and guide them and support blending HS 200.
them. I’m into [student] accountability. (Larson, After piloting the blended course in Fall 2012,
personal communication, November 1, 2013) Larson made minor revisions for Spring 2013.
Based on two semesters’ experience and student
Some of Larson’s methods of encouraging stu- feedback, Larson made further improvements be-
dents to take responsibility for their own learning fore rolling out HS 200 across seven sections with
include using a gatekeeper syllabus quiz, requiring multiple instructors in Fall 2013. The opportunity
hard-copy assignments at the beginning of each to revamp the course several times before “turning
class meeting, and allowing students two attempts it loose” on multiple instructors was “such a gift,”
to take online reading quizzes. Students must score according to Larson (personal communication,
100% on the syllabus quiz before they can access November 1, 2013). That opportunity resulted
the first module of the online content. They may directly from NAU’s complementary FYLI and
attempt the quiz as many times as they need to, President’s Technology initiatives.
but until they answer every question perfectly,
they can not proceed in the class. Similarly, stu- Teaching in the Blended Format
dents who come to class without their hard-copy is “So Much More Rewarding”
assignment are unable to participate in that day’s
learning activities, since class activities have been Students engage more actively with the content of
specifically designed to build on and apply the HS 200, and apply it more effectively, as a result
content from the homework assignment due at the of blending the class. Additionally, there is more
beginning of each class. Both of these strategies consistency between sections now that the content
keep students accountable for their own learning is captured in the online class shell. Establishing
in the class. “continuity across the sections, many of which are
For each online reading quiz, students are per- taught by adjuncts who may or may not stay on”
mitted up to two attempts. If they are content with is yet another advantage of the course redesign.
their grade on the first attempt, students keep it. If But the primary improvement for Larson
not, students may re-attempt the quiz and will earn centers around the more effective use of class
the average of both scores. Thus, Larson further time and richer learning experience that results:
encourages students to prepare carefully and take
responsibility for their learning experience. The course has changed dramatically as a result
Like in CINE 101, online activities in HS 200 of going from a traditional face-to-face approach
are intentionally designed to support and reinforce to a [blended] approach. More in-depth learning
in-class activities. Online, students complete a occurs, I am able to customize the in-class portion
141

based on student need/interest, and I am able to get As previously noted, there have been 10
to know each of my students in a small (35-student) courses funded by this grant program and all have
venue instead of a 70-student venue. (Larson, demonstrated similar levels of success: increased
personal communication, December 13, 2013) student engagement, increased capacity, and in-
creased faculty satisfaction. Introductory courses
In Larson’s observation, students are coming to in Political Science, Chemistry, and Economics
class better prepared because they have been held demonstrate that student success is positively
accountable to complete the online material prior impacted as well. A lab science course in Biology
to the next class meeting. And Larson’s student- that was constrained by physical space has doubled
centered, active learning approach to in-class ac- its capacity by going to a 50/50 blended model.
tivities benefits both her and her students. “Using Yet there have also been some misfires in in-
class time to do application and see the changes, formal approaches to blended learning. A prime
[observing the] students process info and ask example was in the NAU first year seminar, where
questions that are relevant, [seeing them] engage two courses attempted a 50/50 blend, where the
with the material in a way not seen previously… class would only meet one day of the week instead
is so much more rewarding” (Larson, personal of two. These courses were directed at entering
communication, November 1, 2013). first year students; it became clear that the students
Despite her success, Larson is not convinced were ill-prepared for the blended approach. In other
that blended delivery is for everyone. She en- words, a successful blended course redesign needs
courages faculty to consider whether a blended to be accomplished with the student’s ability to
design would support and enhance “the student take control of his or her own learning in mind.
achievement of [your] course outcomes” before This first lesson can be seen in the implementa-
deciding whether to proceed. “However, I do feel tion of CINE 101 and HS 200. In both instances
that depending on the course and the outcomes, the courses were intentionally designed to integrate
it can really make a class come alive” (Larson, the online and face-to-face components in a fully
personal communication, November 1, 2013). transparent and obvious way for the students to
see the connections and the importance of both.
The essential point here is that while blended
LESSONS LEARNED learning design presents faculty with many chal-
lenges, it impacts the students as well. This adds
These two cases highlight two very successful a requirement that faculty design their blended
and, as of writing, mature implementations of courses to scaffold student learning in this new
blended learning at NAU, as well as three major (to the students) way. Both examples, by adopting
lessons learned: the NAU FYLI model, did this from the outset,
where there was early and frequent assessment of
• Blended course redesign needs to be ac- student learning, and thus the ability to intervene
complished with the student in mind. with those students for whom the blended model
• The institution needs to fully support the was not quite working from the outset.
redesign and faculty need to buy in to it. A second lesson learned from NAU’s ap-
• Blended learning redesign needs to start proach to blended learning course redesign is the
from scratch. need for institutional support and faculty buy-in.
142

Many of the courses in the blended learning grant and online classes. It is also a recognition that the
project had issues that faculty and administrators hitherto bifurcation between the teaching modali-
were already well aware of, from lack of student ties is slowly, but inevitably, giving way to a new
engagement, to DFW rates that were relatively pedagogical approach that is more robust, elevates
high, to lack of physical space. Also, in most student engagement and provides the instructor
courses there was a high demand for seats from with tremendous opportunities for innovative
students but not enough resources to fulfill that teaching. This embrace of blended learning cuts
demand. Thus, these courses would likely have across institutions in America; this analysis has
looked for a way to solve these concerns without documented the experience at Northern Arizona
the grant program. University (NAU), a doctoral-intensive southwest
Yet the grant program put institutional re- institution.
sources firmly behind the faculty as they worked on The success of blended learning courses at
solutions to their issues. CINE 101 saw increased NAU is an outcome of the fusion between a facilita-
engagement; HS 200 saw increased student active institutional environment, student needs and a
countability for their own learning. Both of these committed faculty. The Blended Learning Policy
benefits played well into the goals of the grant framework, the President’s Technology Initiative
program. These courses and others in the grant grant and the First Year Learning Initiative are the
program also saw faculty fundamentally redesign- high-level institutional policy mechanisms that
ing their pedagogy. This third lesson is basically have catalyzed and facilitated faculty technology-
that blended learning course redesign needs to oriented course redesign at undergraduate level in
start from scratch. In all instances faculty went classes that previously eschewed technology. Fur-
back to the basics: what are my student learn- thermore, the E-Learning Center at the university
ing outcomes and how am I going to assess that has been critical in providing the requisite support
students have met these? Only after these ques- for the course redesign. That these classes have
tions were answered would the faculty designers registered remarkable success also owes a great
then focus on the learning activities, and decide deal to students’ demand for classes that are more
which were best delivered online or face-to-face. engaging, interactive, and provide independent
For example, in HS 200 Prof. Larson fell back learning opportunities.
on Bloom’s Taxonomy to determine where these The two blended courses discussed in the
activities best belonged. Prof. Klocke, in CINE chapter, Cine 101: Introduction to Cinema and
101, followed a similar model, ensuring her face- Visual Arts and HS 200: Healthy Lifestyle, offer
to-face classes were focused on more in-depth a rich panoply of in-class and out-of-class activi-
student learning. ties that are superbly integrated by a sophisticated
deployment of technology. The mosaic of online
discussions, online written assignments, video
CONCLUDING REMARKS: clips, a broad array of online assessments, face-
THE ROAD TRAVELLED to-face instruction and presentations along with
individual and group projects serve to break the
The recent surge in blended courses in higher instructor-textbook monotony that characterized
education is a testament that institutions and the course before redesign. The outcomes have
faculty recognize the benefits that advanced tech- been evident in increased student enrollment,
nology brings to bear in traditional face-to-face improved satisfaction with the classes as reflected
143

in student evaluation comments, optimal use of Buckley, P. (2002). In Pursuit of the Learning
university classroom space, and additional time for Paradigm: Coupling Faculty Transformation
instructors to engage in their research activities. and Institutional Change. EDUCAUSE Review,
37(1), 29–38.
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implement-
REFERENCES
ing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever.
Allen, I., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2010). AAHE Bulletin, 3 - 6.
Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended DeZure, D. (2000). Learning from Change: Land-
Education in the United States. Retrieved from marks in Teaching and Learning in Higher Educa-
The Sloan Consortium: Individuals, Institutions tion from Change Magazine. Stylus Publishing.
and Organizations Committed to Quality Online
Education: http://sloanconsortium.org/publica- Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005).
tions/survey/blended06 (Retrieved 11/4/2013) Factors Affecting Student Attitudes Toward Flex-
ible Online Learning in Management Education.
Aman, R. (2009). Improving Student Satisfaction The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6),
and Retention with Online Instruction Through 331–338. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.6.331-338
Systematic Faculty Peer Review of Courses. (Un-
published Doctoral Dissertation). Oregon State Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2010).
University, Eugene, OR. Blended Learning and the Generations. Retrieved
from University of Central Florida: Center for Dis-
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, tributed Learning: http://dl.ucf.edu/files/2010/04/
M., & Norman, M. (2010). How Learning Works: Online-blended-generations-presentation.ppt
Seven Research-based Principles for Smart Teach-
ing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dzuiban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004).
Blended Learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bul-
Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to letin, 7, 2–12.
Learning-A New Paradigm for Undergraduate
Education. Change, 27(6), 12–25. doi:10.1080/ Friesen, N. (2012). Report: Defining Blended
00091383.1995.10544672 Learning. Retrieved from Learning Spaces: http://
learningspaces.org/papers/Defining_Blended_
Behnke, C. (2012). Blended Learning in Culinary Learning_NF.pdf
Arts: Tradition Meets Technology. In F. Glazer
(Ed.), Blended Learning: Across the Disciplines, Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2007). Blended
Across the Academy (pp. 13 - 30). Sterling: Stylus Learning in Higher Education: Framework,
Publishing. Principles and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/9781118269558
Berge, Z. (1997). Computer Conferencing and
the Online Classroom. International Journal of Gau, T. (2012). Combining Tradition with
Educational Telecommunications, 3–21. Technology: Redesigning a Literature Couse. In
F. Glazer (Ed.), Blended Learning: Across the
Bowers, C. (2000). Let Them Eat Data: How Disciplines, Across the Academy (pp. 87 - 114).
Computers Affect Education, Cultural Diversity Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
and the Prospects of Ecological Sustainability.
Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
144

Glazer, F. (2012). Introduction. In F. Glazer Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended
(Ed.), Blended Learning: Across the Disciplines, Learning Environments: Definitions and Direc-
Across the Academy (pp. 1 - 12). Sterling: Stylus tions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Educa-
Publsihing. tion, 4(3), 227–233.
Goldbert, A., & Riemer, F. (2006). All Aboard- Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining
Destination Unknown: A Sociological Discussion Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation
of Online Learning. Education Technology and to Students Perceived Learning and Satisfaction.
Society, 9(4), 166–172. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
7(1), 68–88.
Hartwell, R., & Barkley, E. (2012). Blended, With
a Twist. In F. Glazer (Ed.), Blended Learning: Sampson, P., Leonard, J., Ballenger, J., & Coleman,
Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy (pp. J. (2010). Student Satisfaction of Online Courses
115 - 126). Sterling: Sylus Publishing. for Educational Leadership. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 13(3). Re-
Khan, S. (2012, October 2). Why Long Lectures
trieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/
are Ineffective. Time Magazine. Retrieved from
ojdla/Fall133/sampson_ballenger133.html
http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/02/why-lectures-
are-ineffective/ Staker, H., & Horn, M. (2012). Classifying
K-12 Blended Learning. Retrieved from Clayton
Krathwhol, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s
Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation:
Taxanomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice,
http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/
41(3), 212 218.
wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-
Manochehri, N., & Young, J. (2006). The Impact of blended-learning2.pdf
Student Learning Styles with Web-based Learning
Svinicki, M. (2004). Learning and Motivation in
or Instructor-based Learning on Student Knowl-
the Postsecondary Classroom. Boston: Anker.
edge and Satisfaction. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 7(3), 313–317. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Evaluation
of Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning:
Mathews, D. (1999). The Origins of Distance
A Meta-analysis and Review of Online Learning
Education and Its Use in the United States. T.H.E.
Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Journal, 27(2), 54–66.
Education.
Northern Arizona University. (2010). The Student
Vaughn, N. (2007). Perspectives on Blended
Experience in Brief: NAU. Northern Arizona
Learning in Higher Education. International
University.
Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Northern Arizona University. (2012). Academic
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005).
Chairs Council Committee Report on Faculty
What Makes the Difference: A Practical Analysis
Evaluation & Student Success (CFESS). Northern
of Research on Effectiveness of Distance Educa-
Arizona University.
tion. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1834.
Northern Arizona University. (2013, November doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x
22). FYLI: First Year Learning Initiative. Retrieved
from Northern Arizona University: http://www2.
nau.edu/fyli-p/wordpress/
145

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Recursive Course Structure: Cyclic nature

of active learning activities in a blended course
Active Learning: Learning through doing and involving in-class, online and out-of-class collab-
applying, not passively absorbing content through orative activities complementing and reinforcing
reading or lectures. each other.
Blended Learning: The intentional, compli- Retention: Student success as evidenced
mentary fusion of online and face-to-face teaching through continuing and increased enrollments.
and learning into a harmonious whole. Scaffolding: The intentional inclusion of early
Institutional Support: Mechanisms put in and frequent feedback opportunities including
place by the college or university to facilitate low-stakes learning activities to promote student
course redesign (such as blended courses) includ- responsibility and allow for timely intervention
ing expertise and funding. with students who may benefit from more support
Instructional Design: The systematic theory- (tutoring, counseling etc.).
based development of instructional delivery Student Engagement: The motivation and
methods and approaches. active involvement of students in their own learn-
ing, non-passive learning.
146
147
Chapter 8
Student Outcomes and
Retention in Online Academic
and Training Programs
R. S. Hubbard
University of Southern California, USA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this chapter is to examine online education in order to understand how to improve
student outcomes and retention. On the surface, although it might appear that the term “online educa-
tion” only applies to academic institutions, in this chapter, the use of this term also applies to online
training programs in business and other organizational settings. Additionally, this chapter offers six
specific recommendations that faculty, students, administrators, management, and support staff can
undertake to assure that students and faculty will have the resources to successfully complete an online
academic or training program. These recommendations are to improve students’ abilities to direct their
own learning, to facilitate practices that keep students on track, to increase students’ abilities to identify
with their groups; to enable student groups to achieve goals, to create opportunities for faculty to share
best practices, and to implement a management system that tracks the effectiveness of the other recom-
mendations and monitors retention rates.
BACKGROUND (Hermans, et al, 2009), or in an effort to increase

enrollment, reduce the number of adjunct instruc-
Online education has received a lot of attention tors, and offer flexible course schedules for stu-
for many years, and even as early as 2001, “there dents and faculty (Borstorff & Lowe, 2007), higher
were 986 distance-learning institutions in 107 education institutions are now concerned about
countries” (Sprague, et al, 2007, p. 157), and by how to improve online education programs, even
2013 about 70% of all higher education institutions considering the possibilities of offering Massive
reported that online education “is critical to their Open Online Courses (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
long term strategy” (Allen & Seaman, 2013, p. 4). The growing trend cannot be ignored; students
As a natural outgrowth of web-enhanced courses have also become very interested in the benefits
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch008

Student Outcomes and Retention in Online Academic and Training Programs
offered by online education, with almost seven there is a tendency to compare retention rates for
million of them currently taking at least one on- traditional vs. online education, it is essential
line course, which represents approximately 32% to have a consistent definition of “retention”
of all students enrolled in institutions of higher complemented with actual figures to substantiate
education (Allen & Seaman, 2013). The literature any claims about student retention. However, a
on online education tends to be organized around review of the literature reveals that while it is easy
the following topics: to find definitions of retention, it is quite difficult
to find specific confirmations of retention rates.
1. Student demographics, student perceptions One definition of student retention is that it is
of online education, quality of online edu- the percentage derived by comparing the number
cation, and the perceptions related to that of students who start an academic program vs. the
quality (Cao & Sakchutchawan, 2011); number who actually complete the program. Us-
2. Course availability, program quality, ing this definition, there are claims that retention
length, cost, and courses in the curriculum rates for online education at four-year colleges and
(Rydzewski, et al, 2010); and, Student learn- universities can be as low as 40-50% and can go as
ing outcomes, student characteristics, and high as 80% (Howell, et at, 2004; Snarski, 2008).
professor pedagogy (Fillion et al, 2007). In addition, student retention can also be defined
as the percentage of online freshmen (first year
When considering the quality of online educa- university students) who complete their freshman
tion, there is a tendency to make comparisons with year and return for their sophomore (second)
traditional, face-to-face instruction. However, this year. However, institution-reported retention rates
tendency is inherently flawed because of “limita- from 133 universities show that this definition of
tions in the research design itself, differences in retention rate can yield a range from 12% to 95%
student demographics, and inconsistent methods (Degree Jungle, 2013). When evaluating retention
of calculating and reporting completion” (Howell, at two-year colleges, there are indications that a
et al, 2004, p. 244). In essence, it is like comparing 68% retention rate is applicable (Krueger, 2008)
apples to oranges (Howell, et al, 2004). even though identifying true retention rates for
The main advantage of online courses is that two-colleges would be impossible, because of the
they are non-linear, so students can return to pre- varying reasons for student enrollment and their
viously covered material without worrying about own expectations about completing a program
interrupting the natural flow of a class (Borstorff (Vieira, 2005).
& Lowe, 2007). In addition, online courses allow What is needed is a consistent definition and
institutions to have “a higher level of consistency” a broad-based data set which could be used to
in the training students receive (Borstorff & Lowe, accurately measure and compare the retention
2007, p.14), and online education eliminates the rates of individual programs within institutions
two most common barriers to students seeking and the retention rates experienced by institutions
higher education—time and distance (Tanner, et as a whole. Concerning student retention as it
al, 2003; Tanner, et al, 2009; Brown, 2001). applies to the number of undergraduate students
who complete a bachelor’s degree, DeAngelo,
Retention and Retention Rates et al (2011) provide the rare instance of actual
retention rates based on actual numbers. Based
There is a common perception that retention is on their work on the CIRP Freshman Survey (a
more difficult for online vs. traditional programs national survey which captures a wide range of
(Allen & Seaman, 2011), and because, in general, student characteristics), and information gained
148

Table 1. Degree completion rates of undergraduate

report that the learning outcomes of online courses
students (DeAngelo et al., 2011)
are “the same or superior to … face-to-face courses
Number of Years to Percentage of Students
(Allen & Seaman, 2013, p. 5). When comparing
Complete a Bachelor’s Completing the Degree student performance as it relates to the way students
Degree apply course concepts, face-to-face instruction
4 38.9 tends to yield higher results (Fillion, et al, 2007;
5 56.4 O’Connell, 2002); however, student satisfaction,
6 61.2 motivation and participation are higher in online
classes (Fillion, et al, 2007).
from the National Student Clearinghouse (which Professional Development

includes data from 3,700 post secondary institu- and Online Education
tions), DeAngelo, et al (2011) identify the follow-
ing “degree completion rates” for approximately Online education is not only limited to academic
210,000 full-time students from 356 four-year, institutions; online technologies are also used
non-profit institutions: by many businesses and other organizations for
Although completion rates are not the same as training or professional development purposes,
retention rates, the salient fact is that arguments mainly because of the reduced cost of instruction,
about degree completion rates can be made because which can often be one-third the cost of traditional
those arguments can be substantiated with objec- employee training programs (Bartholomew, 2005).
tive data, and until such data can be identified for In addition, there are savings in employee travel
retention rates of online vs. traditional education expenses and time away from the office, because
programs, it will be hard to make a truly quantifi- employees can engage in training activities regard-
able comparison between the two. less of where they are. As with traditional online
As used in the rest of this chapter, the term academic courses, learners can advance at their
student retention means the percentage derived own pace, and organizations are able to have
by comparing the number of students who start an greater consistency in their training programs
online course or academic program vs. the number (Borstorff & Lowe, 2007) and can tie those pro-
who actually complete the course or program. grams to organizational strategies (Dobbs, 2002).
However, online training programs do not come
Outcomes of Online Education without shortcomings. For example, a study by
Michigan State University has found that onsite,
Because of the above-described difficulties of traditional face-to-face instruction is better than
comparing the retention rates of online vs. tradi- online training programs, because it provides
tional education programs, the only comparisons opportunities for instructors to develop their
that can be made are with quantifiable outcomes. students’ complex analytical skills (O’Connell,
Phipps & Merisotis (1999), Russell (1999), and 2002). To that end, coupling an online training
Daymont & Blau (2008) find that the outcomes program appropriate incentives and a Learning
of online education and traditional face-to-face Management System like Topyx or LearnShare to
instruction are about the same, which is consis- track and record employees’ progress can mitigate
tent with Cao & Sakchutchawan (2011), Lu, et al such shortcomings (Bartholomew, 2005; Dobbs,
(2003), Priluck (2004), Haney & Newvine (2006), 2002; Smith, 2004).
Watters & Robertson (2009), and Borstorff & Online training programs can also be used in
Lowe (2007). In addition, 77% of academic leaders academic institutions for professional development
149

purposes, especially for mentoring and curriculum about team work, control over the composition
development. One method that has proven success- of their teams, and the ability of the team to
ful is the “Computer Assisted Curriculum Analy- manage goals, processes, assigned tasks, and
sis, Design and Evaluation for Science Education non-contributing team members (Hubbard, 2003;
in Africa Programme” (CASCADE-SEA), which Brown, et al, 2006). Other concerns include the
links the professional development of teachers demands made by task-centered members (Grzeda,
with the process of curriculum development, and et al, 2008), and the need for synchronous and
guides teams of teachers to create exemplary in- asynchronous online delivery systems that provide
structional materials by helping them understand real-time and on-demand team interactions (Gapp
and visualize the process of developing curricula & Fisher, 2012).
and associated materials (McKenney 2001, 2005). Similar concerns about teamwork are also
Similarly, Learning Content Management present in organizations and businesses that have
Systems (LCMSs) can be used for the develop- international operations with international teams
ment, management, maintenance and delivery (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Birchall & Giambona,
of learning materials (Zarrabian, 2010) making 2007; Giambona & Birchall, 2008; Petersen &
it possible for faculty to develop course content Hillkirk, 1991; Shams & Jackson, 2006). Because
and repurpose that content for additional uses in many online courses use team projects as part of
addition to having the elements of Course Man- their instructional methodology, and organizations
agement Systems like BlackBoard. are conducting their operations on a global scale
with teams comprised of people from different
Problems Associated with countries, virtual teams have the additional impact
Online Education of cultural diversity on team member relationships
and their ability to complete tasks (Kankanhalli,
Overall, it is the independent nature of online et al, 2007), which leads to a lack of team identi-
education that is also its major disadvantage, fication—the extent to which team members view
because with a choice of how and when online themselves as part of a group (Fiol & O’Connor,
learners could spend their time, they often do not 2005). And, it is the lack of team identification that
use their time wisely (Brown, 2001), which may is one of the main causes of conflict and failure
be due to the absence of regular interactions with in virtual teams (Hubbard, 2013b).
faculty (Weaver, 2002; Anstine & Skidmore, 2005;
Conway, et al, 2005). In addition, the inherent
independency required of online learners also FINDINGS AND
has an impact on completion rates; however, this RECOMMENDATIONS
drawback can be mitigated by “building a sense
of community through student-to-student and/or Overall, from the literature and reported observa-
student-to-faculty interactions” (Cervantez, 2010, tions, it appears that in order for students to be suc-
p. 1). In fact, faculty interaction is one of the stron- cessful online learners, they must be self-directed,
gest predictors of student success and retention be able to identify with their groups, and possess
(Arbaugh & Benbunan-Fich, 2007; Borstorff & the skills that facilitate team goals, processes and
Lowe, 2007; Totaro, et al, 2005). tasks. Furthermore, to assure the completion of
Furthermore, there are concerns about team online courses and programs, faculty have to
projects within academic environments. Even in use methods that enable students to fulfill stated
traditional face-to-face classes students are con- goals, have opportunities to share best practices
cerned about the lack of instruction they receive with peers, and monitor the results of their efforts.
150

As a result, the following recommendations are … one who exhibits initiative, independence,
offered as a means of improving student outcomes and persistence in learning; one who accepts
and retention: responsibility for his or her own learning and
views problems as challenges, not obstacles; one
• Improve students’ ability to direct their who is capable of self-discipline and has a high
own learning; degree of curiosity; one who has a strong desire
• Facilitate practices that keep students on to learn or change and is self-confident; one who
track; is able to use basic study skills, organize his or
• Increase students’ ability to identify with her time and set an appropriate pace for learn-
their groups; ing, and to develop a plan for completing work;
• Enable student groups to achieve goals; one who enjoys learning and has a tendency to
• Create opportunities for faculty to share be goal-oriented (p.73).
best practices; and,
• Implement a learning management system It is obvious that not all online students are
that tracks the effectiveness of the other self-directed learners (Tanner, et al, 2009), let
recommendations and monitors retention alone highly self-directed. And, because it is
rates. difficult to understand the impact of a specific
learning context on self-direction (Song & Hill,
The literature describes approaches based on 2007), an intervention is needed to identify the
using one or two of the above recommendations; students who are not naturally self-directed, and
however, a comprehensive approach using all provide them with the skills and tools to become
six can more fully manage the factors that lead self-directed, which is especially crucial for the
to successful student outcomes and retention and first online course students take.
mitigate the barriers and related problems to the To improve students’ ability to direct their
adoption of online learning. own learning, faculty could schedule a lecture
and class discussion about self-directed learning
Recommendation #1: Improve during the first week of class, which serves as an
Students’ Ability to Direct “orientation” to this skill (Howell, 2004), and is
Their Own Learning especially effective if it focuses on how to take
control of learning, how to manage deadlines and
The main message that is consistently delivered other responsibilities, and how to use resources to
throughout the literature is that successful online meet those deadlines and fulfill responsibilities.
learners have to be self-directed (Hasler-Waters & Including testimonials from former students (Tan-
Napier, 2003; Allen & Seaman, 2013; Tanner, et ner, et al, 2003), and expectations about course
al, 2003; Tanner, et al, 2009), especially because goals, assignments and tasks (Tanner, et al, 2009)
self-direction (or self-regulation) improves reten- establishes self-direction as a major element of
tion by reducing attritions rates—the percentage of the course. In addition, students could complete
students who do not complete a course or program a Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale survey
(Sitzmann, 2010). (“SDLRS”) (Guglielmino, 1977; Guglielmino
According to Guglielmino (1977), a highly & Guglielmino, 1991a), which identifies eight
self-directed learner is: broad factors of self-direction. The SDLRS is
151

a self-reporting questionnaire with Likert-type control. So, with the different self-directed learn-
questions and a guide for interpreting the scores ing readiness models that are available, a decision
(Learning, 2013). has to be made about which model to use. If an
Although the SDLRS is widely used and sup- institution is interested in having a manageable,
ported (Delahaye & Smith, 1995; Durr, 1992), and institution-specific assessment, it would be very
is quite comprehensive in terms of instructions useful to develop a model that focuses on subscales,
and guides, there has also been some criticisms such as self-management, desire for learning, and
concerning a number of items on the instrument self-control (Fisher, et al, 2001). If, however, the
that do not correlate well to the total score (Field, primary purpose is to know how cohorts at one
1991; Straka & Hinz, 1996) and that it includes institution relate to those at other institutions
too many questions, which might make it cumber- (which would enable faculty and administrators
some to conduct. to evaluate their programs within the context of
As a result, some institutions of programs might higher education as a whole), it is only wise to use
choose to develop their own self-directed learn- Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness
ing assessment tool based on the work of Fisher, Scale (Figure 1).
et al (2001), which posits that self-directedness The main goal of the institution’s assessment
can be viewed within the following subscales: tool regardless of which model is used should be
self-management, desire for learning, and self- to identify the following ranges of scores:
Figure 1. Self-directed learning readiness scale (Guglielmino, 1977)
152

• High SDLRS Scorers (people who are assignments or projects will be evaluated (which
“highly successful at recognizing their will be discussed in more detail in the following
learning needs and can often plan and im- section).
plement individual learning projects”); In summary, for the first online course stu-
• Average SDLRS Scorers (people who are dents take, having a lecture and class discussion
“likely to be successful in more indepen- about self-directed learning will give students
dent learning situations, but may not be and faculty opportunities to identify attitudes
fully comfortable with planning and im- about the independent nature of online learning,
plementing individual learning projects”); the benefits of online learning, and expectations
and, about course goals, assignments and tasks. In
• Below Average SDLRS Scorers (people addition, encouraging students to complete an
who “usually prefer very structured learn- action plan at the beginning of each course will
ing options such as lecture and traditional give them a tangible tool that enables them to
classroom settings”) (Learning, 2013). become more self-directed. As students take more
online courses, the need for this recommendation
For students with low Self-Directed Learning will become less urgent.
Readiness Scale scores, faculty could encourage
or require them to complete an action plan that Recommendation #2:
focuses on the following five areas (Codde, 2006; Facilitate Practices That
Knowles, 1989; Knowles, et al, 2005): Keep Students on Track
1. Learning Objectives: The knowledge, Although self-directedness is very important for

skills, attitudes, and values to be acquired online learners, faculty’s role in keeping students
by the learner; on track is instrumental to student outcomes and
2. Learning Resources and Strategies: How retention. There are five specific practices that fac-
these objectives will be accomplished; ulty could take to keep students on track (Hricko,
3. Deadlines: Consulting the syllabus to iden- 2003; Lazarevic, 2011; Howell, et al, 2004): (1)
tify target dates for their accomplishment; keep class size small (perhaps, 20-30 students
4. Specific Assignments or Projects: Evidence maximum); (2) track students’ online activities;
presented to demonstrate that the objectives (3) establish goals (i.e., target retention rate); (4)
have been accomplished; and, post an introduction video; and (5) interact with
5. Grading Criteria: How this evidence will students as much as possible, either synchronously
be judged or validated. or asynchronously.
It is the last suggestion about faculty-student
Having students complete an action plan interaction that is contentious. While it is sup-
enables them to identify the learning objectives, ported by Hsu & Shiue (2005), Shea, et al (2006),
learning resources and strategies, deadlines, and Arbaugh & Hwang (2006), and Laves (2010), it
the specific assignments or projects that fulfill seems to contradict the basic premise that on-
those objectives. Most of this information should line students need to be competent self-directed
already be articulated on the course syllabus; learners (Hasler-Waters & Napier, 2003; Allen
however, faculty could also encourage students & Seaman, 2013; Tanner, et al, 2003; Tanner,
to confirm how well they understand how those et al, 2009). Be that as it may, faculty-student
153

interaction is directly related to the concept of • Helping to resolve disagreements by look-

teaching presence, the extent to which faculty ing for areas of consensus in the areas that
direct the cognitive and social processes that en- students report higher levels of connected-
able meaningful learning outcomes (Anderson, ness and learning (Anderson, et al, 2001).
et al, 2001). Teaching presence has a profound
impact on how well students perform, how much For Ekmekci (2013) teaching presence focuses
they are satisfied with the course, how much they on the use of online communication protocols and
feel they learn, and how much they feel a sense interactions that highlight the questions that need
of community (Anderson, et al, 2001; Bush, et al, to be addressed in order to design, organize and
2010; Cervantez, 2010; Garrison, 2003 & 2007; deliver instruction, and the stages along the way
Jinks, 2009; Lazarevic, 2011; Shea, et al, 2006). when discourse facilitation is necessary (see Figure
Teaching presence can be displayed through 2). Stein & Wanstreet (2013) find that teaching
directed facilitation, the “strong and active pres- presence can be exhibited through “e-coaching”,
ence on the part of the instructor—one in which the process of staying connected with students
she or he actively guides and orchestrates the synchronously and asynchronously, and guiding
discourse” (Shea, et al, 2006, p. 185). The com- them through the steps, processes, activities, etc.
ponents of directed facilitation include: they have to undertake.
When faculty intervene by asking questions
• Whether the instructor is seen as drawing at specific points throughout the course, they
in participants by creating an accepting cli- develop their students’ complex analytical skills
mate for learning; (O’Connell, 2002) in such a way that it becomes
• Reinforcing student contributions, inject- equivalent to the benefits of face-to-face instruc-
ing their own knowledge, and confirming tion. Not only does this keep students on track, but
student understanding; it can also lower attrition rates and increase com-
• Keeping students on track by identifying prehension of course concepts and applications.
areas of agreement and disagreement and For example, Sitzmann (2010) finds that attrition
diagnosing misperceptions; and, can be reduced by 17% and test scores increased
Figure 2. Learning intervention time line (Ekmekei, 2013)
154

by 5%, because students spend additional time any scores above “3” could be used to indicate
reviewing materials to answer questions rather “best practices” that all faculty could adopt. An
than just clicking through to the next screen. additional feature that is missing from this survey
Perhaps the most significant way to keep stu- is the inclusion of student input. In other words,
dents on track is to have frequent faculty-student it does not include open-ended questions to so-
communication contacts within a supportive licit how to improve teaching presence from the
communication climate (Rovai, 2001b & 2002). students’ perspective.
There has been much discussion about the value One way to invite students to offer their sug-
of a supportive communication climate (Hassan, gestions is simply to add a question similar to
et al, 2011; Keyton & Beck, 2009; Klenk, & the following:
Hickey, 2010; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004); For any response that you have marked below
however, Gibb (1961) offers specific, prescriptive a score of 3, please describe the types of changes
actions that can be taken to create such a climate, you feel the professor could make to give you and
which include using discourse that focuses on: your classmates a greater sense that he or she is
Description (accurately describing the details of actively engaged in your learning.
a situation); Problem Orientation (finding the In summary, teaching presence is a critical fac-
reasons or causes of a problem rather that blam- tor in keeping students on track, and by reviewing
ing the individuals involved); Spontaneity (being the students’ completed Teaching Presence Scale
open to ideas even if they conflict with one’s own); survey by, for example, the 5th week of a 15-week
Empathy (expressing genuine concern for others by class, both faculty and students will gain a sense
viewing situations from their perspectives); Equal- of how the class is going, and there could be
ity (treating all the members of an organization adequate time to make any corrections if needed.
with dignity regardless of the position they hold);
and, Provisionalism (having a flexible approach Recommendation #3: Increase
to solving problems or pursuing opportunities). Students’ Ability to Identify
Similar to self-directed learning readiness, with Their Groups
the level of teaching presence can be measured
and evaluated using the Teaching Presence Scale Online learners mainly have to identify with
Survey (Shea, et al, 2006; Jinks, 2009) (see Fig- two groups: their classmates as a whole and the
ure 3). However, what stands out is the absence members of their team project groups. However,
of directions for interpreting the results of the because virtual groups have the most uncertainty,
survey. Fortunately, it uses a five-point Likert least visibility, most diversity and fewest op-
scale to identify responses but the scale uses ref- portunities to engage in politeness rituals (Fiol
erents that are difficult to use for administrative & O’Conner, 2005; Kankanhalli, et al, 2007),
or program purposes (i.e., Scale: 1 = strongly groups members have great difficulty to identify
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 with or have a sense of belonging to these groups
= strongly agree). (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mannix, et al, 2002). To
It would be easy to modify the scale as fol- improve a student’s identification with classmates
lows: 1 = unacceptable, 2 = below expectation, as a whole, Hubbard (2013a) suggests having each
3 = meets expectation, 4 = exceeds expectation, student give a 2-3 minute introductory presentation
5 = superior. This way, a response of “3 - meets during the first week of class that covers the goals
expectation” could be used as a base point. Any of their action plan (see Recommendation #1),
scores below “3” could indicate areas where faculty highlights from their professional life, and a sum-
might not be perceived as being “present”, and mary of a significant life experience. If the class
155

Figure 3. Teaching presence scale (Shea, et al, 2006)
156

has too many students, the class could be divided Figure 4). However, it is difficult to interpret the
into smaller groups (perhaps, 15-20) depending on results of the Class Community Scale because of
the capacity of the Course Management System the same reasons noted above for the Teaching
(e.g., BlackBoard, Moodleroom and Sakai) and Presence Scale. Therefore, in addition to the modi-
the associated web-conferencing platform. fications to the five-point Likert scale suggested
These presentations should occur during real above for the Teaching Presence Scale Survey (see
time (Fiol & O’Conner, 2005), which could be Recommendation #2), some of the questions on
achieved using web-conferencing platforms like the Classroom Community Scale Survey would
GoToMeeting, WebEx, or Adobe Connect. The have to be modified, because this survey has a
students could also provide a link to a personal mixture of positive and negative questions. For
website or professional networking site, like Linke- example, the original questionnaire has questions
dIn, in addition to posting information about similar to Question 1, “I feel that students in this
themselves on the Course Management System. course care about each other” and Question 5, “I
Whenever team projects are assigned, the team do not feel a spirit of community”, which make
members could also give their teammates a 6-7 it difficult to use the Likert scale to quantify the
minute introductory presentation (in real time) responses accurately. It is easy to compensate for
that covers the member’s perspective on team this inconsistency by changing the negative ques-
goals and the skills the member brings to the team tions to positive ones (Figure 4 already includes
to accomplish those goals (Hubbard, 2013a). In these modifications).
addition to helping each team member identify By re-phrasing the questions as indicated in
with the team, it also aids in the team formation Figure 4, a score of “3 - meets expectation” would
stage (West, 1996; O’Hair, et al, 2010). have the same meaning for all questions. That
Perhaps, the most significant factor in increas- being done, the score of “3 - meets expectation”
ing students’ ability to identify with both groups could be used as a base point. Any scores below
lies within the social presence of the class (Laza- “3” indicate where students do not have a stronger
revic, 2011; Cervantez, 2010; Ekmekci, 2013). social presence, and any scores above “3” could
The three main aspects of social presence are be used to identify “best practices” that could be
effective communication, open communication adopted. Again, what is missing from this survey
and group cohesion (Garrison, 2007). The lack of is the inclusion of student input, which could
social presence has a negative impact on student be obtained by adding a question similar to the
perceptions about how well they are performing following:
or have performed in online classes (Tanner, et al, For any response that you have marked below
2009; Picciano, 2002; Song, et al, 2004); however, a score of 3, please describe the types of changes
as a sense of social presence increases, the students you think could be made to give you and your
will have a greater perception of learning and the classmates a greater sense of identifying with
presence of faculty (Richardson & Swan, 2003). your groups.
Social presence can also be based on the prem- The timing of the survey is also critical, and
ise that a “community can exist independently conducting the survey by the end of the first third
from geography, physical neighborhoods, and of the class (e.g., by the 5th week of a 15-week
campuses” (Rovai, 2002, p. 199), when mem- class), would give both faculty and students a
bers have “feelings of connectedness, cohesion, sense of how the class is going and adequate time
spirit, trust, and interdependence” (Rovai, 2002, to make any corrections if needed.
p.201). To measure social presence, Rovai (2002) The last practice that enhances students’ iden-
developed the Classroom Community Scale (see tify with the group is to have frequent meetings
157

Figure 4. Classroom community scale (Rovai, 2002)
of the entire class, and “monthly face-to-face ing in the meeting also creates challenges. It is
contact can generate a significantly stronger common that undergraduate, required courses or
social presence than a similar program with only graduate MBA programs, for example, usually
annual face-to-face” meetings (Rovai, 2001a, p. have large cohorts, which makes meeting at the
115). However, in that many online programs have same time fairly impossible or unmanageable,
students in dispersed geographic locations, con- especially considering the participation constraints
sideration has to be given to how to manage these of web-conferencing platforms.
monthly meetings in a synchronous environment One solution could be to treat these social
rather than trying to have in-person, face-to-face presence meetings the same way that discussion
meetings. Aside from the impact of time zone dif- sessions are conducted—with small groups of
ferences and other logistical problems associated students from the same class. So, instead of trying
with organizing such a meeting, the number of to arrange a monthly meeting with 75 participants,
students who would be logged on and participat- the class could be subdivided into four monthly
158

meetings with 15-20 participants, which might Berge, 2005; DOD, 1998; Schoenfeld & Berge,
also make it easier to avoid or reduce the impact of 2005; Hunsaker, et al, 2011; Chung, 2013; Aranda,
different time zones and other logistical problems. et al, 1998; Holtham et al, 2006; McDermott, et
In summary, taking specific steps to increase al, 1998; Willcoxson, 2006).
social presence, measuring the extent of that The three basic versions of team charters
presence, and taking appropriate actions where include the following elements:
necessary should give students a greater sense of
identifying with their groups, which will provide 1. Missions and objectives, metrics to evaluate
a foundation from which to complete team tasks, team progress, scope of team responsibili-
assignments and projects in a way that is mutually ties, relationships and reporting structures,
gratifying to all members. authority and accountability, resources, and
a team membership list (DOD, 1998)
Recommendation #4: Enable Student 2. Summary of the team assignment, team
Groups to Achieve Their Goals participants, rules and responsibilities,
communication tools, and communication
Successful teams are those that cohesively move guidelines (Schoenfeld & Berge, 2005)
efficiently through the four stages of team de- 3. Mission statement; vision; boundaries;
velopment (West, 1996; O’Hair, et al, 2010), operating guidelines, norms and expecta-
specifically with the use of team management tions; evaluation and discipline; and charter
tools—e.g., team member contact information, endorsement (Hunsaker, et al 2011)
team meeting schedules, minutes of team meet-
ings, project management plans, and performance Of the three, the second one addresses the most
evaluation (DuFrene & Lehman, 2002; Hubbard, critical elements of team success: communica-
2003, 2011). In addition, the teams that have tion tools and communication guidelines. While
strong communication skills and use those skills it might seem time-consuming for groups to go
to manage the relationships of team members through the process of completing a charter (see
and external stakeholders are the ones that have Figure 5), it allows team members to identify
the greatest likelihood of achieving their goals and quantify the skills they bring to the group
(Petska & Berge, 2005). However, in that virtual (Hubbard, 2013a), in addition to providing team
teams do not have opportunities for actual, real-life members with an increased level of specificity
interactions (either formal or informal), a more concerning team goals, strategies and processes.
prescriptive approach is needed to compensate Furthermore, it enables global virtual teams to con-
for that deficiency (Hubbard, 2013b). sider the impact of culture and take appropriate ac-
Just because students are placed into groups to tions to identify any cultural miscommunications
work on projects does not mean that they will have and misunderstandings (Morrison & Conaway,
effective collaboration (Brown, et al, 2006). These 2006; Varner & Beamer, 2011; Hubbard, 2013b).
groups need clear organization and open lines of In summary, the use of team management tools
communication to build trust (Hasler-Waters & enables teams to come to a consensus about team
Napier, 2002), and they work best when they are goals, tasks and processes. To facilitate the process,
relatively small—about 4-5 members (Tinker, faculty could have discussions about teams, team
2004). More importantly, a team charter would development and team management tools before
enable them to manage the processes that lead to the first team project is assigned. Having students
team collaboration and success (Schoenfeld & complete a team charter during the forming stage
159

Figure 5. Sample team charter*
of the team, and intervening at specific deadlines Barnett, 2009; Howell, et al, 2003), and they are
to see how the team is functioning allows faculty also isolated from other faculty due to the very
to equip teams with a tangible method to achieve nature of university teaching. However, online
their goals. faculty can even be more isolated from their col-
leagues, especially if they have limited time on
Recommendation #5: Create campus participating in departmental meetings
Opportunities for Faculty or other activities. And, as such, their ability to
to Share Best Practices obtain and share best practices can be quite limited.
Therefore, it would be helpful for administra-
Online teaching differs significantly from face-to- tors to create opportunities for faculty to share ideas
face teaching, and “the growth of online courses and exchange best practices in order to improve the
and programs has increased the need for faculty likelihood of a successful online program (Tanner
to become comfortable with online teaching and et al, 2004). Although about 6% of institutions
gain the necessary skills to make online courses a report that they do not provide any training or
success” (Allen & Seaman, 2011, p. 6). Because mentoring programs for their online faculty, most
student success and retention in online courses have one or more of the following types: Internally
is so vitally tied to faculty-student interactions, run training courses (72%); Informal mentoring
the extent to which faculty can be supported to (58%); Formal mentoring programs (about 40%);
facilitate the above-described recommendations or, Externally run training courses (about 21%)
is imperative. It has been noted that faculty in (Allen & Seaman (2011).
traditional, face-to-face programs have feelings If the intent of such training is to improve
of being isolated from their students (Duncan & the level of instruction and resources available
160

to online faculty, to attract, retain and promote terials; discuss objectives for the class vis-
exceptional faculty, and improve individual and it; and agree on the feedback instrument, if
organizational performance and effectiveness, any, that will be used.
then a commitment to peer-to-peer mentoring is • The Observation Itself: Mentee intro-
an approach that has great potential at yielding duces mentor to the class and discusses
the best results if done effectively. Unlike mentor- the purposes of the mentor’s attendance;
ing junior faculty (Luna & Cullen, 1995; WSU, and mentor evaluates items specified on
2013), peer-to-peer mentoring places both faculty the feedback instrument and attempts to
members in the role of “coach” in that they could capture holistically what occurs in the
learn from their own and each other’s experiences, classroom.
mistakes and successes (CET, 2013). • Post-Observation Conference: Mentor
Much attention has been given to the benefits and mentee discuss their observations
of mentoring, the roles involved in mentoring, about the class visit and use specific ex-
qualities of good mentors, and guidelines for amples as a means of finding areas of im-
implementing and running mentoring programs. provement for both mentor and mentee.
However, not much has been identified about
the element that appears to be missing from all Successful peer observations should generate
other discussions about mentoring—the benefits reinforcement of positive teaching behaviors and
of having both mentor and mentee observe the suggestions, ideas and thoughts that will inspire
other while engaged in teaching. Kirk (2013) not productive changes in teaching behaviors. It is a
only discusses the merits of mentoring and gives mentor’s responsibility to provide both feedback
advice about how to manage mentoring programs, and motivation. The mentee should be inspired to
but also provides details about how to include peer build on effective, existing methods and behaviors,
observations as an integral part of such programs. and to form a mentoring relationship that will
Not to be confused with classroom observations as continue (POPP Committee, 2010).
part of performance reviews or evaluations, peer In summary, online faculty need support in
observation is the practice of having colleagues order to share best practices and mentor one an-
visit classes to provide feedback and advice to other, which can be enhanced if administrators
one another about subject matter, activities and foster that process by creating peer observation and
teaching performance (Kirk, 2013). other mentoring opportunities for them to do so.
The Peer Observation Program at Marshall
School of Business (University of Southern Recommendation #6: Implement
California) is an example of how administrative a Learning Management System
support aligns teaching objectives with teaching That Tracks the Effectiveness
outcomes, and provides an enriched learning of the Other Recommendations
experience for both students and faculty (Kirk, and Monitors Retention Rates
2013). The Program is a three-step process (POPP
Committee, 2010): Whenever a recommendation or proposal is
adopted, it is essential that there be a system of
• Pre-Observation Conference: Mentor monitoring the process in order to provide feedback
and mentee determine the role the men- on how well the recommendation or proposal is
tor will have during the visit (e.g., passive actually working. This practice is integral to all
observer or participant) and review syllabi, processes, including decision-making, conflict
assignments, and other relevant course ma- resolution, and problem solving. Using a Learn-
161

ing Management System (LMS) provides a means the organization and enable them to compare the
of delivering course content and monitoring how retention rates at their institution or organization
well students interact with that content; however, to those of others. This process can only work,
it also provides a means of quantifying course- however, if faculty performance evaluations are
and program-level retention rates. Similar to not tied to their students’ retention rates, and if
Course Management Systems like BlackBoard, they have to be, that there be a system in place,
Moodleroom and Sakai, which are mainly course like Recommendation #5, that would provide
content delivery systems (although they could professional develop and mentoring opportunities
have elements of LMSs), the purpose of LMSs for faculty to develop the skills that would enable
is to deliver course content and collect and pres- them to have a direct impact on those rates.
ent data for supervising the learning process of
individual students, courses, and the organization
as a whole (Szabo & Flesher, 2002). FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
There are two main versions of LMSs: com-
mercial systems like Topyx, and proprietary Online education has been present in one form or
systems like LearnShare. Because commercial another for decades, and numerous research stud-
LMSs can be quite expensive (typically starting ies have already been conducted to test various
around $500,000), it is important for institutions hypotheses. However, while these studies have
to consider the return on investment of purchasing been quite enlightening, especially those related
such a system. Proprietary LMSs can be just as to individual aspects of online education, there
expensive; however, the costs and benefits can be appears to be a gap in what is available at the
shared if several institutions develop the system as program level of individual institutions or among
a consortium (similar to the way LearnShare was institutions as a whole. The on-going efforts of
developed collaboratively among General Motors, Allen & Seaman (2100, 2013) and DeAngelo,
Motorola, Owens-Corning, Deere & Co, and 3M et al, (2011) contribute greatly to an overall
Corp.). “LearnShare has been an excellent way understanding about academic online education,
to benchmark with [member] companies to learn especially as it concerns perceptions from various
what they are doing with their training efforts” stakeholders. Now, it is time to have quantifiable
and … “leverage their collective strength …” data about online retention rates and the long-term
(Bartholomew, 2005, p. 36). impact of the six recommendations described
It should be noted that an LMS does not have to above on retention. With this information more
be an electronic system in order to work effectively. readily available, institutions, businesses and other
Manual systems, though somewhat cumbersome, organizations can have a firmer understanding of
can also provide meaningful information if faculty the effectiveness of their programs and the sense
identify and assess individual student’s learning of confidence that evolves as a result.
or training goals, track the progress towards meet-
ing those goals, record the ultimate rate at which
students achieve those goals and complete the CONCLUSION
course, and report completion rates throughout the
organization. This process would give stakeholders For online education to be successful, it is es-
a greater sense of how well their particular course sential for the technology to provide seamless
or program is doing in relation to others within synchronous and asynchronous faculty-student,
162

student-student and faculty-faculty interactions. Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teach-
In addition, students have to be (or be willing to ing presence” exist in online MBA courses?
become) self-directed learners, and faculty have to The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9–21.
enable that process by generating a sense of teach- doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.12.001
ing presence and class community in addition to
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social
teaching their subject matter. Furthermore, there
identity theory and the organization. Academy of
needs to be an environment in which faculty have
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
opportunities to exchange ideas and best practices,
and by doing so, it is anticipated that the barriers Bartholomew, D. (2005). Taking the e-train.
to the adoption of online learning will decrease, Industry Week, 254(6), 34–37. Retrieved from
and the factors that facilitate student success and http://search.proquest.com/docview/219754473
retention will increase. ?accountid=14749
Borstorff, P. C., & Lowe, S. K. (2007). Student
perceptions and opinions toward e-learning in the
REFERENCES
college environment. Academy of Educational
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Leadership Journal., 2(2), 13–29.
distance online education in the United States, Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to
2011. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog deliver training: Which employees learn and
Research Group, LLC. why? Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 271–296.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00093.x
course: Ten years of tracking online education Brown, L. A., Eastham, N. P., & Heng-Yu, K.
in The United States. Babson Survey Research (2006). A performance evaluation of the col-
Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. laborative efforts in an online group research
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., Ar- project. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
cher, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in 19(3), 121–140. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2006.
a computer conference environment. JALN, 5(2). tb00381.x
Anstine, M., & Skidmore, M. (2005). A small Bush, R., Castelli, P., Lowry, P., & Cole, M.
sample study of traditional and online courses (2010). The importance of teaching presence in
with sample selection adjustments. The Journal online and hybrid classrooms. Proceedings of the
of Economic Education, 107–127. Academy of Educational Leadership, 15(1), 7–13.
Aranda, E. K., Aranda, L., & Conlon, K. (1998). Cao, Y., & Sakchutchawan, S. (2011). Online vs.
Teams: Structure, process, culture, and politics. traditional MBA: An empirical study of students’
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. characteristics, course satisfaction, and overall
success. The Journal of Human Resource and
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). The Adult Learning, 7(2).
importance of participant interaction in online
environments. Decision Support Systems, 43,
853–865. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.12.013
163

Center for Excellence in Teaching (CET), Uni- DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H.,
versity of Southern California. (2013). Faculty & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college: Assessing
mentoring paper summary. Retrieved from http:// graduation rates at four year colleges. Retrieved
cet.usc.edu/resources/teaching_learning/docs/ from www.heri.ucla.edu
facultypaper.pdf
Delahaye, B. L., & Smith, H. E. (1995). The
Cervantez, V. A. (2010). The influence of class- validity of the learning preference assessment.
room community and self-directed learning Adult Education Quarterly, 45, 159–173.
readiness on student retention in online distance doi:10.1177/0741713695045003003
courses: A sabbatical report, spring 2010. Re-
Department of Defense (DOD). (1998). Integrated
trieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&r
Product and Process Development Handbook.
ct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0C
Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary
CsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fiws2.collin.ed
of Defense.
u%2Fhr%2Fsabbatical%2FReports%2FACervant
ez_SabbaticalRprt_Spr2010.pdf&ei=NYK8Uor Dobbs, K. (2002). Take the gamble out of an
7BM7goATqoIK4CA&usg=AFQjCNHIdLlJ0zy LMS. Workforce, 81(12), 52-58. Retrieved from
eVY8EPRGOIj-t3BlEuQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d. http://search.proquest.com/docview/219795874
cGU&cad=rja ?accountid=14749
Chung, S. K. (2013). Virtual teamwork in a busi- Dove, L. (1986). Teachers and Teacher Education
ness school master’s program: Do team charters in Developing Countries. London, UK: Croom
have an impact? (Unpublished doctoral disserta- Helm Ltd.
tion). University of San Diego, San Diego, CA.
DuFrene, D. D. & Lehman, C. M. (2002). Build-
Codde, J. R. (2006). Using learning contracts ing high-performance teams. Retrieved from
in the college classroom. Retrieved from https:// http://www.swlearning.com/bcomm/lehman/
www.msu.edu/user/coddejos/contract.htm lehman_13e/team_handbook/team_resources.
html#projectt
Community of Inquiry. (2011). Retrieved from
http://communitiesofinquiry.com/ Duncan, H., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to
teach online: What works for pre-service teach-
Conway, R. N., Easton, S. S., & Schmidt, W. V.
ers. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
(2005). Strategies for enhancing student inter-
40(3), 357–376. doi:10.2190/EC.40.3.f
action and immediacy in online courses. Busi-
ness Communication Quarterly, 68(1), 23–35. Durr, R. E. (1992). An examination of readiness
doi:10.1177/1080569904273300 for self-directed learning and selected personnel
variables at a large Midwestern electronics devel-
Daymont, T., & Blau, G. (2008). Student per-
opment and manufacturing corporation. (Doctoral
formance in online and traditional sections of
dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, 1992).
an undergraduate management course. Journal
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1825.
of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9(3),
275–279.
164

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of
Work Teams: A New Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching
Lawrence Erlbaum. presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learn-
ing Networks, 11(1), 61–72.
Ekmekci, O. (2013). Being there: Establishing
instructor presence in an online learning environ- Giambona, J., & Birchall, D. (2008). Developing
ment. Higher Education Studies, 3(1), 29–38. an engaging virtual action learning programme
doi:10.5539/hes.v3n1p29 for SME managers – a UK perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning,
Field, L. (1991). Guglielmino’s Self-directed
1(1), 9–16.
Learning readiness Scale: Should it continue to be
used? Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 100–103. Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication.
doi:10.1177/0001848191041002004 The Journal of Communication, 141–148.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x
Fillion, G., Limayem, M., Leferriere, T., &
Mantha, R. (2007). Integrating ICT into higher Grzeda, M., Haq, R., & LeBrasseur, R. (2008).
education: A study of onsite vs. online students’ Team building in an online organizational behavior
perceptions. Academy of Educational Leadership course. Journal of Education for Business, 83(5),
Journal, 11(2), 45–72. 275–281. doi:10.3200/JOEB.83.5.275-282
Finestone, P. (1984). A construct validation of Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the
the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale with self-directed learning readiness scale. Doctoral
labour education participants. (Doctoral dis- dissertation, University of Georgia. Dissertation
sertation, University of Toronto). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6467A.
Abstracts International, 46, 5A.
Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (1991a).
Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2005). Identifica- Learning preference assessment. King of Prussia.
tion in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: PA: Organization Design and Development.
Untangling the contradictions. Organization Sci-
Haney, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions
ence, 16(1), 19–32. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0101
of distance-learning: A companion of online and
Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, G. (2001). De- traditional learning. MERLOT Journal of Online
velopment of a self-directed learning readiness Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 1–11.
scale for nursing education. Nurse Education
Hasler-Waters, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Build-
Today, 21, 516–525. doi:10.1054/nedt.2001.0589
ing and supporting student team collaboration in
PMID:11559005
the virtual classroom. The Quarterly Review of
Gapp, R., & Fisher, R. (2012). Undergraduate man- Distance Education, 3(3), 345–352.
agement students’ perceptions of what makes a suc-
Hassan, B., Maqsood, A., & Riaz, M. N. (2011).
cessful virtual group. Education + Training, 54(2/3),
Relationship between organizational communica-
167–179. doi:10.1108/00400911211210279
tion climate and interpersonal conflict manage-
ment styles. Pakistan Journal of Psychology,
42(2).
165

Hermans, C. M., Haytko, D.L., & Mott-Stenerson, Hubbard, R. S. (2013b). How to improve global
B. (2009, September). Student satisfaction in virtual teams. Global Business & International
web-enhanced learning environments. Journal Management Conference Journal, 6(3), 49-58.
of Instructional Pedagogies,1-19.
Hunsaker, P., Pavett, C., & Hunsaker, J. (2011).
Hills, P. J. (1976). The Self-Teaching Person in Increasing student-learning team effectiveness
Higher Educational. London, UK: Croom Helm with team charters. Journal of Education for
Ltd. Business, 86, 127–139. doi:10.1080/08832323.
2010.489588
Howell, S. L., Laws, R. D., & Lindsay, N. K.
(2004). Reevaluating course completion in Jinks, S. E. (2009). An examination of teaching
distance education: Avoiding the Comparison presence and the sense of community on perceived
between Apples and Oranges. Quarterly Review student learning. University of Florida, ProQuest,
of Distance Education, 5(4), 243–252. UMI Dissertations Publishing, 3367434.
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with
K. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance technology: Using computers as cognitive tools.
education: An informed Foundation for strategic In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning educational communications and technology (pp.
Administration. Retrieved from http://www. 693–710). New York, NY: Macmillan.
westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html
Jungle, D. (2013). Best retention rates for online
Hricko, M. (2003). Retention resources. Mes- colleges. Retrieved from http://www.degree-
sage posted to The Distance Education Online jungle.com/rankings/best-retention-rates
Symposium electronic mailing list (April
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K.
10), archived at http://lists.psu.edu/cgi bin/
(2007). Conflict and performance in global vir-
wa?A2=ind0304&L=deos-l&F=&S=&P=4114
tual teams. Journal of Management Information
Hsu, Y. C., & Shiue, Y. M. (2005). The effect of Systems, 23(3), 237–274. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-
self-directed learning readiness on achievement 1222230309
comparing face-to-face and two-way distance
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential
learning instruction. International Journal of
role of relational messages in group interaction.
Instructional Media, 32(2), 143–156.
Group Dynamics, 13(1), 14–30. doi:10.1037/
Hubbard, D. (2013a). Personal Interview. Pasa- a0013495
dena, CA: Interserv Associates.
Kirk, Y. (2013, October). Evaluating a first Year
Hubbard, R. S. (2003). Managing team projects to Faculty-to-Faculty Mentoring Program. Paper
fulfill learning objectives. In Proceedings of the presented at the Mentoring Institute Conference at
2003 Association for Business Communication the University of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM.
Annual Convention. Association for Business
Klenk, N. L., & Hickey, G. M. (2010). Commu-
Communication.
nication and management challenges in large,
Hubbard, R. S. (2011). The Importance of Process cross-sector research networks: A Canadian case
Skills in the Professions. Pasadena, CA: Interserv study. Canadian Journal of Communication,
Associates LLP. 35(2), 239–263.
166

Knowles, M., Holton, E. F. III, & Swanson, R. A. Martins, L. L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A
(2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in model of business school students ‘acceptance of
adult education and human resource development a web-based course management system. Academy
(6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier. of Management Learning & Education, 3, 7–26.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436815
Knowles, M. S. (1989). Everything you wanted
to know from Malcolm Knowles. Training (New McDermott, L. C., Brawley, N., & Waite, W. W.
York, N.Y.), 26(8), 45–50. (1998). World class teams. New York, NY: Wiley.
Laves, E. (2010). The impact of teaching presence McKenney, S. (2001). Computer Based Support
in intensive online courses on perceived learning for Science Education Materials Developers in
and sense of community: A mixed methods study. Africa: Exploring Potentials. Enschede, Nether-
The University of Nebraska – Lincoln, ProQuest. lands: University of Twente.
UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2010, 3398322.
McKenney, S. (2005). Technology for curricu-
Lazarevic, B. K. (2011). Examining the role of the lum and teacher development: Software to help
introductory video in the development of teaching educators learn while designing teacher guides.
presence in online instruction. The University of Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
Nebraska - Lincoln, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations 38(2), 167.
Publishing, 3449905.
Morrison, T., & Conaway, W. A. (2006). Kiss,
Learning Preference Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved Bow, or Shake Hands. Avon, MA: Adams Media.
from http://www.lpasdlrs.com
O’Connell, B. (2002). A poor grade of e-learning.
Lu, J., Yu, C., & Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, Workforce, 81(7), 15.
learning patterns, and learning performance in
O’Hair, D., Friedrich, G. W., & Dixon, L. D.
a web CT-based course. Information & Man-
(2010). Strategic Communication in Business
agement, 40(6), 497–507. doi:10.1016/S0378-
and the Professions (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson
7206(02)00064-2
Education.
Luna, G., & Cullen, D. (1995). Empower-
Petersen, D., & Hillkirk, J. (1991). Teamwork:
ing the faculty: Mentoring redirected and
New management ideas for the 90s. London:
renewed. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re-
Victor Gollancz, Ltd.
port, V3, 9888. Retrieved from http://ww.eric.
ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ Petska, D., & Berge, Z. (2005). Leadership
ERICServlet?accno=ED39 competency in virtual teams. In C. Howard, J. V.
Boettcher, & L. Justice (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Mannix, E. A., Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A.
Distance Learning (Vol. 3, pp. 1195–1202). Her-
(2002). The phenomenology of conflict in distrib-
shey, PA: Idea Group Reference. doi:10.4018/978-
uted work teams. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.),
1-59140-555-9.ch178
Distributed Work (pp. 213–233). Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
167

Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument
difference? A review of contemporary research to measure classroom community. The Internet
on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher and Higher Education, 5, 197–211. doi:10.1016/
education. Washington, DC: The Institute for S1096-7516(02)00102-1
Higher Education Policy.
Russell, T. A. (1999). The no significant differ-
Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: ence phenomenon. Office of Telecommunications.
Issues of interaction, presence, and performance Chapel Hills, NC: North Carolina State University
in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Press.
Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
Rydzewski, D. N., Eastman, J. K., & Bocchi, J.
POPP Committee. (2010). Overview of the peer (2010). Important characteristics in an MBA pro-
observation process. Los Angeles, California: gram: The perceptions of online MBA students.
Center for Management Communication, Mar- American Journal of Business Education, 3(4),
shall School of Business, University of Southern 33–41.
California.
Schoenfeld, J., & Berge, Z. (2005). Bringing
Priluck, R. (2004). Web-assisted courses for out the best in virtual teams. In C. Howard, J. V.
business education: an examination of two Boettcher, & L. Justice (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
sections of principles of marketing. Journal Distance Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 180–186). Hershey,
of Marketing Education, 26(22), 161–173. PA: Idea Group Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-
doi:10.1177/0273475304265635 59140-555-9.ch025
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do Shams, M., & Jackson, P. (2006). Developments
new views of knowledge say and thinking in work and organizational psychology: Implica-
have to say about research on teacher learn- tions for international business. London: Elsevier.
ing? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study
doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004
of teaching presence and student sense of learning
Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining community in fully online and web-enhanced col-
social presence in online courses in relation to lege courses. The Internet and Higher Education,
students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. 9, 175–190. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
Sitzmann, T. (2010). Self-regulating online course
7(1), 68–88.
engagement. T + D, 64(3), 26. Retrieved on 13
Rovai, A. P. (2001a). Classroom community at December 2013 from http://search.proquest.com/
a distance: a comparative analysis of two ALN- docview/227024467?accountid=1474
based university programs. The Internet and
Smith, D. T. (2004). Implementing online training.
Higher Education, 4, 105–118. doi:10.1016/
Franchising World, 36(8), 125-126. Retrieved on
S1096-7516(01)00053-7
15 December 2013 from http://search.proquest.
Rovai, A. P. (2001b). Building classroom com- com/docview/208934255?accountid=14749
munity at a distance: a case study. Educational
Technology Research and Development Journal,
49(4), 35–50.
168

Snarski, R. D. (2008). Teaching self-directed Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., Fuselier, J. F., & Totaro,
learning theory to enhance online course sat- M. (2004). The online classroom: Differences in
isfaction: Preparing graduate level information perception between business students and non-
technology students. (Order No. AAI3320541, business students. Journal of College Teaching
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: and Learning, 1(3), 37–44.
Humanities and Social Sciences, 3067). Retrieved
Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., & Langford, H.
on 2 December 2013 from http://search.proquest.
(2003). Perceptions of undergraduate business
com/docview/622041333?accountid=14749
students toward online courses in higher education
Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A Conceptual expanded and revisited: Do gender, age, and/or
model for understanding self-directed learning past experiences make a difference? Journal of
in online environments. Journal of Interactive Business and Economics Research, 1(2), 13–20.
Online Learning, 6(1), 27–42.
Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., & Totaro, M. W. (2009).
Song, L., Singleton, E., Hill, J., & Koh, M. (2004). Business faculty and undergraduate students’
Improving online learning: Student perceptions perceptions of online learning: A comparative
and challenging characteristics. The Internet study. Journal of Information Systems Education,
and Higher Education, 7, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j. 20(1), 29–40.
iheduc.2003.11.003
Tinker, R. (2004). Learning through online col-
Sprague, D., Maddux, C., Ferdig, R., & Albion, laboration. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online learning:
P. (2007). Online education: Issues and research Personal reflections on the transformation of
questions. Journal of Technology and Teacher education (pp. 398–408). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Education, 15(2), 157–167. Educational Technology Publications.
Stein, D. S., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2013). e-Coaching Totaro, M. W., Tanner, J. R, Noser, T. C., Fuselier,
success strategies for synchronous discussions. J.F., & Birch, R. (2005). Faculty perceptions of
Distance Learning, 10(2), 19–24. distance education courses: A survey. Journal of
College Teaching & Learning, 2(7).
Straka, G. A., & Hinz, I. M. (1996, March). The
original self-directed learning readiness scale van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004).
reconsidered. In Proceedings 10th International Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
Self-directed Learning Symposium. West Palm organizational commitment, communication cli-
Beach, FL: Academic Press. mate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Jour-
nal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130.
Szabo, M., & Flesher, K. (2002). CMI theory and
doi:10.1108/13673270410567675
practice: Historical roots of learning management
systems. In Proceedings of World Conference on E- Varner, I., & Beamer, L. (2011). Intercultural Com-
Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, munication in the Global Workplace. McGraw-Hill
and Higher Education 2002. Montreal, Canada: Publishers.
Academic Press.
169

Watters, M. P., & Robertson, P. J. (2009). Online Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B.
delivery of accounting courses: Student percep- (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Af-
tions. Academy of Educational Leadership Jour- fective domain. New York, NY: McKay Printers.
nal, 13(3), 51–57.
Bolhuis, S. (1996, April). Towards active and
Weaver, P. (2002). Preventing learning failure. self-directed learning: Preparing for lifelong
Training & Development, 56(8), 5–51. learning, with reference to Dutch secondary edu-
cation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: an
the American Educational Research Association
introduction to networks in the global village. In
(New York).
B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village
(pp. 1–48). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. College retention rates improving at 2-year
schools, declining at 4-year. (2011, Jan). New
West, M. A. (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of work
York Beacon.
group psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Collis, B. (1994). Technology in teacher educa-
Willcoxson, L. E. (2006). It’s not fair! Assess-
tion. In T. Husan, & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), The
ing the dynamics and resourcing of teamwork.
international encyclopaedia of education. Oxford,
Journal of Management Education, 30, 798–808.
UK: Pergamon Press.
doi:10.1177/1052562906287964
Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging students to take
WSU - Washington State University. (2013). Fac-
responsibility for learning and performance. El-
ulty Mentoring. Retrieved 10 July 2013 from http://
ementary School Journal, v93 n1 p69-83.
provost.wsu.edu/faculty_mentoring/index.html
Culligan, M. (2009). Disability and community
Zarrabian, M. (2010). CMS vs. LCMS. Training
college retention rates. (Order No. 3399186, The
(New York, N.Y.), 47(5), 10–11.
Florida State University). ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses, 97.
Dalton, C. (2011). The effects of supplemental
ADDITIONAL READING
instruction on pass rates, academic performance,
Abdullah, M. H. (2001). Self-directed learning. retention and persistence in community college de-
Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Read- velopmental reading courses. (Order No. 3485052,
ing English and Communication. University of Houston). ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses, 119.
Birgan, L. J. (2010). The effects of multimedia
technology on students’ perceptions and reten- Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New
tion rates in mathematics at a community college. York, NY: Continuum.
(Order No. 3405887, Northcentral University). Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics,
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 120. democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD:
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educa- Rowman & Littlefield.
tional objectives. New York: McKay.
170

Hanover Research – Academy Administration Lee, N. K. (2012). Effects of discussion postings

Practice. (2011). Improving student retention and on retention and success rates in community col-
graduation rates. Retrieved on 2 December 2013 lege introductory accounting classes. (Order No.
from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q 3505741, Capella University). ProQuest Disserta-
=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CF0QFj tions and Theses, 120.
AH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mybrcc.edu%2
Mitchley-McAvoy, J. (2012). Evaluating Iowa
Fintranet%2Fattachments%2Farticle%2 F110%2F
community college student demographics, charac-
Improving%2520Student%2520Retention%2520
teristics, enrollment factors, and educational goals
and%2520Graduation%2520R ates.pdf&ei=hf2-
influence on retention rates. (Order No. 3549062,
UpeHNJXeoATv0ILQDQ&usg=AFQjCNE
Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and
geGDd4RwlpRvN7M_ry7stUbjGPw&bvm=
Theses, 269.
bv.58187178,d.cGU
Montero-Sieburth, M. (1992). Models and practice
Hubbard, R. S. (1994). How effective is self-
of curriculum change in developing countries.
directed learning at generating successful learning
Comparative Education Review, 36(2), 175–193.
experiences, and what is its role within higher
doi:10.1086/447098
education? Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics. Nieveen, N., & Gustafson, K. (1999). Character-
istics of computer-based tools for education and
Hubbard, R. S. (1995). The effect of teachers
training development. In J. Van den Akker, R.
who generate approach responses. Los Angeles:
Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp
Interserv Associates Press.
(Eds.), Design approaches and tools in educa-
Hubbard, R. S. (1996). Self-directed learning in tion and training. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
higher education: An Eastern European perspec- Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_13
tive. Los Angeles, CA: Interserv Associates Press.
Pandolpho, K. (2009). An examination of the
Kreysa, P. G. (1998). Influences upon college academic performance and retention rates of
graduation and retention rates: A quantitative first- time, full-time community college students
analysis. (Order No. 9902833, University of who participated in a first-year student success
Southern California). ProQuest Dissertations and course. (Order No. 3359597, Capella University).
Theses, 171-171 p. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 137.
Krueger, C. D. (2008). Impact of a faculty learning Retention Steering Committee. (2013). Guide to im-
institute on the productive grade rates and student proving retention and graduation rates in academic
retention rates for mathematics students in a south departments & programs. Retrieved on 14 Septem-
Texas community college. (Order No. 3322112, ber 2013 fromhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.
Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi). Pro- com/search?q=cache:ueQuB23vJWUJ:www.
Quest Dissertations and Theses, 98-n/a. units.mu ohio.edu/oir/2020Plan/Retention_
Guide.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&c
lient=fire fox-a
171

Study shows college retention rates improved by Retention Rate: The percentage derived
targeting students receiving pell grants for supple- by comparing the number of students who start
mental state aid. (2012, Jan 30). The Hispanic a course or academic program vs. the number
Outlook in Higher Education, 22, 33. who actually complete the course or program.
Sometimes, the term “completion rate” is used
synonymously. In addition, the term “attrition rate”
is used to identify the percentage of students who
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
enroll in a course or program and then withdraw
Faculty Mentoring: The process of one faculty before actually completing the course or program.
member guiding another in the pursuit of best Retention: The process of students stay-
practices within their field. ing enrolled in a course or academic program
Group or Team Identification: The extent and actually completing the course or program.
to which group (or team) members can identify Sometimes, the term “attrition” is used to show
themselves (in terms of having similar goals, work the opposite process, i.e., the process of students
ethic, common understanding, etc.) with the other withdrawing from a course or program before they
members of a group. actually complete the course or program.
Intercultural Communication: The interac- Self-Directed Learning: The process in which
tive verbal and non-verbal communication that a learner identifies the learning objectives of a
takes place between members of one culture with course of study, the resources available for com-
members of another culture (e.g., how a Rus- pleting the course of study, the assignments and
sian business person interacts with an American projects and associated deadlines, and develops
business person). Not to be confused with cross- strategies to complete the course of study with
cultural communication, which compares, for or without the assistance of the faculty member
example, how Americans conduct business with or instructor.
Americans vs. how Russians conduct business Social Presence: The extent to which students
with Russians. feel connected to their classmates and that their
Online Learning: Sometimes referenced classmates are present and available to offer as-
as e-Learning, means the individual courses or sistance, advice and guidance. Not to be confused
entire degree or training programs that are de- with group or team identification, which includes
livered predominantly through synchronous and the similarities among the group or team members.
asynchronous electronic platforms. Although Teaching Presence: The extent to which
there may be some face-to-face interactions (as students feel that their teacher or instructor is con-
in orientations sessions and periodic meetings), nected to the students and is present and available
a learner would have access to faculty and all the to offer assistance, advice and guidance either in
learning materials online without ever needing to person or through the use of electronic media.
see someone in person. Team Charters: The process of team mates
Peer Observation: The practice of having identifying and understanding the goals of the
faculty colleagues visit each other’s classes (either team, the contributions that each team member
a physical or virtual class) to provide feedback brings to the team, and the processes and tasks the
and advice to one another about subject matter, team will conduct in order to complete their goal.
activities, and teaching performance. This process This mutually agreed upon understanding is then
does not have to be part of a formal performance explicitly stated (usually in writing) as a charter.
evaluation process, but is an integral part of fac-
ulty mentoring.
172
173
Chapter 9
Blending in the Humanities:
Course Model and Assessment Results
Astrid Klocke
Danielle Hedegard
ABSTRACT
Does technology de-place opportunities for meaningful engagement? Is the reduction of face-to-face
time in a blended course a loss to students? And if so, what students are most affected by this shift? Can
a blended course only work in disciplines that rely on teaching “facts” or can the recent emergence of
digital humanities serve as a framework and provide disciplinary-specific insights for the use of teaching
technology in the humanities? This chapter explores the use of learning technology and blended design
in an introductory humanities course. Further, the chapter presents a blended course model, assessment
data, and ideas for contextual reflection about how change in higher education paradigms is affect-
ing the humanities in order to address them in a cooperative, non-disruptive way. Finally, the unique
context, assumptions, and causes for resistance to change in the humanities with regard to technology
and blended pedagogy are discussed. This chapter is intended to help readers anticipate and address
particular disciplinary perceptions of blended learning.
INTRODUCTION embodied presence. Does technology de-place

opportunities for meaningful engagement? Is the
Why blend in the humanities? This chapter will reduction of face-to-face time in a blended course a
explore the use of learning technology and blended loss to students? And if so, which students are most
design in an introductory cinema studies course affected by this shift? Can a blended course only
offered in the humanities. Often it is asserted that work in disciplines that rely on teaching “facts”
technology does not allow for types of learning or can the recent emergence of digital humanities
contexts deemed central to humanities such as serve as a framework and provide disciplinary-
social and communal interaction, spontaneity, and specific insights for the use of teaching technology
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch009

Blending in the Humanities
in the humanities? Surveys of students, faculty and humanities for student success with institutional
administrators have shown distinct perceptions of demands for efficiency in mind through the use
the effectiveness of blended courses, in contrast of teaching technology.
to fully online courses (ECAR, 2013; Allen, Sea-
man, Gerrett, 2007).
This chapter will present a blended course COURSE MODEL: CINE 101,
model, assessment data, and ideas for contextual INTRODUCTION TO CINEMA,
reflection about how change in higher education AND VISUAL CULTURE
paradigms is affecting the humanities. The chapter
seeks to address these issues in a cooperative, non- At Northern Arizona University in 2012, a course
disruptive fashion. It will also discuss the unique in Cinema Studies was redesigned as a blended
context, assumptions, and causes for resistance to course in the first round of the President’s Tech-
change in the humanities with regard to technol- nology Initiative. The course has since served as
ogy and blended pedagogy. It will help readers a pilot and model across all disciplines, as faculty
anticipate and address particular disciplinary redesign more courses in the second and third
perceptions of blended learning. rounds of the initiative. Total enrollment in the
The pace of change in higher education is multi-section course (and thus the number of class
increasing. Competition to the traditional under- sections offered) since the blended redesign was
graduate residential model comes from more than implemented has increased by over 1000%, from
for-profit universities; it comes from MOOCs, 31 to 347 in just two years, and helped bolster a
competency-based/personalized learning pro- small humanities program (Cinema Studies).
grams, and from online degree programs, some The course has increased efficiency in deliv-
largely built by corporate partners of universities. ery—one of the main institutional goals of the
This chapter will not discuss the merits or even President’s Technology Initiative—through its
pace of this change. Rather, the guiding ques- hybrid schedule: it meets once a week, instead
tions are: How will the humanities be affected of twice, for 75 minutes of face-to-face time. The
by the inevitable changes? How will the call for other half of the course is conducted online. The
professionalization and the pressures to prepare utilization of classroom space has thus increased
students for specific careers with specific skills be by 100%, as the course can share a 150-minute
answered? How can the core values of the humani- time slot in the same classroom among pairs of its
ties for all students’ education be preserved while sections. The course has also been able to more than
ongoing changes seemingly privilege “fact-based” double enrollment capacity in each section (from
knowledge? Furthermore, how can humanities 30 to 70), increasing efficiency for the university
scholars and teachers be in charge of the changes and the department. (However, it has not reached
that affect the field? How can we answer the call its goal of conserving faculty effort, as managing
to be more efficient while preserving the quality the higher number of students in each section has
of instruction and student learning outcomes? more than outweighed the in-class time saved for
The basic premise of this chapter is to enable the instructor.)
colleagues in higher education to take charge of The course was designed for two programs,
change rather than resign to passive resistance. Our and its design principles were aligned with their
blended course design model permits preserva- respective student learning outcomes: 1. The
tion of the essential core values of teaching the Liberal Studies program at Northern Arizona
174

University and 2. The new interdisciplinary minor additional assignments, or modifications to the
in Cinema Studies, housed in the Department of assignments listed on the syllabus so students are
Comparative Cultural Studies. not blindsided with a change in expectations or
deadlines. (Revisions to the class assignments are
1. Liberal Studies: Design made, if necessary, between semesters.) All class
for Student Success materials are easily accessible via BlackBoard
Learn, including all films assigned for this class
The course bears Liberal Studies credit at North- and additional ones mentioned in the textbook.
ern Arizona University, within the “Aesthetic and Students can work at their own pace and complete
Humanistic Inquiry” (AHI) block, with a focus tasks and assignments when it is convenient for
on the skill of effective writing. Courses in this them.
block involve students in the study of the human The course offers a realistic understanding
condition through philosophical inquiry and in of the time and effort that is needed to succeed.
analysis of the various forms of creative expres- Students respond to a question about their ex-
sion. The course specifically focuses on film pectation of time involved in taking this class
and the various forms of visual culture. Students in the initial survey. The instructor then directly
develop an understanding of the relationship addresses misconceptions during the first week
between the historical, political, social, and aes- of the semester. The learning activities and as-
thetic context and the human creative expression signments are structured in a way that emphasizes
of visual culture and cinema. The course makes their connection and scaffolding. Students have a
use of major conceptual frameworks and concepts clear understanding of progression. In addition,
such as the theories of representation and agency. the headers on each BlackBoard Learn chapter
It explores the diversity of cinematic expressions page tell students what to expect in a chapter, how
informed by national, global, ethnic, and gender it relates to the last one, and what parts of it will
identities. Students also develop their capacities be used later in the course, i.e. what will be on
for analysis and ethical reasoning through a variety the exams and what will come in useful for the
of means, including close reading of film texts essay. Furthermore, all these future assignments
and comparative explorations of the materials of are already visible at the beginning of the semester
visual culture. The course incorporates key design so that students can build realistic expectations
principles from the First Year Learning Initiative about the effort involved in succeeding.
(FYLI) at Northern Arizona University, an inno- The course explains how to access class ma-
vative program that is geared toward socializing terials and other academic support programs. All
freshmen for success and excellence. (The course class materials, except for the actual textbook, are
gained official FYLI certification during its initial made available to students in the class shell on
redesign phase in summer 2012.) BlackBoard Learn. This includes all supplemental
The course explicitly addresses critical prac- readings, all films assigned for this class, all extra
tices such as time management and study skills. credit assignments, and optional online resources.
The syllabus includes a section on the types of Students also know from day one how to work with
meetings to expect in this blended class. It also the teaching assistants. A paragraph is included
urges students not to fall behind. Class assignments on the syllabus in which it states that meetings
are scheduled on a regular and thus predictable with the teaching assistants have the status of
basis, due on the same day of the week, at the “class meetings,” i.e. they will be mandatory and
same time. This encourages routine and easier should be expected on a regular basis (sometimes
time management. There are no pop quizzes, during scheduled class time, which the blended
175

format allows for). This tactic focuses students’ local film event/series/festival with the goal to
attention on the main skill this Liberal Studies develop a marketing strategy for an on-campus
course is supposed to build: writing. Instructors audience. This clear goal is set from the beginning
identify groups and individual students to work and the outcome is later demonstrated in an oral
closely with the teaching assistants on editing and group presentation. Students know the “what,”
revising all their written assignments throughout the “where,” and the “why”—before they start
the semester, not just the final essay. the project.
The course work is challenging and rigorous: The course develops the experiences that
Within the first two weeks of class, students are students need to succeed in more complex tasks,
required to invest considerable effort. Students assignments, or analyses. Within each class mod-
are assigned to fixed groups for the semester and ule, assignments are scaffolded: from reading
work with their peers on the experiential part of comprehension quizzes to short written assign-
the course. In order to reinforce the importance ments to exams. The modules build on each other
of this group set-up and to engage students with and culminate in module 4, which guides students
their respective group’s dynamics from the very toward putting the individual pieces together for
beginning, the first group assignment has been a complex film analysis essay—the disciplinary
designed to be both fun and connected to the signature assignment for a cinema studies class. In
interest in movies that most students bring to the experiential part of the class, the students at first
this class. As a group, they go to a commercial describe their own response to movie advertising.
movie screening and report and reflect on the In the next step they analyze the marketing needs
marketing strategies they were exposed to before of a local film event. And in the final step, they
they saw the movie. A short written report has themselves create a targeted marketing strategy.
to be handed in by all members of the group by They execute this marketing strategy and report
the end of week 2. This assignment is low-stakes on its effectiveness in their final group presenta-
yet ensures that students engage from day one tions during the last two weeks of the semester.
with the class material and, most importantly, The class is designed to actively engage stu-
with their peers. The assignment also requires dents in multiple ways: with each other, with the
basic writing, one of the focus areas of the class. material, and with the instructor. In addition to
During the same time, weeks 1 and 2, students the group work in the experiential part students
also read the first textbook chapter and complete also engage with each other during the peer edit-
a basic reading comprehension quiz and a short ing phases of the essay in module 4. Students
written assignment. Both of these assignments engage with the content material in a direct way,
are also low-stakes and students have the option by scheduling assignments immediately following
of dropping the quiz grade should it prove to be the readings and viewings. There is no lag time
the lowest of the semester. between completing a reading, for example, and
Challenging and rigorous course work also applying the new knowledge to a written assign-
maximizes student time on task. Readings and ment. The blended format allows the instructor
viewings are guided by and immediately reflected to meet with students individually and in small
in the quizzes and assignments. All assignments groups on a frequent basis, rather than solely in
are “open book.” Students know what they have full-frontal discussions in the lecture hall or in lim-
to do with the material before they start engag- ited office hours. Toward the end of each module,
ing with it. Similarly, students connect with a as students progress from basic comprehension
176

to more complex, higher learning activities, the each other, and are only worth 2% of the final grade
instructor is able to provide more guidance and for the class. Each module’s chapter quizzes and
feedback than in a regular lecture class. assignments then lead to a more complex module
The course requires attendance and/or partici- assignment, the exams. Students thus receive not
pation to give students the best chance to succeed just regular but scaffolded, formative feedback,
and to set up the expectations for success. In line as assignments get more complex. Students also
with the university attendance policy, attendance receive early feedback for their group work. The
in this class is mandatory and counts 12% of the first project is due at the end of week 2. During
final grade. Students are informed of this policy weeks 3-10 the instructor checks in frequently
in the syllabus and also during class on the first with each group to see how they are progressing
day. They are also reminded of this policy via the on the marketing project. The groups then pres-
Grade Performance Status (GPS) tracking system ent their final reports and receive peer feedback
used at Northern Arizona University if they miss during the last third of the semester.
meetings. TAs report to the instructor about stu- The course addresses the current interests and
dents who do not show up to scheduled meetings. conceptions that shape how students approach the
In addition, attendance is taken the old-fashioned discipline. Students take a survey at the beginning
way in the face-to-face meetings and in meetings of class that asks them to reflect on what interests
with the instructor. Furthermore, students have to and conceptions they bring to the class. They are
“attend” virtually in a very structured fashion, and asked a similar question about how their ideas have
if they do not complete quizzes or chapter assign- changed on the two midterm surveys. During the
ments the instructor intervenes immediately and introductory lecture, the instructor addresses com-
contacts students about missed online sessions. mon ideas students have about the study of film
The course uses lectures strategically, if at all. and provides examples of what students can expect
Full-frontal lectures are used for part of the first to do in this class. For example, most students
class meeting: to give an introduction to the class expect to watch films during class meetings in a
format and content and to go over the class rules film class. We tell them that this passive activity
on the syllabus. After that, there are few traditional will happen outside of class, online, and that the
face-to-face lectures for the entire class. Content different types of class meetings are used for more
is processed online and students engage with the active and especially collaborative types of tasks.
class material via tasks other than listening, such The course takes into account students’ diverse
as group discussions, collaborative work, with cultural backgrounds. All online material has been
in-class follow-up presentations. designed and made accessible following Universal
To set clear expectations the course uses ru- Design standards. All foreign films included in this
brics extensively and exclusively for the chapter class have subtitles to aid all students’ comprehen-
assignments, for exams, and for the film analysis sion. Films have been chosen from a variety of
essay. These rubrics are presented on the syllabus global cultural and language contexts. Peer TAs
and explained on the first day and again later in help students with English language problems on
the semester, as students prepare for the exams the written assignments.
and essay. The rubrics are used within BlackBoard The course assesses the critical skills and/
Learn and linked to the assignments. They are or knowledge students have when they enter the
used for online feedback. course. The first group assignment challenges stu-
The course offers early and formative feedback dents to put to use the knowledge they have about
and frequent low stakes assessments. The chapter the movie industry and its marketing. They have to
quizzes and assignments begin in week 1, build on reflect on a process that most of them have been
177

exposed to in an unconscious fashion: advertising the individual sections. Consistency in course

for blockbusters. They have the knowledge of what outcomes or objectives is accomplished by all
it is but might never have thought about what ef- sections using the same master syllabus and master
fect it has on them and their viewing experience BlackBoard Learn shell. Individual sections’ due
through the creation of expectations. The instruc- dates of assignment vary, but the learning out-
tors also assess students’ level of proficiency in comes, modules, chapters, assignments, textbook,
basic writing through this first assessment and and other class projects are the same for each.
guide selected students to use tools available to All sections are taught in a blended format. In
them through the university-wide MyWriting Lab the case that individual instructors want to make
as deemed necessary. changes to the course, they keep a log of ideas
The course effectively utilizes student learning and thoughts for future semesters. An item that is
outside of the classroom. The experiential part invisible to students at the top of each chapter’s
takes place outside of the classroom. It is a learn- BlackBoard Learn content page serves as a jour-
ing experience in the form of a mini-internship nal for this purpose. Any entries made during the
with a local film festival, film series or film event. semester are easily extracted from each section
It counts for 10% of the total grade. Additional and compiled at the time that revisions are made
encouraged activities include campus film events for the next semester. The coordination scheme
and Cinema Studies Club. These events vary from also allows coordinators to take advantage of
semester to semester, as programming changes. meaningful, actionable data about student engage-
The course thus promotes social interactions ment, achievement, and progress in the course.
among students. Students work intensely in as- All section instructors use the university’s Grade
signed groups and also meet with other groups. Performance Status system at the same intervals
In addition, they interact with students outside during the semester (after each course module)
of the class at film events, e.g. students talk to so that students receive consistent and regular
people in the audience, at the receptions, and feedback. Assignments, grading rubrics, and at-
post-screening discussions. As part of some of tendance requirements are same for all sections
the internships, students interview attendees at and each instructor collects this data and shares
those events. Students also give presentations in it for reporting and assessment purposes.
other classes and student clubs on campus about
the film festivals and series where they function as 2. Design for Disciplinary
interns. They field questions from other students Conventions in Cinema
about these events. Studies and Humanities
The coordination scheme is prescriptive for
the whole semester and ensures consistency, The course is the sole core, required course of a
alignment, and student success. One experienced new interdisciplinary minor in Cinema Studies.
faculty member coordinates all sections during a It introduces students to the basic elements of
given semester. Each section instructor meets on formal composition, organizational structures, and
an ongoing basis with the coordinator to discuss historical periods of international filmmaking. The
the structure of the class, to ask questions about course provides a foundational understanding of
the assignments or online modules, and also to discipline-specific terminology and conventions
report student performance to the coordinator. in the study of cinema and visual culture. Students
Communication as a team is accomplished for also engage with cinema culture on the Northern
those involved in delivering the course through Arizona University campus and in the larger Flag-
regular meetings with all instructors and TAs of staff community through mini-internships with
178

film festivals and guided immersion in local film writing in the humanities. The rubrics used for
culture. The course prepares students for further grading and assessment in this class elaborate
study of film in Humanities, English, Philosophy, these expectations.
Electronic Media and Film, and Ethnic Studies, to
name just the programs with the most popular film 3. Blended Design Principles
courses on campus. The course was also designed
according to disciplinary conventions in cinema The preceding paradigms (liberal studies and
studies and humanities with regard to its signature humanities) are integrated through the flipped
assignment: the critical analysis essay, oriented structure of the course content, learning activities,
to disciplinary expectations for effective writing and assignments and guided by the principles of
in humanities courses. All other, shorter, written blended design, based on case studies presented in
assignments prepare students for this signature Glazer (2012) and guidelines from Garrison and
assignment by focusing on particular elements Vaughan (2009) and with the use of the Blended
of film analysis and essay writing. Learning Toolkit provided by the University of
In the signature assignment, students demon- Central Florida.
strate the core learning outcomes of this course: The course is divided into content modules that
reflection on a film’s production and the impact of correspond to the student learning objectives. All
distribution, promotion, and exhibition on the film student in-class tasks and online written assign-
experience; application of film-specific technical ments are scaffolded with the ultimate objective
concepts, such as mise-en-scène, cinematography, of writing the three-page analysis essay. Each
editing, lighting, sound, and genre. They also week a different element of essay writing is the
demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate the outcome of students’ work. For example, in week
film’s narrative plot, characterization, use of genre 3, they focus on learning how to give evidence
conventions, and historical context. for a thesis. They are guided through the follow-
In terms of disciplinary modes of writing, ing stages, in accordance with Bloom’s (revised)
students show that they are able to formulate a taxonomy of learning:
thesis that is easily identifiable, plausible, novel,
sophisticated, insightful, and clear. Their analysis 1. Students acquire basic factual and conceptual
needs to be exciting, pose new ways of thinking knowledge of mise-en-scène through reading
about the material, and their work must avoid an assigned textbook chapter. If needed, they
simple description or summary of information. consult with the peer tutor who has taken the
Students’ use of evidence from the films and read- class before and helps students with specific
ings demonstrates in-depth understanding of ideas reading comprehension problems.
and critically evaluates concepts in an analytical, 2. They then retrieve and check their memory
persuasive manner. The structure of their essay is and understanding by taking an online, open
evident (e.g. through strong topic sentences) and book, low-stakes, multiple-choice quiz that
appropriate for the thesis. Ideas flow logically. provides immediate feedback. If necessary,
Arguments are identifiable and reasonable. And they can retake the quiz once.
finally, the essay needs to be written with excel- 3. They watch one of the films used as an
lent grammar, sentence structure, and correct use example in the textbook to illustrate the
of punctuation and spelling. These expectations elements of mise-en-scène: Spike Lee’s Do
correspond to the basic requirements of good The Right Thing.
179

4. In the online forum, due a few days later (but level of learning and stakes increases so does the
still before they come to class in person), level of face-to-face interaction of the instructors
students interpret and discuss the mise-en- with students.
scène of this particular film, applying basic In summary, technology and the CMS Black-
knowledge. The online discussion posts are Board Learn are used as a strategic tool to facilitate
graded by the teaching assistant, with online student learning. Online class activities take the
rubrics. place of traditional content lectures and ensure
5. Then, the next day in the face-to-face class students’ acquisition of knowledge. Assessment
meeting, students work in groups to analyze of basic levels of student learning also takes
evidence from the film (again, with a focus place online. Face-to-face activities (in a whole-
on aspects of mise-en-scène) to support a class setting) focus on modeling and practice of
thesis that the instructor has provided for critical film analysis, analysis of sample essays,
them at the beginning of the face-to-face student (group) presentations of group projects,
meeting. and discussion/feedback. Individual or small
6. At the end of class, the groups organize their group meetings take place face-to-face with the
findings and present the thesis and their following goals: Instructor intervention to ensure
evidence to the whole class for feedback student success, student consultations with instruc-
and questions. tor about writing projects, development of thesis
7. On the midterm exam, giving evidence for statements for critical essay writing assignment,
a thesis is one of the skills assessed, with and discussions and organization of creative group
formative feedback. projects, such as making short videos and guest
8. In the analysis essay, students demonstrate presentations in other classes.
their skill of giving evidence for a thesis:
they are asked to transfer their knowledge to
an analysis and evaluation of another film. ASSESSMENT
9. They receive more formative feedback,
through critiquing each other’s essays (peer 1. Research Design
review) and individual tutoring with the
teaching assistant, and revise their essay. The course redesign included a rigorous assess-
10. They create their final version of the essay ment plan. The redesigned course was imple-
and receive summative feedback from the mented over three semesters: fall 2012, spring
instructor. 2013, and fall 2013. After each semester, data
were analyzed, feedback was collected from
The blended and flipped design of the course the instructors, and revisions were made to the
allows more time for and focus on the higher learn- course. This implementation schedule allowed for
ing tasks (5 - 10) than a course designed around a phased growth in class capacities: from 35 to
lectures and discussion. Here, the basic content 50 to 70 students on average in each section (with
comprehension and application (1 - 4) is done some variation due to classroom availability). As
online and requires relatively little intervention enrollment grew, more sections were offered. As a
from the instructor. A peer tutor (focus on read- result, more freshmen and sophomores were able
ing) and teaching assistant (focus on writing) help to enroll in the course—since they enroll later and
facilitate and assess at the lower stages. As the over the summer—while seniors and juniors have
180

early spring enrollment appointments and used 2. Methodology

to take most available seats in the only offered
course section. Basic t-tests for statistical significance of indepen-
Each semester after the redesign, the teaching dent samples were run to compare the Fall 2011
assistants evaluated the signature essays with the section with each blended section on the follow-
use of standard rubrics, for assessment purposes ing outcomes: average course grade excluding
(whereas the instructor evaluated the same essays those students that received a ‘W’ (withdrawal),
with the same rubrics in a separate step, for grading average freshman course grade, average junior/
purposes). This allowed the course designers to senior course grade, and average scores on the
standardize evaluation. To control for variation, the signature assignment. Except for the signature
course coordinator held a training workshop with assignment, data for the analysis were extracted
all teaching assistants on how to use the rubrics from the NAU data warehouse Enterprise report-
to guarantee consistency. As stated above, this ing, and all analyses were run in SPSS software.
signature assignment represents the culminating
task of the course and measures students’ ability 3. Findings
to write effectively and integrate complex analyses
into one assignment. As such it serves as the best Overall enrollment increased exponentially. In
indicator of student learning in a writing-focused the unblended version enrollments had been
Liberal Studies class in the humanities. steady around 35 per section. Since the blended
Data from these redesigned sections were redesign, enrollments have grown to 347 students
compared to a control group: the pre-redesign sec- in fall 2013, in 5 sections of 70+ students each.
tion of this class taught in the fall of 2011, where As more sections were opened, and thus available
the same signature essay assignment was given to freshmen and sophomores, the percentage of
and the same assessment rubrics were used. The lower division students increased.
teaching assistants (of the fall 2012 redesigned Overall, as Table 1 shows, scores on the signa-
course) were asked to re-evaluate all signature ture assignment remained consistent or improved
essays from the fall 2011 section with the same compared to the fall 2011 control section of the
assessment rubrics, to establish the control group. course. In both fall 2012, spring 2013, and fall
Though the course had been offered in other past 2013, scores on the signature assignment improved
semesters (fall 09, fall 10, spring 12), these sec- compared to the fall 2011 group in all sections
tions were not standardized—they used a variety of instructor #1. For the second course instructor,
of assignments, no assessment rubrics, and did not scores remained consistent with the fall 2011 sec-
require electronic submission of the final papers. tion (taught by instructor #1) in fall 2012 and fall
No means of comparing these sections with the 2013, but declined in spring 2013. In fall 2013, a
redesigned course was available. third instructor was added due to increased enroll-
In addition to this assessment of student learn- ment, and scores for this instructor also remained
ing, official institutional data on course grades consistent with the fall 2011 section.
and DFW rates, as well as qualitative data from This shows that, despite reduced face-to-face
surveys and reflective essays were collected to as- classroom time, students are still able to accom-
sess the success of the course redesign. To control plish the primary course learning objectives of
for variation in overall instructor grading across demonstrating proficiency in writing critical film
sections, each blended section (which varied by essays by producing an original interpretative
instructor and time of day) was compared to the analysis of a film in its historical context of produc-
Fall 2011 lecture course separately. tion. The improved essay scores in instructor #1’s
181

Table 1. Assessment scores, Fall 2011 lecture compared to blended sections
Fall Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Fall 2013 All

2011 Blended
Instructor 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 -
Num. Responses 34 78 66 50 85 86 100 44 509
Average 8.9 9.6*** 8.9 9.5*** 7.3*** 9.3*** 8.9 8.8 9.1
Assessment Score
Statistical Base Improvement Same Improvement Decline Improvement Same Same Same
Comparison, Fall
2011 to Each
Blended Section
*** Indicates statistical significance at the .001 level.
sections further demonstrate that careful planning in the fall 2011 lecture and blended sections.
and scaffolding of assignments in blended courses Because the fall 2011 control section included
can even improve student learning. This is likely only three freshmen, no conclusions can be drawn
due to increased time for meaningful interaction regarding the effect of the blended format on this
between faculty and students during f2f class student group.
meetings with regard to higher learning tasks such We interpret this decline in average course
as analysis, evaluation and creation, rather than grades in the fall 2013 sections to the interaction
focusing on lower learning tasks such as content of both large class size and high freshman enroll-
understanding and application. ment. While neither high freshman enrollment nor
While signature assignment scores showed a large class size alone produces a steep decline
improvement or consistence, overall course grades in course grades (or assessment of student learn-
in blended sections revealed greater variation ing as evidenced by the assessment data), the
when compared to the fall 2011 control section. combination of the two tips overall grades below
As Table 2 shows, average course grades for those of the fall 2011 control section—which had
blended sections of the course, from fall 2012 neither high freshman enrollment nor high overall
and spring 2013, were statistically consistent with enrollment. Figure 1 relates class size to average
the fall 2011 lecture section. This was true for all course grade and average freshman grades. Overall
instructors and sections. Average course grades average course grade and freshman average course
for blended sections in fall 2013 were statistically grade both decline slightly as class size increases.
lower than the fall 2011 lecture section. This was DFW rates show a parallel relationship to class
true for all but one section of the course in fall size—rising as class size increases. Figure 2 re-
2013. When all blended sections were considered lates freshman enrollment rate to average course
together, average course grade in blended versions grade. Again, both overall average course grade
of the course were statistically lower than the fall and freshman average course grade decline slightly
2011 lecture section. When average course grades as freshman enrollment increases. DFW rates
for juniors/seniors were considered separately, no show a parallel relationship to freshman enroll-
statistical difference was found between grades ment—rising as freshman enrollment increases.
182

Table 2. Average course grades, Fall 2011 lecture compared to blended sections
Lecture Blended
Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Fall 2013

Instructor 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3
Section 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Enrollment1 29 38 36 37 33 54 70 36 71 64 72 72 68
Freshman 10.3% 39.5% 52.8% 13.5% 57.6% 11% 43% 44% 17% 34% 75% 63% 46%
Enrollment
DF rate 7% 2.6% 8.3% 5.4% 9.1% 9.3% 12.9% 11% 8.5% 7.8% 8.3% 20.6% 20.6%
DFW rate 7% 2.6% 11% 5.4% 12% 17% 17% 25% 14.1% 18.8% 28% 23.5% 23.5%
Average Course 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.9* 2.8* 2.8* 2.4***
Grade2
Average Freshman 3.0 3.2 2.6 3.4 2.8 2.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.6 1.8
Grade2
Statistical Base Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Decline Decline Decline Decline
Comparison of
Average Course
Grade, Fall 2011
to Each Blended
Section
1
Assessment Scores for these terms could not be separated by section. Number of assessment scores available may vary from actual course enrollments listed inTable 1.
2
Excludes grades of W.
Indicates statistical significance at the .05 level. *** Indicates statistical significance at the .001 level.
183

Figure 1. Correlation between class size and average course grade, hybrid sections
Figure 2. Correlation between freshman enrollment and average course grade, hybrid sections
This suggests that both class size and number average grade and DFW rates were affected. 2.
of students in the class have a negative effect on Instructor #3 in fall 2013 had not previously taught
grades for students of all class levels. at the college-level or with Blackboard Learn
Factors we could not control for include: 1. CMS. The high DFW rate in this section is most
Honors sections were taught concurrently with likely due to a lack of consistency and technical
instructor #1’s section 1 in fall 2012 and spring expertise common of new instructors, despite
2013 but no longer in fall 2013. Honors students intensive mentoring by the course coordinator.
received consistently high grades and had 0% One of the design features of the course is
DFW rates. As their number decreased, the overall learner self-reflection. Three multiple-choice
184

surveys and a reflective essay are systematically about student learning and preferences. (Restad,
built into the course and ask students to express 2013, Freeman, 2013) It is feared that students
and explain their expectations, preparation, do not like online or blended classes and that
performance, perceptions, and challenges with offering them will drive students away from our
regard to the blended course. While an in-depth, programs. However, a recent large-scale “Study of
systematic analysis of the data (1000+ survey Undergraduate Students and Information Technol-
responses) and written material (500+ essays) is ogy” showed that students prefer blended courses
beyond the scope of this article, some recurring over purely face-to-face or purely online courses
comments speak directly to the blended course (ECAR). Other claims made by opponents of
design. Students online or blended learning include assertions that
only face-to-face education can lead to paradigm-
• Like the flexibility of the blended format shift thinking and mental changes while online/
for their scheduling of classes, work, and blended education leads only to accumulation of
personal time. skills and information. Also, face-to-face teach-
• Find the rigor challenging but see value in ing is seen as the only way of engaging students
sticking to set due dates and frequent, low socially, responsibly and spontaneously. It is hard
stakes assignments, which “made it feel to argue with these claims without establishing
like a real job”. reliable ways of assessing student learning in all
• Experience frequent, short writing for the modalities. Yet humanities faculty are often the
first time and see value in it for building up first to argue that such assessment is impossible and
to the longer film analysis essay. should not even be attempted, while maintaining
• Have taken online classes before and thus that they know how and where learning happens.
know the CMS well (sophomores and up) In addition, how is the blended design of a
or can learn to use it quickly (freshmen). humanities course justified, in terms of the humani-
• Appreciate being able to access class ma- ties? First, blended learning is a paradigm shift in
terials online and watch the assigned films that it attempts to empower students and lead to
multiple times, especially those with sub- creative projects that are based on solid knowl-
titles, while having personal access to each edge of the discipline’s core works (of literature,
other and to the instructor in group and art, music, etc.), methods, disciplinary ways of
class meetings. thinking, and values. It starts with students’ needs,
• Do generally not enjoy working in groups objectives, and aspirations and emphasizes their
but experience the many collaborative learning. It does not privilege the instructor as the
tasks in this class as positive; they espe- authority on knowledge in the classroom (Brans-
cially like the online group discussions and ford, Brown, Cocking, 2000). It rather makes use
group project with the local film festival. of the instructor’s training and experience for the
• Realize that preparing for class (online) purpose of selecting and providing content from
helps them get more out of class (f2f). a variety of sources and applying best practices
to content delivery and processing that lead to
higher student learning. Second, technology is
WHY BLEND IN THE HUMANITIES? both a means and a goal in this context. As stu-
dents learn to use technology to retrieve, process,
Often reservations about the use of technology and create disciplinary content they reflect on the
in (online and blended) humanities classes are transformative changes brought on by it (Sands,
voiced in terms of discipline-specific concerns 2010). In the field of Digital Humanities new
185

technological tools and methods are applied to this internship, and the student projects presented
the work in traditional humanities and publically during the last three semesters have all included
discussed in blogs (Frost Davis, 2013) and the online components (web pages, Facebook Pages,
forums of the Humanities, Arts, Sciences, and Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr).
Technology Alliance and Collaboratory (HAS- How does the blended design of a humanities
TAC), at the Institute for Advanced Technology in course benefit instructors? Technology is seen by
the Humanities (IATH), the Maryland Institute for many not as supplementing and enriching but as
Technology in the Humanities (MITH), and funded imposed by the administration, as driven by the
by grants from the National Endowment for the corporate model of education, and as a way of
Humanities, Office of Digital Humanities (NEH disempowering tenured faculty “teachers” and
ODH) and the National Institute for Technology ultimately replacing them with mere “mentors”
in Liberal Education (NITLE). Students benefit of student learning. One of the goals of the Presi-
from critical reflection about these tools, both for dent’s Technology Initiative at Northern Arizona
career preparation and discipline-specific under- University had been to “conserve faculty effort.”
standing (Parry, 2014). Meaningful exchanges of While well-intentioned in light of recent increases
ideas mediated by technology are not inferior to in teaching load (during the budget crisis) and
social interaction and presence in the classroom, promising to free up time for research and schol-
but different. Technology empowers different arship, this goal was perceived as yet another
students and engages a generation of digital na- way to entice faculty to replace themselves—this
tives by using technology as a tool and to reflect time in terms of their presence in the classroom.
on its values (Prensky, 2001). Faculty who did participate in the initiative were
Furthermore, blended learning integrates the scrutinized by colleagues in terms of their more
content of the traditional humanities with the flexible schedule—a perspective rooted in the
digital literacy needed by humanities graduates to notion that in-class seat time is more involved
succeed in their chosen professions. For example, than time spent interacting with students online.
one of the basic principles of blended course design However, not only does the initial blended
is to engage a wide spectrum of students (Picciano, redesign require time for training and implemen-
2009) with technology in an active way (Prince, tation/revision but the actual course delivery in
2004). In the course described in this chapter, a blended format requires as much time grading
students learn about and reflect on the conditions weekly assignments (despite the TA support), pro-
of film distribution and exhibition in the United viding frequent formative feedback, and managing
States, in module one of the course. They transfer group tasks as a traditional lecture class requires
that knowledge onto a group project that grows for delivery of content and leading a full-class
out of their mini internship with a film festival. discussion. In addition, the initial learning curve is
They are asked to demonstrate rather than recount steep, as instructors have to learn to use the CMS
their grasp of the conditions of film exhibition and effectively and rethink their role in the flipped
marketing. The goal of this active, collaborative, classroom. Both require mentoring and support
practical project is in line with the larger learning from the course coordinator on an ongoing basis.
outcomes of the humanities: to guide students to The increased flexibility, just like for students,
a creative level of learning—beyond consumption is seen as an advantage by those involved in the
and mere appreciation of cultural products. They teaching of blended courses. Highly experienced,
also engage with the local community and apply trained, and full-time faculty leaders will always
knowledge to actual professional activities. The be needed to design, implement, coordinate, and
blended format of the course allows for time to do assess blended courses.
186

CONCLUSION Freeman, W., & Tremblay, T. (2013). Design Con-

siderations for Supporting the Reluctant Adoption
Blended design of humanities courses opens up op- of Blended Learning. MERLOT, 9(1), 80–88.
portunities for embattled humanities programs to
Frost Davis, R. (2013). Blog. Retrieved from http://
stay viable, current, and aligned with institutional
rebeccafrostdavis.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/
priorities. They can serve as models for other pro-
challenges-of-blended-learning-in-the-humani-
grams on campus, provide valuable professional
ties-ancient-greek/
experience for students, and invigorate faculty
teaching by incorporating active pedagogy and Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2009). Blended
principles of student success. Most of all, blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework,
design can help increase student learning, as our Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA:
data have shown, a goal that any course design Jossey-Bass.
has to live up to.
Glazer, F. S. (Ed.). (2012). Blended Learning:
Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
REFERENCES
Parry, M. (2014, January 6). How the Humani-
Allen, E. I., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). ties Compute in the Classroom. Chronicle of
Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chron-
Education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. icle.com/article/How-the-Humanities-Compute-
Blended Learning Toolkit, University of Central in/143809/
Florida. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://blended. Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending With Purpose:
online.ucf.edu/ The Multimodal Model. Journal of the Research
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. Center for Educational Technology, 5(1), 4–14.
(Eds.). (2000). How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digi-
Experience, and School. Washington, DC: Na- tal Immigrants Part 1. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
tional Research Council. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and President’s Technology Initiative, Northern Ari-
Research) Study of UG Students and Informa- zona University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nau.
tion Technology. (2013). Retrieved from http:// edu/Blended-Learning/What-is-the-Presidents-
www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar- Technology-Initiative/
study-undergraduate-students-and-information-
technology-2013 Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning
Work: A Review of the Research. Journal
First Year Learning Initiative, Northern Arizona of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nau. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
edu/University-College/First-Year-Learning-
Initiative/
187

Restad, P. (2013). ‘I don’t like this one little bit.’ Liberal Studies or major requirements with these
Tales from a Flipped Classroom. Faculty Focus. grades. Thus, this rate is used to assess student
Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/ success: the higher the rate, the lower the success.
articles/teaching-with-technology-articles/i- Digital Humanities: Newest field of the hu-
dont-like-this-one-little-bit-tales-from-a-flipped- manities that applies technology to the study of
classroom/ cultural products and also examines this use as a
cultural product itself.
Sands, P. (2010). Blended Classrooms: Hybrid-
Engagement: Active, critical, and self-moti-
ity, Social Capital, and Online Learning. In S. J.
vated work mode of students.
Hoffman (Ed.), Teaching the Humanities Online:
Flipped: The inversion of time spent by stu-
A Practical Guide to the Virtual Classroom. Ar-
dents in class and online on knowledge acquisition
monk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
and higher learning activities such as analysis
and creation.
Grade Performance Status (GPS): An
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS online monitoring system used at Northern Ari-
zona University to track student performance. It
Blended: The design principles and pedagogy allows instructors to enter grades, messages, and
underlying hybrid courses that combine face-to- automated notifications. Students, advisors, and
face (f2f) and online class time. academic support staff can access this information
Course Coordination: A way to organize and act accordingly.
multi-section courses so that student learning Master Syllabus: As part of a coordinated
outcomes, materials, assignments, and rubrics course it allows for consistency and reduces time
are aligned. Allows for mentoring of new instruc- for instructors to design a new course every time
tors and ensures consistency and predictability it is taught.
for students taking the same course in different Scaffold: As principle of backward course
semesters or from different instructors. design to align student learning outcomes, assign-
DFW Rate: Percentage of students whose ments, and tasks. Often represented in a diagram,
recorded grades are D, F, or W (=Withdrawn after resembling a construction scaffold.
the deadline). Students do not get credit towards
188
189
Chapter 10
Using Instructional Design
Goals to Appropriately Classify
Instructional Design Models
Shani Salifu
Concord University, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter probes an assertion by Gustafson and Branch (2007) that it is easier to classify instructional
models when guided by the needs that call for them. If this is so, identifying appropriate instructional
design models for various instructional situations can be greatly simplified. Gustafson and Branch
(1997) note that each of the numerous instructional models targets one or more of three types of in-
structional situations: the Classroom, Product, and Systems situations. In evaluating the assertion, the
chapter examines pertinent questions that look at some assumptions guiding the choice of instructional
models, the three design situations identified, and some characteristics that separate the various design
instances. In the end, it becomes obvious that the instructional design professional will do a better job
of classifying instructional models based on a thorough understanding of instructional situations and
guided by characteristics of the situation.
INTRODUCTION outcome of this probe holds implications for both

students and instructional design and technology
This chapter investigates a statement made by professionals. The fact that different models of
Gustafson and Branch (2007) in their discussions instructional design can be classified in accordance
of the ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Imple- with the primary type of instruction they produce
ment, and Evaluate) instructional design model, holds real significance for both students and in-
which notes that instructional “models may be structional design and technology professionals
classified according to the primary type of instruc- (Cronje, 2013). In building their argument for this
tion they are designed to produce” (p. 15). This statement, Gustafson and Branch (1997) examine
statement is probed in light of its correspondence different instructional design models under three
or lack thereof to the design of instructions. The types of instructional design situations, namely
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch010

Using Instructional Design Goals to Appropriately Classify Instructional Design Models
the classroom, the product, and the systems. This In response to the first question, Gustafson and
chapter looks at the pertinent questions whose Branch (1997) identify a number of assumptions
answers can lead us through this discussion and they believe can help set the stage for several
culminate in a conclusion that is relevant to the the- instructional design decisions. The most promi-
sis of Gustafson and Branch (1997). This chapter nent of these assumptions is that the choice of an
will also examine assumptions and characteristics instructional design model must be preceded by
that set apart the different instructional situations: the designation of an instructional design situation.
namely classroom, product, and systems. The In other words, prior to choosing an instructional
discussion of the assumptions and characteristics design model, an instructional designer must first
leads to the examination of some design models determine whether he is designing for a class-
identified by Gustafson and Branch (1997) as room situation, a product situation, or a systems
fitting examples for the classroom, product, and situation. Otherwise, the designer runs the risk
systems situations respectively. of choosing the wrong design model, which is
likely to end in failure. To properly designate a
situation, a number of conditions must be satis-
ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING fied (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). Gustafson and
THE CHOICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL Branch believe that the classroom design situation
DESIGN MODELS designation rests on the following assumptions:
The statement by Gustafson and Branch (2007) 1. That the impending design will be used in
that, instructional design models “may be classi- an educational setting and in some cases, in
fied according to the primary type of instruction business and industry situations that utilize
they are designed to produce” (p. 15) should be classroom instruction.
of interest to both students and practitioners of 2. That there is a specified number of times
instructional design alike. This statement’s ac- the class will meet face-to-face or in other
curacy or lack thereof holds implications for the synchronized formats, with the length of each
work instructional designers produce, if they are class meeting having been predetermined
to create designs that meet the needs of design prior to laying the blueprint of the design
situations or provide solutions to the problems or laid during its course.
that necessitate these decisions in the first place 3. That there will be a teacher or another subject-
(Zierer & Seel, 2012). Before designing an in- matter expert (SME) who will play a key role
structional plan, an instructional designer must in deciding the course content, the planning
answer these questions: strategies, and the ways needed resources
will be selected for use in delivering the
1. What assumptions underlie the choice of an design, as well as the choice of technology
instructional design model? through which the designed instruction will
2. What are the principal instructional design be transmitted.
situations? 4. That an instruction exists only as a guide
3. What are some outstanding characteristics to the teacher or facilitator. In this case, the
that distinguish the different design situations designed instruction is envisioned to em-
from each other? phasize structure over detail; hence it need
190

not be elaborate. The type of learning that 3. That the design team tasked with developing
emanates from this kind of design is highly this product is highly trained so as to appre-
inconsistent, as it depends largely on mood ciate the intricacies of designing instruction
and depth of knowledge or experience of for an entire system.
the personality delivering or facilitating the 4. That instructional material developed for
designed instruction. use will be mostly original, or selected from
existing archives in a few cases, and where
For a Product design situation, Gustafson and appropriate.
Branch (1997) identify assumptions to include 5. That there is a high front-end analysis of
the belief: needs and users, as well as extensive revi-
sion of the design in order to ensure that it
1. That the designed instruction resulting from can deliver on the needs for which it is being
this process will be used for several hours or produced.
days in the course of the instructional cycle.
2. That the instruction designers will have little
to no contact whatsoever with the users of USING CHARACTERISTICS TO
the instruction, unless they are the people CLASSIFY INSTRUCTIONAL
charged with facilitating it. DESIGN MODELS
3. That a front-end analysis will be conducted to
outline the need for the instructional product. Having laid out the assumptions that could guide
4. That there will be extensive tryouts and revi- instructional designers to properly designate
sions of the instructional product before it instructional situations, we can now turn our at-
is deployed to the final users. tention to characteristics that can help us avoid
5. That something new will be produced - that confusing the different design situations. In doing
the finished instruction is not simply a col- this, some of the assumptions described above may
lection of items and resources selected from come in handy. In the table below, an attempt is
a designer’s archives. made to rationally explain the classification of
6. That the resultant instructional product will instructional models into Classroom, Product and
be usable by a variety of users without the Systems based on some select characteristics of
designers’ assistance. the different situations.
As a matter of fact, the field of instructional
In identifying a Systems design situation, design has as many instructional design models
Gustafson and Branch (1997) make assumptions as it has writers. However, it is important to note
that include the belief: that not every design model can be used for just
any instructional design project, because different
1. That an entire curriculum is being designed. instructional situations call for different instruc-
2. That substantial resource will be available tional and design models and approaches. Since
to make possible the development of an in- most instructional design models are built around
structional plan suitable for an entire system. the ADDIE principles; their real differences lie
191

in how the different models arrange the ADDIE needed; the situation in which it will be utilized;
principles in their design structures (Gagne, Wa- and the post-production relationship between
ger, Golas, & Keller, 2004; Gagne, Wager, Golas, the designer and the product’s implementation
Keller, & Russell, 2005; Reinbold & Cuddy, 2012). (Hanke, Ifenthaler, & Seel, 2011). To enable us
In discussing the differences between models, we put things into perspective, a selected number of
look principally at their various characteristics, characteristics that can help us rightly classify in-
which come in many forms. structional design models are presented in Table 1.
Differences in design models may arise from a From the layout presented in the table above,
number of factors. These may include the personal it is evident that one principal differentiating
characteristics of the personnel putting together the characteristic that can help in the classification
design; its workforce requirements; the resources of instructional design models is the amount of
Table 1. Classifying instructional design models
192

time for which an instruction will be used. For the In response to the human resources needed to
classroom model, an instruction may be used for design for the various design situations, a class-
a minimum time of less than an hour to a maxi- room design situation requires nothing more than
mum of about four hours, as in the case of some an individual effort, especially when the teacher is
college classes. However, instruction designed for also the designer. At most, the classroom situation
product situations is usually self-instructional--or may use two people — for example, where the
instructor-delivered in a few cases--and could teacher has to work with an instructional designer.
last from several hours a day to several weeks In such cases, the teacher is usually the subject-
or even months. On the other hand, instruction matter expert (SME) while the designer serves as
designed for systems situations is usually used a technical resource person. In product situations,
across a wider spectrum of cases or situations human resource needs usually range from one
that constitute the system. to several people depending on the complexity
Another prominent characteristic separating of the product being designed. In contrast with
the various design situations is the amount of re- these two situations, human resource requirements
sources committed to developing the design. When are always high in systems situations, because a
designing for classrooms, the resources commit- systems design is naturally complex, owing to the
ted are quite low, because often the designers are scope the design is expected to cover. In addition,
the instructors as well. Moreover, since the main the complexity of designing for systems may arise
purpose of the design is to provide guidance on from the fact that end-users may be very diverse.
what to teach and the steps needed for the designer/ As far as the expertise needed to develop respec-
instructor to accomplish this, only a handful of tive designs, requirements for classroom design are
resources are committed to the development of the relatively low, since they are mostly used to guide
instruction. This is because the lesson or course teachers in the delivery of their lessons. In such
might be used only once in a school week, term, cases, the expertise needed is no more than that
or year. In contrast to this, a significant amount necessary to meet the teacher’s lesson objectives.
of resources are needed for designing instruction The limited expertise for designing for classroom
for both product and systems situations. For a situations is compensated for by the assumption
product situation, the level of resources needed that the teacher is a subject-matter expert, and so
is usually high, because unlike in the classroom has the knowledge and depth required to navigate
design situation, the instructional designers and every step of the instructional delivery process.
implementers are most likely not the same people. It is also compensated for by the assumption that
In most product situations, a significant amount of the teacher or a supposed subject-matter expert
resources is usually needed in the design process will be present to ensure that learners are work-
to ensure that the design gives learners optimal ing assiduously towards achieving the learning
control of the instructional product. The higher objectives. However, the same cannot be said of
amount of resources invested can also help ensure product and systems situations. In the product
that the product can easily be operated by instruc- situation, the expertise needed is relatively high.
tors who are not part of the design team. Similarly, This is because the designer might not be avail-
a higher amount of resources is needed to design able to explain aspects of the design either while
for a systems situation. This is due primarily to the product is being used or at some other time,
the complexity of the systems environment and as it is in the case of the teacher/designer in the
the range of users involved. classroom situation.
193

Product designers must have the ability to be distributed over a wider range of geographical
anticipate the expectations and challenges of space and to individuals and groups the designers
end-users and to come up with detailed and com- may know little or nothing about (Gustafson &
prehensive strategies to meet these expectations Branch, 1997).
and challenges ahead of deploying the product. Furthermore, in the classroom approach, the
These end-user anticipations may be reinforced amount of needs assessment required is quite
through extensive testing in a series of piloting low, since the design targets a specific grade
and revision sessions. In the case of the systems or class or at most, a course. In most classroom
situation, a range of high-to-very-high expertise situations, the number of learners involved is
is required to design functional and efficient small, and usually the teacher/designer is already
instructions. For starters, a significant amount familiar with the learners, whose needs he also
of expertise is required to undertake a front-end likely knows. This reduces the need to conduct
analysis of the system and its needs and to evolve a full-scale front-end analysis. However, in the
strategies for evaluating the design once it becomes case of systems, designers have to grapple with
operational. Extensive expertise is also essential in a broad array of users who might not all reside
dealing with all the varied components that make in the same geographical location. In addition to
up the system to ensure the production of a fit- this, designers may have little knowledge of the
ting instructional design. Again, in the classroom needs of their clientele who will come into the
situation it is preferable to select and use material design situation. This underscores the need to
resources that have been developed by others and go out there to assess the needs of the users for
can be acquired for free or at a reasonable cost whom they will be designing the instruction. This
because, as indicated earlier, instructional designs helps them to determine how best they can make
developed for classroom use are usually used for their designs effective and efficient for such users.
just one class session or possibly a few classes There is a minimum-to-high need for front-end
within a school term or year. Why waste valuable analysis in designing the product, depending on its
time and resources developing plans for use for reach and complexity. In developing less-complex
just once or at most for only a few times, when products, a low-to-minimum needs assessment
there are free materials out there that could easily may be required as opposed to designing a more
be acquired and used? complex product which may have a higher reach
By contrast, it is highly recommended that es- or usage. The level of needs assessment that may
sential material be developed, not borrowed, for be required for any of these design situations is
both product and systems situations. In product further guided by the kind of problem the designed
situations, the material is likely to be in use for instruction is conceived to respond to.
a much longer time or to be used by many more The complexity of the media through which
people in one or more locations. In a similar designed instruction is proposed to be delivered
manner, in the systems situation resources are is another characteristic identified by Gustafson
designated for use system-wide, possibly by a and Branch (1997) as differentiating the various
wide range of groups spanning a larger geographic design classifications. Media complexity tends
space. In classroom situations it is advisable to to be low in the classroom situation, because the
select rather than develop course material because teacher may also be the designer. This makes a lot
the range of use is narrow. This means there is of difference in the choice of technology-based
little chance of crossing copyright lines and getting media for instructional delivery. In most classroom
into trouble. However, this is not the case with situations, the complexity of technology needed to
systems and product situations, which are likely to transmit instruction is lower compared with what
194

is required for the product and systems situations. product situations, there is an absolute need for a
In the classroom situation, the presence of the higher number of tryouts and revisions; because
teacher in the classroom limits the amount and users of the product may not have the benefit of
complexity of the technology needed, because the designers’ presence to explain things to them
the teacher, who may double as the designer or during the implementation stage, though the design
may have worked with the designer as an SME would still be expected to deliver on the goals set
to design the instruction, is able to provide verbal for it. In such situations, designers are expected
instruction or explain matters that may not be to try out the product with either the target group
quite clear to learners. or with as many pilot groups as possible. These
However in the case of product, where the de- pilot groups should have characteristics as similar
signers may not be the same people to implement to those of the target users as possible.
or facilitate the product, the designed instruction From these product trials, designers will col-
has to be such that the absence of the designers lect as much relevant feedback as possible to be
does not affect the use of the product. To guarantee used to revise the product until the designers and
this, additional technological complexities need their clients are satisfied with the efficacy of the
to be infused into the design to make it easier to product. In the case of systems, a minimum-to-
use and to provide the guidance that would have high number of tryouts and revisions may be
been given by a teacher/designer as in a classroom needed to compensate for the probable absence
situation. In the case of systems, a medium-to-high of the designers at the implementation stage. The
level of technological complexity is required for number of user groups in the system may also
transmitting instruction. This is because designers necessitate a medium-to-high number of tryouts
are most likely not the implementers, even though and revisions. In such situations, designers need
the implementers would most likely have been to ensure that a design is useful across the board,
trained on the design’s substance and implemen- either in its finished state or with some specific
tation, offsetting part of the complexity of the or custom changes to suit users in various units
technology that would otherwise be required as across the system. This can be ascertained only
in product situations. when the design is fairly piloted among representa-
In the view of Gustafson and Branch (1997), tive segments of all the various groups who make
the number of tryouts and revisions needed for up the system to ensure that subsequent revisions
classroom situations ranges from low to medium. capture all the variety brought to the system by
This usually depends on the subject being taught; the target users.
the length of time needed to teach it; or the fre- Last, design models can be classified into
quency with which the design is expected to be any of the above classifications based on the ex-
used. For designs intended for short-term use, a pected range of distribution or dissemination of
lower number of tryouts and revisions may be the design. Instruction designed for classrooms
required to ensure that the design can deliver on usually has no distribution at all, because it is
its intended purpose. For those likely be used over developed by teachers working by themselves
a period of time, a medium number of tryouts and or with instructional designers to produce plans
revisions may be required to improve the reliability matching the way the teacher wishes to transmit
of the design over time. This is further necessary whatever he wishes his students to learn. For this
to improve the quality of the design’s output over reason, classroom designs are not very elaborate
a period of time or to test the robustness of the and may pose implementation difficulties for
design or its ability to deliver as new variables those unfamiliar with the original designer’s in-
are introduced into its operating environment. For tent. This is, however, not the case with product
195

designs, which are principally designed to be users other than those who designed it, or a large
used independently of the designers. Distribution and intricate instructional system that targets the
of product designs may be as widespread as the needs of an organization.
client chooses. In most instances, products are At this point, it is appropriate to consider one
designed for corporate clients who implement it example each of these design models: the class-
with their workers or clientele, who may utilize the room, the product, and the systems situations
product from varied geographic locations. With respectively. This helps us put some of the char-
systems designs, the distribution range is usually acteristics discussed earlier into perspective. For
from medium to high, depending on the size of the classroom situation the Gerlach and Ely (1980)
the system and on the number and locations of model will be discussed; for the product situation
learners within the system. we will discuss the Van Patten (1989) model; and
In the view of Gustafson and Branch (1997), last we will discuss Dick and Carey (1978) model
a basic instructional design model needs to be as an example for the systems situation.
built on a basic framework such as ADDIE. They
postulate that a sound instructional design model
must consist of four major activities or must have THE GERLACH AND ELY
the ability to perform four main functions. These DESIGN MODEL
are the ability to Analyze a learning environment,
including the needs of the learner; the ability to set The Gerlach and Ely instructional design model
out Design specifications that have the potential stresses the cyclic nature of instructional design
of yielding an effective, efficient, and relevant when designing for a Classroom, as well as the
learner environment; the ability to Develop and concomitancy of some of the primary operations
manage all the required learning material; and (Gerlach & Ely, 1980). In setting out the core ar-
finally an ability to Evaluate outcomes of the eas of this design model, Gerlach and Ely (1980)
design through either a formative or summative assume that teachers and other people involved
approach, or preferably one that uses both, before with designing instructions for classroom are
or after the design is implemented. content-oriented. The authors believe that design-
In line with instructional design competencies ers who design for classroom situations think first
discussed by Davidson-Shivers and Rasmussen and foremost about the content before any other
(2007), an instructional designer should be well aspect of the design. Based on such assumptions,
placed to identify appropriate conditions under it is suggested that learning objectives be the first
which respective instructional design models can design task to be tackled by designers willing to
be applied. The designer is able to do this by rec- use this model, before they take any other design
ognizing the respective assumptions that underlie decision.
the various design models (Hilgart, Ritterband, After crafting the learning objectives, the next
Thorndike, & Kinzie, 2012). A helpful approach to important task should be an assessment of the
this basic understanding begins by grasping a range needs of the learners (Gustafson & Branch, 1997).
of instructional design taxonomies, in particular In accordance with the prescription of the Gerlach
three categories of instructional design situations and Ely model, five activities follow the comple-
that reveal which design model is best suited for tion of assessment of learners’ needs as laid out
use in designing one of the following: a classroom in Figure 1. These activities include determining
instruction plan, a product for implementation by the appropriate strategies to be used in the design;
196

Figure 1. Gerlach and Ely model of instructional design
deciding how groups will be organized for the how groups will be organized or re-organized per
purpose of implementing the design; determining the design’s dictates for the purpose of its imple-
the amount of time to be allocated for each strategy mentation. This activity should also be seen as a
and the activity to be used; choosing the amount of continuum that stretches from situations where
space needed to implement the design; selecting learners will engage in self-study, working by
the kinds of resources needed for the successful themselves as individuals, to where they engage
execution of the design; and last, picking the best in whole-class activities. The choice of a group-
way to measure the effectiveness of the design in ing strategy depends largely on other strategies
the light of its content and structure. selected by the teacher. It could also be affected
In respect of the Gerlach and Ely design model, by the amount of time and space available for
appropriate strategies deal with the continuum the effective implementation of the design model
from exposition; where learners are provided and the kinds and amount of resources available
with cues designed to help them succeed in the to aid design implementation (Morrison, Ross,
learning process, on through to discovery (con- & Kemp, 2010; Gibbons, 2012). Though time is
structivism); where few or no cues are provided relevant as a factor that determines how learners
to aid the learners in the learning process. In this are grouped for the purpose of learning, its al-
design model, the decision regarding which point location depends on the overall amount of time
on the continuum should be selected as a starting available for executing the entire design content.
point is largely guided by the topic on which the This is because each individual design unit can
design is based; the objectives identified at the benefit only from a corresponding unit of time
start of the design process; or the familiarity of allocated from the total share of time assigned
the designer with the strengths and weaknesses of for implementing the entire design.
prospective learners (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, Similarly, the Gerlach and Ely model calls for
2010; Mattiske, 2012). After defining the amount the allocation of space for the various units of the
of guidance learners should be given through the design. Gerlach and Ely (1980) view this activity
design, the next consideration of the designer is as a fluid undertaking that cannot be crystalized,
197

since designers always have the opportunity of THE VAN PATTEN PRODUCT
extending learning experiences beyond traditional DESIGN MODEL
classroom spaces, (which are always limited), to
spaces outside of the classroom. Another way The Van Patten Product model is an example of an
designers using this instructional model can create instructional product model used in the production
varying learning spaces is through re-arranging of instructional products. Using the Van Patten
existing classrooms in ways that would reflect and Product model usually culminates in digital or
cater to the needs of the groupings the designer paper-based instructional products such as CDs,
has settled on in the design. DVDs, web-based applications, manuals and other
Another important prescription in the Gerlach paper-based training material. The nine phases of
and Ely model is the recommendation to select this instructional model include analysis, design,
appropriate resources that can be used to fulfill development, tryouts, review, production, duplica-
the objectives identified at the beginning of the tion, implementation, and maintenance. The Van
design. In selecting these resources, the designers Patten Product model when used usually has one
are challenged to identify, find, acquire, and adapt or more people responsible for evaluating it. This
resources that can either be used in their own model specifies the tangible artifacts created dur-
right or utilized to augment existing instructional ing each phase, as well as the personnel responsible
material. In situating this task, it is important to for both creating and evaluating those artifacts
think about the availability and accessibility of (Gustafson & Branch, 1997; Hilgart, Ritterband,
identified resources and to clearly stipulate how Thorndike & Kinzie, 2012; Davidson-Shivers &
they can be used in the implementation of the de- Rasmussen, 2007). Below are brief explanations
sign. As stated earlier, the emphasis in classroom of the various phases that make up the core com-
situations is on selecting from available resources ponents of this model.
rather than developing instructional material from
scratch in order to save both time and money, since • Analysis: In this phase, the designers’
the designed instruction may be used only a few tasks include identifying the problem, the
times and for only a specified class of learners audience the finished design will serve, the
(Gustafson & Branch, 1997; Davidson-Shivers kinds of resources available to help in the
& Rasmussen, 2007). design development, and the goals the de-
Last, the Gerlach and Ely model of instructional sign will yield after end-users of the prod-
design emphasizes the creation of an evalua- uct have performed specified tasks.
tion plan that can be used to appraise learners’ • Design: Instructional designers use the de-
achievement after they have interacted with the sign phase to prepare the blueprint that will
design. Such evaluation should consider the guide the final design. This is the phase
general efficacy of the design as well as learners’ where the specifications of the design are
attitudes towards the instruction and the content. rendered. In other words, it is during the
The evaluation should be closely linked with the design phase that the foundation of the
course objectives identified at the beginning of product is developed.
the design. This can provide essential feedback to • Development: The development phase is
teachers and designers on design effectiveness in that in which all draft materials are devel-
terms of content, strategies used, and the overall oped in preparation for the final design.
implementation procedure (El-Ghalayini & El- Other sub-phases might include defining
Khalili, 2012). the various topics of the design layout;
198

providing examples for each topic that has fixing problems and providing answers to
been defined, instituting practice exercises queries pertaining to the product for as
for each example used in the course of long as it stays in use.
making the product, and developing every-
thing else that can aid in the smooth and The Van Patten instructional model emphasizes
effective implementation of the finished extensive piloting and revision before finalizing a
design. product. The model underscores the importance of
• Pilot Test: This phase, also known as the the implementation and maintenance phases in the
tryout phase, works collaboratively with lifecycle of a product, even though these phases
the review phase in an interactive loop and are not mainstream characteristics of a product’s
can be repeated as many times as neces- development. In instances where a product is
sary until instruction is deemed ready for designed to be publicly marketed and sold to
implementation. independent consumers, no formal implementa-
• Review: The review phase is often de- tion or maintenance would likely occur, because
ployed after the product has been tested these phases would have become the responsibility
and further data is collected to be used of the consumers who acquire the product. As a
in improving the product. This phase uti- major shortcoming, this model lacks operational
lizes data collected from the tryout phase details, a deficiency which tends to limit its use
to improve the quality of the product being to only institutions that are already familiar with
developed. the specific procedures needed for performing
• Production: This is the phase where all the activities described above (Van Patten, 1989).
material is taken through final production
and is prepared for duplication. In princi-
ple, this is the phase where the design is THE DICK AND CAREY
finalized after a series of tryouts and revi- DESIGN MODEL
sions. At this stage the product is certified,
and is deemed ready to be implemented. This model is presumed to be one of the most flex-
• Duplication: In the duplication phase, an ible choices for designing instruction for systems
inventory of all the material needed for the situations. Affirming its flexible characteristic, the
preparation and distribution of a product is model is popularly used for developing instruc-
prepared. This is the phase in which the fi- tion for both the product and systems situations.
nalized design is reproduced in accordance However, its use is highly dependent on the range
with the number of prospective users or of activities the designer chooses to implement at
size of geographical reach. the initial stage of the design -- the stage where the
• Implementation and Maintenance: instructional goals for the finished design are iden-
These two are often discussed together, tified (Dick & Carey, 1996; Dick, Carey & Carey,
because they constitute an interactive loop 2001). The Dick and Carey (1996) instructional
that remains active for as long as the prod- design model sets out a ten-step activity. The first
uct stays in use. Implementation is the step requires the instructional designer to assess
stage where the product is made available and be familiar with the needs of the prospective
to users after it has been finalized. Once design users with a view to identifying the ap-
the product has been made accessible to propriate goals to be incorporated into the design.
end-users, maintenance is set in motion. The analysis of needs in this design model follows
The maintenance phase is responsible for two parallel paths: analyzing needs in the context
199

of the instruction to be developed on the one hand, Once the various needs analyses have been
and on the other, the needs of the learner who will completed, the instructional design process goes
use the completed instruction. Instructional needs through five additional steps that form a chain
analysis is primarily concerned with identifying which can be re-entered at any stage of the design
the various skills and knowledge to be included process. The design process continues with design-
in a design. Instructional knowledge and skills ers putting together the performance objectives.
under this analysis usually includes intellectual In formulating these objectives, designers are
skills, verbal information, psychomotor skills, and cautioned to focus on making them measurable.
attitudes. In this regard, instructional need analysis The objectives writing phase is followed by the
determines not only what will be taught, but also stage in which the instruments that will be deployed
how the final instruction will be implemented so to measure the learning objectives are developed.
it can be effective. In the view of Dick, Carey, and Designers next concentrate on the strategies that
Carey (2005), analyzing the context of learners is will be used to guide the learners for whom the
important in giving designers an insight into the design is being developed. After this, they develop
makeup of prospective learners. and choose instructional resources they deem
Designers can use this insight to design more necessary for the success of the design. The last
pointed instruction, which will be effective with activity in this five-step stage is the designing and
the target learners. In analyzing the context of conducting of formative evaluation. This process
learners, designers collect data on prospective is essential in generating data that can be used to
learners’ intelligence and personality traits and improve the effectiveness of the design as it is in
on other important variables that can help the the process of being designed. Next comes the
designers understand their situation. During the revision phase, where program creators amend
process which analyzes the learners, information design aspects that fail to respond appropriately
is collected on the environment within which the after piloting or other test forms, based on the
finished design will be operational (Morrison, outcome of the formative evaluation. Once the
Ross, & Kemp, 2010; 2012; Davidson-Shivers design becomes operational, its evaluation moves
& Rasmussen, 2007). from the formative to the summative stage. De-
Figure 2. Dick and Carey model of instructional design
200

signers or design implementers use summative exist in design situations. Understanding the as-
evaluation to assess the degree to which the sumptions as discussed here is important in guiding
instructional objectives set out in the instruction instructional designers to properly designate an
have been achieved. Finally, designs are either instructional situation as a Classroom, Product,
scrapped altogether depending on the outcome of or Systems. This is the first step in the ultimate
the evaluation, or upheld with or without some choice of an appropriate instructional design
revisions (Dick & Carey, 1978; 1996; Davidson- model based on the match between the situation
Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006; Morrison, Ross, assumptions and model characteristics. Using
Kalman, & Kemp 2012). Figure 2 illustrates the an aggregate approach in which designers can
Dick and Carey model as an example of a systems match situation assumptions with model charac-
instructional design model. teristics, it becomes easier to pair up instructional
design models with design situations such as the
Classroom, the Product, and System (Gustafson
CONCLUSION & Branch, 2007).
Two approaches have been used to probe the

statement of Gustafson and Branch (2007) un- REFERENCES
der discussion here. The first approach focuses
on certain assumptions that govern three design Cronje, J. (2013). What is this thing called “De-
situations: namely the Classroom, Product, and sign” in instructional design research?—The
Systems. The discussion highlights a string of ABC instant research question generator. Media
preconditions that designers need to be aware of if in Education, 15–28.
they are challenged to identify the kind of design Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L.
situation they face. In the view of Gustafson and (2006). Web based learning: Design, implemen-
Branch (2007), an understanding of these as- tation and evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
sumptions enables program creators to designate Pearson Education, Inc.
appropriate design models to prospective design
situations. The second approach identifies and Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L.
discusses some key characteristics of prospec- (2007). Competencies for instructional design
tive Classroom, Product, and Systems design and technology professionals. In R. A. Reiser,
models. Discussions of the second approach tests & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in in-
the view that an understanding of the respective structional design and technology (pp. 94 – 103).
characteristics by designers is necessary to ap- Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
propriately match existing assumptions with the
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The Systematic De-
evident characteristics of instructional design
sign of Instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
models to enable them designate certain design
models as fit for use for Classroom, Product, and Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic
Systems situations respectively. design of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Drawing from the above, it can be concluded Haper Collins College Publishers.
that understanding the three main classes into
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The
which instructional design situations can be placed
systematic design of instruction. New York, NY:
is quite helpful. A grasp of these characterizations
Longman.
includes an appreciation of the assumptions that
201

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The Mattiske, C. (2012). Fast-track Instructional
systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New Design. Sydney, Australia: The Performance
York, NY: Pearson. Company Pty Limited.
El-Ghalayini, H., & El-Khalili, N. (2012). An Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., &
approach to designing and evaluating blended Kemp, J. E. (2012). Designing effective instruc-
courses. Education and Information Technologies, tion (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
17(4), 417–430. doi:10.1007/s10639-011-9167-7
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H.K. &
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Kemp, J.E. (2010). Designing effective instruction
Keller, J. M. (2004). Principles of instructional (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wad-
Reinbold, S., & Cuddy, C. (2012). Using the AD-
sworth.
DIE model in designing bibliographic instruction.
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1813/28717
J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instruc-
Van Patten, J. (1989). What is instructional design?
tional design (5th ed.). Performance Improvement,
In K. A. Johnson, & L. K. Foa (Eds.), Instructional
44, 44–46. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140440211
design: New alternatives for effective education
Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1980). Teaching and and training. New York, NY: Macmillan.
media: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Engle-
Zierer, K., & Seel, N. M. (2012). General Didac-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Incorporated.
tics and Instructional Design: Eyes like twins A
Gibbons, A. S. (2012). Instructional design: An ar- transatlantic dialogue about similarities and differ-
chitectural approach. New York, NY: Routledge. ences, about the past and the future of two sciences
of learning and teaching. SpringerPlus., 1(15).
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey
doi:10.1186/2193-1801-1-15 PMID:23961346
of instructional design models (3rd ed.). Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2007). What
is instructional design? In R. A. Reiser, & J. V.
Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional ADDIE: An instructional design strategy that
design and technology (pp. 10 – 16). Upper Saddle emphasizes the use of Analyzing, Designing,
River, NJ: Pearson. Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating of
Hanke, U., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2011). the instruction environment and the product to
Effects of creative dispositions on the design produce efficient instructions.
of lessons. The Open Educational Journal, 4, Classroom Design: Instruction created for
113–119. doi:10.2174/1874920801104010113 use in classroom, mostly in face-to-face sessions.
Instruction: A series of activities designed to
Hilgart, M. M., Ritterband, L. M., Thorndike, F. culminate in the transfer of knowledge to learners.
P., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Using instructional Instructional Designer: A person(s) profes-
design process to improve design and develop- sionally competent in creating instructions.
ment of Internet interventions. Journal of Medi- Instructional Situation: A condition that
cal Internet Research, 14(3), e89. doi:10.2196/ creates the need for an education designed to
jmir.1890 PMID:22743534 fulfill a need.
202

Product Design: Instruction created for use Systems Design: Instruction designed for use
across multiple geographical locations. These across a system. It could either be delivered face-
designs are usually self-directed by the end-user, to-face or remotely across the system.
with facilitators playing mostly supervisory roles. Tryout: Testing out a product or design to
Subject-Matter Expert: A person(s) who determine its readiness to deliver on its goals.
possesses an in-depth knowledge of the subject
matter on which an instruction is being developed.
203
204
Chapter 11
A Model for Improving
Online Collaborative Learning
through Machine Learning
E. Muuro Maina
Kenyatta University, Kenya
Peter W. Wagacha
University of Nairobi, Kenya
Robert O. Oboko
University of Nairobi, Kenya
ABSTRACT
Online collaborative learning provides new opportunities for student collaboration in an online learn-
ing environment and at the same time spawns new challenges for teachers supporting group work. With
the current Course Management Systems (CMS) such as Moodle, technology has provided online tools
that include discussions forums, chat rooms, e-mails, newsgroups, workshops, etc. These tools provide a
collaborative learning environment. To include constructivist learning in an online learning environment
is a good collaborative strategy that is necessary since it engages learners in learning activities through
interaction with their peers and teacher. A good collaborative strategy in an e-learning environment
must primarily ensure that the expected interaction occurs in line with the learning mechanism being
employed. This cannot merely be met by offering a set of collaborative software tools alone. It also re-
quires the instructors’ support. As the number of students studying online continues to increase, there
is need to develop models that can improve online collaborative learning with minimal involvement of
the instructor because the instructor might not be able to cope with increased number of students. To
address this need, this chapter discusses a novel model for improving online collaborative learning that
uses Machine Learning (ML) techniques.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch011

A Model for Improving Online Collaborative Learning through Machine Learning
INTRODUCTION laborative learning process with minimal support

from the instructor by incorporating the following
The use of discussions forums for online learn- techniques in the existing models:
ing gives the learners a chance to collaborate
online,critic one another, share knowledge and 1. Intelligent techniques for analyzing discus-
compare new concepts with one another. Discus- sion data in a discussion forum and creating
sion forums create a platform where learners can learners collaborative competence levels.
learn on their own with the opportunity of sharing 2. An intelligent technique for creating het-
experiences and construct knowledge based on erogeneous groups based on collaborative
their cognitive level (Corich, S., Kinshuk & Hunt, competence levels.
L., 2004). By introducing e-discussion forums 3. A platform which can provide immediate
it becomes possible to have social affective and feedback to reinforce the student level of
cognitive benefits of face to face situations realized collaboration.
(Hiltz, 1990). In a normal learning environment
such as a classroom, learners are encouraged to
engage in discussions, form groups, participate in BACKGROUND
group activities and debate on topics presented in
classrooms. This forms the collaborative process With the increased demand for education, distance
in class which is supported by the teacher who learning has gained popularity and therefore teach-
can address the specific needs that arise during ing online is no longer a new event. Use of online
their group discussion. technologies to supplement face-to face instruction
In an e-learning environment collaborative has yielded a blended learning (Ganzel, 2001;
software tool can allow learners to work on separate Mantyla, 2001) which has changed the traditional
computers but engage in a collaborative process by learning that is based on a classroom environment.
communicating in synchronous or asynchronous Constructivist psychology advocates the use of
manner. This lacks the teacher support making collaborative tools such as discussion forums in
the collaborative process to be static rather than e-learning as they argue cognitive development
adaptive. With the scarcity of instructors and is as result of social interaction (Vygoskty, 1978;
continuing increase in the numbers of students Siemens, 2004). Other researchers have also
enrolled online, there is a need to explore artificial explored how constructivism and connectivism
intelligent techniques such as Machine Learning learning theories can be adequately used in educa-
(ML) which can analyze students’ interaction data tion technology for the digital age (Mattar, 2010).
in an online group activity and provide data which Researchers have demonstrated that learning
can be used to reinforce the collaboration process. is more effective if peers collaborate and share
This provides an active learning environment ideas by solving a task as a group rather than
within the existing collaboration tools in a Course as individuals (Johson and Johnson, 1989) and
Management Systems (CMS), hence improving through group work construction and synthesis
the collaboration process with minimal support of knowledge by the individual outperforms in-
from the instructor. This will in turn support the dividual learning (Brindley, Blaschke & Walti,
social constructivist theory in an online learning 2009; Moller, 1998). Although collaboration can
environment which has gained popularity. be done without limiting the number of students in
The primary objective of this chapter is to the group, research has shown that smaller groups
discuss a model which can improve online col- of three to five are more effective as students are
205

able to interact more, exchange ideas more often intellectual life of those around them” (p.88).
and also provides almost equal opportunity to Vygotsky constructivist theory of learning can be
participate in the group discussion (Gayattan & explained in details by considering two important
McEwen, 2007; Finegold & Cooke, 2006; Liu, concepts: “interaction of social and psychological/
Joy & Griffiths, 2010). Research has been carried cognitive planes” and”Zone of Proximal Develop-
out to investigate the learners’ satisfaction (Singh, ment (ZPD)”.
2005), perceived usefulness and challenges (Song, In his first concept, a child’s development ap-
Singleton, Hill & Koh, 2004; Kim, Liu & Bonk, pears on two planes: the social and psychological
2005), and factors leading to unsuccessful group planes. At the social plane the child is expected to
collaboration (Roberts & McInnerney, 2007; Liu perform certain tasks under social settings with the
et al., 2010) in a collaborative online learning help of others and later the same functions appear
environment. at the child’s psychological level. According to Vy-
In recent years, ML techniques have been ap- gotsky (1978), the student’s development appears
plied to support collaborative learning process among people as an inter-psychological category,
and improve learners’ interaction in e-discussions and within the students as an intra-psychological
(McLaren, Miksatko & Scheuer, 2010;Anaya & category. In an inter-psychological category, stu-
Boticario, 2009; 2010; 2011). These researchers dent’s construction of knowledge is preceded by
have paid more attention to asynchronous threaded his/her internalization of social relations.
discussion which is more appropriate to online In the second concept, Vygotsky explains the
collaboration because it gives learners a chance to Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) represent-
digest the problem and discuss possible solutions ing the distance between two conceptual levels
for the task (Kaye, 1992). Learning accompanied of cognitive zones: the real level of development
by online discussions which are asynchronous and the potential level of development. Vygotsky
gives room for learners to extend their classroom (1978) defined the ZPD as “the distance between
learning with deeper discussions of ideas at their the actual development level as determined by
own convenient time (Smith, 1994). independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in col-
CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING laboration with more capable peers” (p. 86).
Therefore, ZPD becomes the cognitive zone in
The theoretical framework underlying this discus- which children can work with more knowledge-
sion is the social constructivist learning theory able peers to perform tasks and later perform them
(Vygotsky, 1978). Collaborative learning bor- independently. Within ZPD, “children can act as
rows from social constructivist pedagogy which apprentices, guided toward greater proficiency
advocates a learner centered instructional strategy in performing tasks by mentors who are more
which involves social processes requiring students experienced participants in the activity than the
to work together in groups to complete academic learner” (Petraglia, 1998,p.45).
problem solving tasks designed to promote learn- Since collaborative learning finds its roots from
ing (Benbunan-Fich,Hiltz& Harasim, 2005). So- social construction of knowledge, collaboration
cial constructivist pedagogy can be traced back to becomes an important aspect of learning for the
the work of Soviet Psychologist Lev Semenovich constructivist pedagogy. In collaborative learning,
Vygotsky. Vygotsky (1978) explained, “Human the goal is to create social interaction which will
learning presupposes a specific social nature result in the acquisition or construction of new
and a process by which students grow into the knowledge. According to Vygotsky collaboration
206

is more fruitful when learners collaborate with 3. When discussion forums are managed well
more experts or peers because what an individual it becomes a major tool for supporting e-
does jointly with others can be incorporated into learning as they encourage learners to share
his/her individual problem solving process. knowledge and build new ideas from shared
Based on Vygotsky’s ZPD concept, Tudge (1990) concepts (Garrison, 1993).
explained the effectiveness of collaboration by 4. Online tools for group activities like the
stating that: “children who were led to think at discussions forums and chat rooms allows
a higher level through being paired with a more learners to build self-esteem, learn to ac-
competent peer achieved that higher level in the commodate diverse opinions on issues,
course of collaboration and generally retained it enhance their listening and communication
in subsequent independent performance” (p.163). skills and develop skills needed in team
Engaging students in collaborative learning has workforce(Johnson, Jonhson, Holubec &
been recognized as a powerful method to motivate Roy, 1984; Taylor, 2004).
learners. However collaborative pedagogy in the
digital technology has changed the ways in which
students interact with their instructors within the CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
learning process. Research has been conducted
to address collaborative pedagogy in the digital Studies in online collaboration learning have gen-
technology (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff, 1995; erally analyzed collaboration process in a number
Barrows, 1994; Koschmann, 1996; Palloff& Pratt, of ways including: the number of logons and
1999). With the realization of digital technology length of messages (Mason, 1992), text analysis
online collaborative learning provides new op- through shape coding mechaniSMS (McLarenet
portunities for student collaboration in an online al., 2007), statistical indicators which are related
environment and new challenges for teachers sup- to learner’s collaboration like number of messages
porting group work (Bonk & Kim, 1998; Palloff & sent/replied and threads in a conversation initiated
et al., 1999). The digital technology has provided by the learner (Anaya et al. 2009). However, most
online tools like discussions forums, chat rooms, e- of the analyses only review the usage statistics
mails, newsgroups, workshops, wikis, etc., which which are only useful for assessing participation
provides a collaborative learning environment. or evaluating the collaborative activity in collabo-
From previous research on discussion forums, ration but they don’t tell us about the quality of
the following advantages can be noted out: the discussions like: sharing ideas, constructing
knowledge, new ideas, etc.
1. Discussion forums create a platform where As noted from previous research there is lack
learners can learn on their own with the of good methodologies and standards to analyze
opportunity of sharing experiences and online collaboration (Anaya A. et al., 2011). Most
construct knowledge based on their cognitive of the tools also discussed in previous studies do
level (Corich et al., 2004). provide little support to the instructor in managing
2. With e-discussion forums it is possible to the collaboration process. Therefore there is need
have social affective and cognitive benefits to build a framework which applies both statistical
of face to face situations realized (Hiltz, analysis (quantitative) and content analysis (quali-
1990). tative) to analyze collaboration and provides more
207

assistants in managing the collaboration process. Phase 3: ML techniques can be used to compare
Our proposed framework is based on Manage- the current state of interaction with desired
ment collaboration cycle framework (Soller, A., state and provide relevant information which
Martínez, A., Jermann, P., Muehlenbrock, M., can be used to improve the collaboration
2005). Although this framework discuss how to process.
support collaboration process by use of mirroring Phase 4 and 5: Intelligent techniques can be used
and meta-cognitive tools, the idea of improving to automate the process of generating advice
collaboration process by use of artificial intelligent or guidance and also automate the interaction
techniques was not incorporated. This chapter dis- assessment and diagnosis.
cusses a model which incorporates ML techniques
for analyzing the collaboration process within In the light of the above arguments, we formu-
the management cycle and classifies students as late a framework which will analyze collaboration
per their collaborative competence level (Laura, process using ML techniques and model learner’s
Silvia & Ramón, 2008). This competence levels collaboration competence level, initialize groups
provide a platform in the model for creating new and provide advice or guidance based on this col-
groups which are heterogeneous and a learning laboration competence level as shown in Figure 1.
platform where the instructor can propose activi-
ties to reinforce student’s level of collaborating.
Soller, et al., (2005) divides the management COLLABORATION
of collaboration process into five phases: COMPETENCE LEVEL
Phase 1: Collecting interaction data, Collaborative group work can be characterized

Phase 2: Constructing a model of interaction;this by three critical attributes: Interdependencies
phase requires the computing of indicators which refers to the pattern of participation and
to represent the current state of interaction. interaction in the group (Johnson et al., 1998),
Statistical tools can be used to analyze in- synthesis of information which refers to creation
teraction data and provide these indicators, of something new/idea (Kaye, 1992) and inde-
Phase 3: Compare current state of interaction to pendence which refers to autonomous actions by
desired state, the learner (Laffey, Tupper, Musser & Wedman,
Phase 4: Advise/guide the interaction, and 1998). By use of these three characteristics, we
Phase 5: Evaluate interaction assessment and can introduce some indicators in ourmodel which
diagnosis. can be used to measure the relative amount of
interdependence, synthesis, and independence
Although the framework explains how to and hence the collaboration competence levels.
manage collaboration process it lacks a guideline Interdependence requires active participation
on how to integrate intelligent systems into the by each member; participation can be measured by
collaboration management process. In our model counting the number of messages and statements
we do incorporate ML techniques in the follow- submitted by each individual and the group to the
ing phases: other participants. This can allow both groups
and individuals to be compared in their level of
Phase 2: ML techniques can be used to analyze participation. Independence on the other hand can
interaction data and provide leaner’s col- be analyzed by measuring the extent of influence
laboration competence level. by the instructor or other participants in individual
208

Figure 1. A Framework for improving collaboration process using ML techniques
participation and interaction. Individual who post

new ideas rather than just replies are more inde-
pendent hence, more collaborative. Synthesis can Table 1. Collaboration competence levels
be measured in two ways: first by the interaction
Collaboration Characteristics
pattern of the discussion that occurs when a partici- Competence
pant contributes a statement, another participant Level
synthesizes it by extending the idea and subsequent High If a student logs-in often, participates and
interacts actively by sending new post
messages yields new ideas. This requires content is rated high - his/her profile is highly
analysis of the individual thread contributed in the collaborative. In this case the collaboration
competence level is high.
discussion. Secondly, synthesis can be analyzed
by examining the relationship between original Medium If a student logs-in often, participates and
interacts moderately by sending a few post is
comments and the final product. For our case we rated moderate - his/her profile is moderately
apply the later where the instructor compares the collaborative. In this case the collaboration
competence level is medium.
post with the final product and assigns a numerical
Low If a student logs-in and does not send new
value as per the relevance. This in turn can tell us posts or makes any replies then his/her
the level of individual contribution in relation to profile is non collaborative In this case the
collaboration competence level is low.
the final product. We apply these three attributes
to define three collaboration competence levels
as described in Table 1.
209

Applying ML Techniques to • Moodle 2.3 was installed on the Windows

Model Learner’s Collaboration Server
Competence Level • Weka Jar lib was added to the Windows
Server
Recently, a good number of researches have used • Weka Jar lib was invoked from the Moodle
machine learning techniques which can emulate PHP code
the role of an instructor in improving the collabo-
ration process with positive outcomes (Anaya et To develop this model we have worked with
al., 2009, 2010, 2011; McLaren & et al., 2010). data stored in MySQL database in Moodle from
In this discussion we demonstrate the use of ML discussion forums. Although forums data have
algorithms to analyze discussion forums data many attributes we have utilized three attributes
and model learner’s collaboration competence which possess data which correspond to the three
level. We adopt the use of clustering algorithms indicators of collaboration (Interdependencies,
based on the fact that, with sufficient data they Independence and Synthesis). The first attribute
can group instances with no prior knowledge of is a new post which is an original idea; the second
the relevant attributes. is a reply to post which correspond to a response
From our proposed model we need to integrate to an existing idea and the third is average rating
these clustering algorithms into CMS like Moodle of the posts which indicates the level of relevance
which stores the discussion forums data in a rela- of the post on the issues under discussion. To
tional database Management System (RDBMS). determine learner’s collaboration competence
Moodle e-learning platform was selected because: level the following two major steps were adopted:
1. It is an open-source learning course manage- 1. Preprocessing the Moodle forum Data.

ment system which is utilized by the larger 2. Applying clustering algorithms to create
community in higher learning institutions collaboration competence levels.
and the availability of its source code made
it possible to integrate it with clustering Preprocessing the
algorithms. Moodle Forum Data
2. Moodle is designed with a number of activi-
ties such as chat, forum, glossary, wiki and Preprocessing the data requires the data to be
workshop which do support collaborative cleaned and transformed into an appropriate
learning. form which can be processed by Weka clustering
algorithms. Moodle forum data and forum rating
The clustering algorithms are imported from is stored in the following tables, namely:
Wekasoftware (Ian, Eibe, Mark & Hall, 2011)
which has a set of well organized collection of 1. mdl_forum: Stores information about all
state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms and forums.
data preprocessing tools. To integrate Weka into 2. mdl_forum_posts: Stores all posts to the
Moodle the following was done: forums.
210

3. mdl_forum_discussions: Stores all forums’ Sample Results on Clustering

discussions.
4. mdl_rating: Stores the average rating of the In Moodle a custom ‘Discussion’ block is created
posts. to view and manage the clustering algorithms
from the Weka.php program. The custom block
Since the data is stored in a RDBMS less has the cluster option which can be accessed by
cleaning and preprocessing is required and for the instructor in his/her course. The cluster op-
our case we only create a summarization table tion is supposed to load the Weka.php program
with the required fields from the above tables and which provides the user interface for creating the
export the result to a text file with CSV format clusters which corresponds to the collaboration
which is applicable to Weka tool. To create the competence levels specified by the instructor.
summarization table the SQL statement in Box To define the number of clusters, we use the
1 is used. three collaboration competence levels (High,
The summary table is stored as text file with Medium and Low) as described in the Table 2.
.cvs extension and it has the following columns: To create clusters the instructor is required load
the Weka.php program and input the following:
1. User id(taken from mdl_role_assignments
by checking the role and enroll conditions) 1. The type of clustering algorithm by selecting
2. N u m b e r o f p o s t s ( t a k e n f r o m from a drop down list.
mdl_forum_posts) 2. Number of clusters which should correspond
3. N u m b e r o f r e p l i e s ( t a k e n f r o m to the number of collaboration competence
mdl_forum_posts) levels.
4. Forum ratings(taken from mdl_rating)
For example, Figure 2 shows clustering results
This summary table is fed as an input to the for a discussion forum with 44 students in unit CIT
Weka.php program which has the clustering 300 where the clustering algorithm is SKmeans
algorithms. and the numbers of clusters are 3.
Data from these three clusters is stored in
Box 1. Moodle database inform of collaboration com-
petence levels mentioned above.
SELECT role.userid,count(if(post.parent=0, post.
userid,NULL))AS Numberofpost, count(if(post.parent!=0, post.
id,NULL)) AS Numberofreplies,
(SELECTround(COALESCE(avg(rate.rating),0)) from Table 2. Clusters based on collaboration com-
mdl_rating AS rate where role.userid=rate.userid and rate.
component=’mod_forum’ and rate.ratingarea=’post’) AS petence levels
avgrating
FROM Cluster Collaboration Competence Levels
mdl_context AS context INNER JOIN mdl_role_assignments Number
AS role
ON role.contextid=context.id and role.roleid=5 LEFT JOIN Cluster 0 High
mdl_forum_posts AS post ON role.userid=post.userid
Cluster 1 Medium
WHERE context.instanceid=$courseid and context.
contextlevel=50group by role.userid Cluster 2 Low
211

Figure 2. Results on SKmeans clustering algorithm
Using Collaboration collaborative level has userID values as per this

Competence Levels to Improve order: 12,34,56,23,47 then after randomization the
Collaborative Learning order changes to: 34,47,23,56,12. This randomiza-
tion task is done for all clusters and then userID
From our conceptual framework we need to use the are ranked from cluster 0 (highly collaborative) to
collaboration competence levels for two purposes: cluster 2 (low collaborative). The result is stored
in an array called ‘rankedArray’. It’s from the
1. Create heterogeneous groups. ‘rankedArray’ we apply an intelligent grouping
2. Provide immediate feedback to students algorithm which picks students from different
based on their collaboration competence collaborative levels as per the rank and assigns
level. them to one group. For example from our previous
case where we had 44 students distributed in three
We describe the implementation of these two clusters the instructor can go ahead and specifies
tasks in details. to create ten groups through the intelligent group-
ing algorithm. The algorithm should distribute
Create Heterogeneous Groups students from one level to different groups so that
a heterogeneous group is created. Students who
To create heterogonous groups the data stored in are in cluster 0 are assigned a mentor role in their
the three collaborative competence levels is con- group membership as this cluster constitutes highly
verted to an array with userID values. A random- collaborative students. Results of this example
izing algorithm created using php ‘randomarray’ are illustrated in Figure 3. The instructor now
function takes the array as input and produces an can go ahead and click the next button to move
output array with randomized userID values. For the group data into moodle tables (mdl_groups,
example if cluster 0 which correspond to higher mdl_groups_members).These groups are now
212

Figure 3. Screenshot for results based on the intelligent grouping algorithm
available in the grouping module in Moodle and cluster or select a single student in that cluster
the instructor can assign them discussion forums depending on whether the feedback is for the
or any other group activity as desired. entire cluster or for a single student. For the SMS
module the Moodle interface was integrated with
Provide Immediate Feedback an API platform provided by Africa’s Talking. For
to Students Based on Their the email the mail server was configured to allow
Collaboration Competence Level emails to be sent from the Moodle database. For
the SMS and email services to work, the instruc-
To provide immediate feedback we do create an tor is required to enroll students to a course and
interface in Moodle which allows the instructor provide the email and the mobile phone details
to SMS or email either the whole group in that for each student. Emails are recommended to be
213

used when the instructor wants to provide lengthy FURTHER RESEARCH

feedback while SMS is recommended for short
messages. For example if an instructor wants to We intend to experiment our model by testing
elaborate to a student on how to improve his/her the system in a realistic e-learning environment
performance in the collaborative work a mail ser- in two phases described below:
vice is recommended but if the instructor wants
to pass a quick notification on the performance to Formative Evaluation
a group or individual an SMS is recommended.
Figure 4 shows a screenshot for sending the SMS This evaluation will be carried out in order to
and emails as per the collaboration competence identify possible errors and point out further
levels (clusters) modifications and improvements to achieve the
If the instructor wants to send a particular SMS required performance of the system. This stage
or email to particular student in the cluster then the involves testing of the working system with the
instructor needs to click on the particular cluster intended users. Students who will be undertaking
and load an interface which allows selection of an online course will be selected,and through their
individual student. Figure 5 shows a screenshot facilitators they will be requested to participate
for selecting a single student from cluster 2 in in some discussions on selected topics with the
order to send an individualized SMS. system. Observations and comments from both
Figure 4. Screenshot for sending SMS and emails (numbers have been used to represent user names for
student’s privacy)
214

Figure 5. Screenshot for sending individual SMS
facilitators and students will be collected and, CONCLUSION

when appropriate they will be used to update the
system. This chapter has discussed a model which can be
used to improve online collaborative learning by
Summative Evaluation using machine learning techniques and implemen-
tation details of our model have been discussed.
Once the system is error free an experiment will But it has only focused on clustering algorithms
be done in a realistic online collaborative learning therefore there is a need to do more research with
environment to evaluate its impact in improving other machine learning algorithms which could
online collaborative learning.This evaluation will also provider mechaniSMS for improving the
involve the use of an experimental group and collaborative learning. We also focused only on
control group. Observations from facilitators and three attributes when clustering the learner’s and
semi-structured interview with the facilitators at therefore, further research need to explore more
the end of the study will be conducted. A ques- with other attributes with different clustering
tionnaire will also be administered to the student algorithms.
at the end of the study to investigate the student’s
impression on the system.
215

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Anaya, A.R., & Boticario, J.G. (2011). Content-

free Collaborative Learning Modeling Using
The authors would like to acknowledge the Na- Data Mining. User Modeling and User-Adapted
tional Commission for Science, Technology and Interaction on Data Mining in Education.
Innovation, Kenya for funding this research.
Barrows, H. S. (1994). Practice-Based Learning:
Problem-Based Learning Applied to Medical
Education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois
REFERENCES
University of School of Medicine.
Africa’s Talking SMS and USSD API. (n.d.). Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L.
Retrieved October 10, 2013, from https://www. (2005). The online interaction learningmodel
africastalking.com learning model: An integrated theoretical frame-
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2009). A Data work for learning networks. In S. R. Hiltz, &
Mining Approach to Reveal Representative R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online:
Collaboration Indicators in Open Collaboration Research together online: Research on asynchro-
Frameworks. In Proceedings of the Second Inter- nous learning networks (pp. 18–37). Mahwah, NJ:
national Conference on Educational Data Mining Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(EDM09). Academic Press. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2009). Cluster- sociocultural to adult learning. In M. C. Smith, &
ing Learners according to their Collaboration. In T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult Learning and Develop-
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference ment: Perspectives from Educational Psychology
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in (pp. 67–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Design (CSCWD 2009). IEEE. Associates.
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2009). Reveal Brindley, J., Blaschke, L.M., & Walti, C. (2009).
the Collaboration in an Open Learning Environ- Creating effective collaborative learning groups in
ment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5601, an online environment. The International Review
464–475. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02264-7_48 of Research in Open and distance Learning, 10(3).
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2010). Ranking irrodl/article/viewArticle/675
Learner Collaboration according to their Interac-
tions, In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Engineer- Corich, S. K., & Hunt, L. M. (2004). Assess-
ing Education Conference (EDUCON 2010). ing discussion forum participation: In search of
Madrid, Spain: IEEE Computer Society Press. Quality. Journal of Instructional Technology and
distance learning. Retrieved from http://itdl.org/
Anaya, A.R., & Boticario, J.G. (2011). Applica- journal/Dec_04/article01.htm
tion of Machine Learning Techniques To Analyze
Student Interactions And Improve The Collabora- Finegold, A., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the at-
tion Process. Expert Systems with Applications titudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in online groups. The Internet and Higher Education,
Design, 38(2). 9(3), 201–215. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.003
Ganzel, R. (2001, May). Associated learning.
Online Learning, 5 (5), 36-38, 40-41.
216

Garrison, D. R. (1993). A cognitive constructivist Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman,
view of distance education: An analysis of teach- J. (1998). A computer-mediated support system
ing-learning assumptions. Distance Education, for project-based learning. Educational Technol-
14(2), 199–211. doi:10.1080/0158791930140204 ogy Research and Development, 46(1), 73–86.
doi:10.1007/BF02299830
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. (2007). Effective online
instructional and assessment strategies. American Liu, S., Joy, M., & Griffiths, N. 2010. Students’
Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132. perceptions of the factors leading to unsuccessful
doi:10.1080/08923640701341653 group collaboration. In Proceedings of Advanced
Learning Technologies (ICALT), (pp. 565–569).
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff,
IEEE.
M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide
to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, Mantyla, K. (2001). Blended e-learning: The
MA: MIT Press. power is in the mix. Alexandria, VA: American
Society for Training & Development.
Hiltz, S. (1990). Evaluating the Virtual Class-
room. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online Education (pp. Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies
134–184). New York, NY: Praeger. for computer conferencing applications. In A.
R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Coop-
Computer Conferencing (pp. 105–116). Berlin,
eration and competition: Theory and research.
Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
642-77684-7_7
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J.,
Mattar, J. A. (2010). Constructivism and connec-
& Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning: Coopera-
tivism in education technology: Active, situated,
tion in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Assoc for
authentic, experiential, and anchored learning.
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Retrieved from http://www.joaomattar.com/
Kaye, A. (1992). Learning together apart. In A. Constructivism
R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through
McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J.
Computer Conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin,
(2010). Supporting collaborative learning and
Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-
e-Discussions using artificial intelligence tech-
642-77684-7_1
niques. International Journal of Artificial Intel-
Kim, K.-J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online ligence in Education, 20(1), 1–46.
MBA students’ perceptions of online learning:
Mitchell, T. (1997). Machine Learning. McGraw
Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet
Hill.
and Higher Education, 8, 335–344. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2005.09.005 Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of
learners for asynchronous distance education.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and
Educational Technology Research and Develop-
instructional technology: An introduction. In T.
ment, 46(4), 115–122. doi:10.1007/BF02299678
Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of
an Emerging Paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Moodle - Open-source learning platform | Moodle.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. org. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2013, from http://
moodle.org/
217

MySQL: The world’s most popular open source Taylor, V. (2004). Online group projects: Prepar-
database. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2013, from ing the instructors to prepare the students. In T. S.
http://www.mysql.com Roberts (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative
learning in higher education. Hershey, PA: Idea
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learn-
Group. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-408-8.ch002
ing Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strat-
egies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco, Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, The ZPD, and Peer
CA: Jossey-Bass. Collaboration: Implications for Classroom Prac-
tice. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education:
Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by Design: The Rheto-
Instructional Implications and Applications
ric and Technology of Authenticity in Education.
of Sociohistorical Psychology (pp. 155–174).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173674.008
problems of online group learning (and their
Valetts, L. M., Navarro, S. B., & Gesa, R. F. (2008).
solutions). Journal of Educational Technology
Modelling collaborative competence level using
& Society, 10, 257.
machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of
Siemens, G. (2004, December). Connectivism: A IADIS International Conference on E-Learning.
theory for the digital age. Retrieved from, http:// Amsterdam: IADIS.
www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The
Singh, H. K. D. (2005). Learner satisfaction in Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
a collaborative online learning environment. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
Retrieved from http://asiapacific-odl.oum.edu.
Witten, I. H., Frank, E., & Hall, M. A. (2011).
my/C33/F239.pdf
Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools
Smith, W. (1994). Computer-mediated com- and Techniques (3rd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
munication: An experimental study. Journalism
Educator, 48(2), 27–33.
Soller, A., Martínez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlen- KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
brock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A
review of state of the art technology for supporting Clustering Algorithm: Is a computer pro-
collaborative learning. International Journal of gram which performs the task of grouping a set
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 261–290. of objects in such a way that those with similar
properties or behavior are put in the same group.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. Collaboration Competence Level: The abil-
H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student ity to participate in a collaborative activity and
perceptions of useful and challenging charac- attain a specific level of performance required in
teristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, the collaborative activity.
59–70. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
218

Collaborative Learning: Situation in which ing activities. Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic

two or more people learn or attempt to learn Learning Environment (Moodle) is an example of
something together. The situation is termed “col- CMS which is commonly used in higher learning
laborative” if peers are more or less at the same institutions.
level, can perform the same actions, have common Discussion Forum: Is a program which allows
goal and work together (Dillenbourg, 1999). members to hold discussions online. One member
Constructivist: Is a learning theory which starts the discussion by posting a topic and other
advocates the use of Constructivism and con- members reply. This allows members of the same
nectivism learning theories. In this two learning group to share information and ideas.
theories knowledge is constructed through social Machine Learning: Is an artificial intelligence
interaction and the learner is an information discipline geared towards the development of
constructor. computer programs which learns how to perform
Course Management System (CMS): Is a col- a task through self training or experience and they
lection of software tools which allows instructors are able to improve their performance and handle
to put their course materials online and provides a new tasks (Mitchell, 1997).
number of online tools which manages the learn-
219
220
Chapter 12
Blogs in Teacher Education:
Knowledge Sharing among Pre-Service
Teachers on a Group Course Blog
Peggy Semingson
The University of Texas – Arlington, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the content of written blog postings of students enrolled in a face-to-face course
focusing on literacy assessment methods and practice for Pre-Service Teachers (PST) seeking elementary
teaching certification. The purpose of the study was to examine the transcription of the students’ postings
and Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) to look for the three types of elements that comprise the
Community of Inquiry according to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) as well as the examination
of broader themes and trends across the data (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Data included blog posts from
a 15-week semester with a total of 702 combined posts and comments from a total of 40 undergraduate
students. Data were analyzed using the constant-comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and the
framework of the Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Students engaged in various
levels of cognitive stages of inquiry while also building on and developing social presence throughout
the course. Teacher presence also guided the social construction of knowledge throughout the course.
Examination of the teacher presence suggests that the instructor needed to provide more scaffolding in
modeling evidence-based practice and problem-solving on the blog as students did not always connect
their practice to evidence-based or text-based support.
INTRODUCTION as online-only contexts) is that of the communal

or shared weblog (blog) where the entire class of
An ongoing challenge for instructors is finding students can regularly post reflections, receive
the best ways of using emerging technologies and feedback that is visible to all, and share resources
tools without the benefit of robust research that with peers. A blog is akin to an online diary and
what we are doing clearly benefits our students’ offers students a shared computer-mediated com-
learning and engagement. One technology tool that munication (CMC) space for group knowledge
can be used in blended learning contexts (as well sharing and dialogue. In the case study described
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch012

Blogs in Teacher Education
in this chapter, I share how forty undergraduate Coiro, & Cammack, 2005) by reading and writ-
students participated in a group blog in conjunction ing in an online-only format. This idea of group
with a face-to-face undergraduate literacy course blogging in a face-to-face or blended teaching
designed for pre-service teacher candidates. setting would be of interest to anyone teaching a
The overall purpose of the qualitative explor- face-to-face class where students share knowledge
atory study was to examine the transcription of as it is being applied to specific teaching contexts
the students’ postings and computer-mediated- or scenarios. The blogging experience would also
communication (CMC) across the semester to be of broad interest to anyone looking to explore
look for the three types of elements that comprise or improve their practice in the area of blended
a “community of inquiry” according to Garrison, learning, broadly defined.
Anderson, and Archer (2000; 2001) as well as to
examine the primary research question: How did
the communal blog function to support a “blended BACKGROUND
learning” context where learning primarily took
place in a face-to-face setting? The study exam- Community of Inquiry and
ines the content of the written blogging postings Blended Learning
of a class of students who were enrolled in a pre-
service course focusing on literacy assessment This research draws upon a sociocultural frame-
methods and practice. work which emphasizes that learning is based on
The undergraduate students communicated apprenticeship and teaching occurs as a result of the
with each other within the digital blogging co-construction of knowledge in shared communi-
community and were guided by semi-structured ties of practice (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1962).
professor-designed prompts, multi-modal supple- I also draw on models of knowledge sharing and
mental readings (such as YouTube videos and theories of tacit knowledge (e.g. Polanyi, 2009) to
podcasts) . Students were provided guidelines and examine the complex ways that students supported
a simple rubric for the blogging assignment. They one another in the blog space with the absence of
posted blog commentary across the course of a the course instructor on the blog postings.
full-length semester in spring, 2009. Through the Within such a sociocultural framework, I spe-
blogging assignment and process, students made cifically focus on the Community of Inquiry frame-
connections to key ideas in the course content, work developed broadly by Garrison, Archer, and
actively participated in an online community colleagues (especially Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
(within a face-to-face course), and developed their In applications to online learning, this framework
skills with digital writing and learning. The blog delineates three crucial but inter-related categories
topics focused on their present understanding of in designing and analyzing computer-mediated
course content as well as their goals in their case communication. The three types of elements that
study and future teaching. The group blog served make up a Community of Inquiry according to
as a knowledge sharing tool towards building a Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) include
community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as the teacher presence, cognitive presnce, and the
well as an assessment tool for participation and social presence. Teacher presence is facilitated
engagement with the course content and readings. by the up-front design of the course or online
The blog was also a way for students in a teacher experience, direct instruction by the teacher, and
education course to participate in new digital use of facilitating discourse (Garrison, Ander-
literacy practices (as described by Leu, Kinzer, son, & Archer, 2000). Cognitive presence, for
221

instance, includes problem-solving, application Blogging as Blended Learning

of knowledge, and attempts to solve the problem
or problems; Social presence is characterized by Although there have been mixed outcomes for use
online collaboration and expressiveness (Garrison, of blogging with pre-service teachers as a tool for
Anderson, & Archer, 2000). facilitating student reflection (Hungerford-Kress-
Additionally, I draw on a broad definition of er, Wiggins, & Amaro, 2011; So & Brush, 2008;
blended learning that captures the use of both Top, 2011), there have been few studies on the ways
online learning in conjunction with a face-to-face that students who are novices in a practice (such
course setting. Blended learning can be hard to as education) interact with one another to share
define but is generally thought of as a combina- distributed knowledge about literacy learning in a
tion of both face-to-face teaching and online shared communal blog space. Additionally, digital
instruction to varying degrees; Picciano (2009) knowledge sharing among students of a younger
suggests the problem of the hard-to-define concept age demographic possibly has a higher level of
of “blended learning”: appeal to “digital natives” who are accustomed
to digital engagement in their learning (Prensky,
There is no generally accepted definition of 2001); such a practice is needed to stay current
blended learning. There are many forms of blended with the demographic of younger teachers within
learning but a generally accepted taxonomy does traditional teacher education programs.
not exist. One school’s blended is another school’s
hybrid, or another school’s mixed-mode. (p. 8).
METHOD
Finally, blended learning has the potential to
engage students. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) Context of the Study and
also suggest that blended learning is an active Description of the Blog
learning technique as opposed to lecture-style
classes. The instructor of this course taught the Literacy
Assessment course in spring, 2009 at a large, public
Distributed Cognition and university in a large urban city in the Southwest
Tacit Knowledge United States. The course is foundational and a
required course for all teacher candidates enrolled
This study is also informed by theoretical concepts in the elementary certification program. In con-
from educational psychology such as distributed junction with regular face-to-face settings, students
learning, or learning shared across groups beyond also participated in required blog postings to a
the individual’s own understanding (e.g., Salomon, group course blog. The literacy course focused
1993) as well as a framework of tacit knowledge; on furthering declarative knowledge (Snow,
tacit knowledge is shared through interpersonal Griffin, & Burns, 2005), or general background
experience (e.g., Polanyi, 2009) as well as the knowledge related to classroom-based literacy
experience of others. Salomon (1993), in describ- assessment tools they will encounter in their
ing the types of thinking and information shared future classroom. All students in the course were
by interacting groups of people states, “People teacher candidates seeking elementary teaching
think in conjunction and partnership with others certification at the university. As a required part
and with the help of culturally provided tools and of the course, students applied their knowledge of
implements.” (Salomon, 1993, p. xiii) the course content by completing a “case study”
222

where they assessed a child and tutored the child was scaled back to eight required posts over the
in areas of academic needs in reading and writ- course of the semester. The overall frequency of
ing. The case study assignment began in earnest posts by week is listed below in Table 1 along
around the mid-way part of the course. At the with the weekly blog post topics. The frequency
beginning of the semester, student blog prompts of comments includes both the student’s initial
designed by the instructor were based on more post as well as any follow-up replies to peers.
theoretical and conceptual understandings of the A total of 702 posts and comments were shared
course content. However, around early March of across the semester.
the spring semester, students began the applica-
tion component of the case study assignment and Data Analyses
the course learning outcomes. Blog posts from
March on reflected this transition towards more Data were coded using the constant-comparative
of an application of course content. method (Straus & Corbin, 1990) and by using
The instructor implemented blogging and NVIVO 10 qualitative software. The course
the shared course blog as an alternative to the instructor (myself) also kept a reflexive journal
traditional “reflective journals” that are typically during the course and used analytical memos
not shared in a public forum. In using interactive
technologies such as blogging combined with
viewing of multi-modal learning resources such Table 1. List of weekly blog prompts designed to
as embedded videos (via YouTube) and podcast- facilitate sharing and dialogue
ing, students engaged in a shared “community of
Week Frequency Topic
practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) centered around of Total
lesson plan design and application of a case study Post and
Comments
assignment and teaching scenarios.
1 70 Welcome to [Name of Course]-
Spring 2009!
Data Sources 2 60 Week 2: Major Concepts in
Literacy Assessment
A total of 40 pre-service teacher candidates 3 64 Topic for Feb. 10: Assessing
seeking initial elementary teaching certification Emergent Literacy
(specifically, early childhood through 4th grade 4 52 February 10: Choice Topic(s)!
certification focus) were enrolled in the course. 5 49 Feb. 17: Choice topics again
There were 37 females and 3 male students in the 6 49 Feb. 24: IRI’s & Fluency
class who participated in the blog postings related 7 62 March 3: Word study
to the course. The students were expected to com- 8 57 March 10: Resources for Case
pose and post an initial blog post as well as one to Study Success
two follow-up comments on other students’ initial 9 51 Thoughts on ideas for case study
part two-”Success stories”
posts. At the beginning of the course, students were
10 60 March 24: Continue to share
required by the instructor to complete ten original resources for your case study
posts (with follow-up replies to peers) over the 11 53 Reader Response in the Classroom
course of the semester, permitting student choice
12 24 April 7: Motivation
in which topics they would choose to participate
13 20 April 14: Videos on Word Study
in. However, due to the instructor’s realization
14 13 Authentic Assessment
mid-course that the amount of blogging may have
15 18 April 28:“Lessons Learned”
been too much, the number of total posts required
223

(Miles & Huberman, 1994) while reading and narratives and life experiences when engaging in
rereading the blog posts for emerging themes and problem-solving, for instance, by relating course
trends. To look at teacher presence, I examined concepts to their own schema or background
the nature of blog post topics and the impact they information.
had on the nature of the discussion generated by Students worked collaboratively online to
students. To examine social presence and cognitive design and present their lesson ideas for their
presence, I examined the nature of the discussion case studies, even though they ultimately imple-
that generated both socially-oriented talk as well mented them individually. Critical conversations
as cognitive problem-solving discussion. My own that helped students to authentically reflect and
reactions to the blogging experience and “lessons evaluate their own work asynchronously through
learned” were recorded in both memos and the online comments and conversations fostered
reflexive journal (Miles & Huberman, 1994). active learning and critical thinking. Overall,
problematic areas for the course blog included
students’ general over-reliance on their own per-
RESULTS sonal autobiographies and over-use of vignettes
from their own lives; these constraints within this
I report here the emerging themes across the case study will be explored and discussed. One
blog posts as they relate to the three types of area of concern was that across all blog posts, few
presence in the course from the Community of students connected their instructional decisions
Inquiry Framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Ar- and thinking back to the course readings. Many
cher, 2000; 2001; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007): of their discussions focused on connections to
teacher presence, social presence, and cognitive personal vignettes and experiences as opposed
presence. The data analyses suggest that through to more evidence-based practice.
asynchronous discussion in a blended learning
environment students engaged in various levels Teacher Presence in the Course Blog
of cognitive stages of inquiry while also building
on and developing social presence throughout The teacher presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007)
the course. Teacher presence (e.g., design of the primarily consisted of the initial course design
blog, guidance towards knowledge and informa- and the creation of the blog topics and prompts.
tion sharing, and resource sharing) also guided Teacher presence (e.g., design of the asynchronous
the social construction of knowledge throughout discussion board and video content, guidance
the course. Blog use by students represented both towards knowledge and information sharing,
positive and productive reasons for its use as well and resource sharing as described and defined
as constraints or disadvantages. by Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007) also guided the
Prominent themes arose from analyses of the social construction of knowledge throughout the
data (blog posts) in looking for social and cognitive course. The instructor, in general, did not actively
presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Students participate in the course blog and this may have hin-
specifically engaged in problem-solving by shar- dered more in-depth cognitive problem-solving.
ing information they found that would support Initially, students seemed overwhelmed with the
another student’s “plea for help”. Students largely assignment of weekly blog posting. An excerpt
shared their specific case study scenarios and asked from a researcher memo is below and indicates
peers directly for ideas for helping, fostering a this notion that there was too much instructor input
community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). in the initial blog prompts and the tasks required
Additionally, students often drew on their own of students in their blog posts:
224

When I look back at the beginning of my first sources beyond the course readings. The intent of
earnest attempt at designing a blog, I realize I such multi-modality was to provide engaging yet
frontloaded them with too much information. It research-based resources that would also inspire
would have been better if I had designed this so that students to locate their own online resources and
some of this information was set up as resources. links to share with their peers on the blog.
(Researcher Memo, 09/12/09)
Cognitive Presence in the Course:
Additionally, beyond creating the structure Distributed Knowledge Sharing
of the blog, I realized that I had not provided an
exemplar blog posting or criteria for what consti- Five prominent sub-themes arose from analyses
tuted an effective blog post. The teacher-provided of the data (blog posts) in looking for cognitive
rubric for the student’s blog posts was limited to the presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007): 1) Students
specificity of length and deadlines. An instructor applied learning and course content outside of
memo identified this idea: class and reported the results of their applications
on the course blog; 2) Students contextualized
I should have provided more guidance, perhaps, in their understanding of course concepts to spe-
posing a scenario or question that raised the level cific instances in their “real world” observations
of reflection to a more distinct cognitive goal and or experiences resulting in a more nuanced and
a shared/constructivist problem-solving scenario. complex understanding of topics 3) Students
However, at the beginning of a course what could shared specific multi-modal resources such as
a teacher assume as baseline understanding of the hyperlinks and teaching resources found online;
topic? (Researcher Memo, 09/12/09) 4) Students made intertextual connections from
course content to other courses, knowledge learned
Overall, the teacher presence (Garrison & Ar- in class, class discussions in the face-to-face course
baugh, 2007) facilitated discussion and connection setting, as well as their personal experiences in
of course content to the course applications, for their blog posts and comments; and 5) Students
instance, in encouraging students to share informa- were metacognitive (Flavell, 1976) in making
tion that would help others relating to the more sense of their understanding of course concepts,
applied case study assignment. However, overall, sharing thoughts, and adjusting their definitions of
as noted in the next section, students primarily their emerging understanding of course content.
focused on more “real-world” knowledge shar-
ing as opposed to connecting their application of Applications of Learning
learning to specific course readings. Outside of Class
Finally, a key element of the design of the blog
was that each blog prompt allowed for students Across blog posts from the entire semester, stu-
to have choices as to which topics they chose to dents reported instances of trying out knowledge,
post about. The Appendix shares an example of or, bringing declarative knowledge into the realm
a blog prompt that was designed by the instructor of situated and applied knowledge (Snow, Griffin,
to facilitate a semi-structured online conversation & Burns, 2005). In Blog Post #7, in early March,
by students. It was also intended to provide ad- 2009, a representative excerpt from a student’s
ditional multi-media and input for students such post shows a more nuanced understanding of the
as links to audio podcasts, links to resources on text reading and how it applied to their tutoring
a variety of course-related topics, and more re- of a student:
225

In my volunteer work I actually had the opportu- • Student sharing of hyperlinks (URL’s) with
nity to do what Ch.6 McKenna and Stahl is [sic] a brief description of what resource could
talking about….Anyways I am tutoring a first be found at the website. Students often pro-
grader who is struggling with reading. In our vided an evaluation of what they located
last session I had her read over a list of 100 high and how beneficial they felt it was to their
frequency words. application towards the case study assign-
ment and their related tutoring experience.
In this way, students progressed, generally, • Intentional sharing of resources from other
from more textbook-centered posts in the very courses. Students referenced resources
beginning to more complex posts where knowledge from another literacy course.
was applied, towards writing with a contextual- • Sharing and reporting of knowledge
ized setting and application in mind. Students gleaned from field observations related
even applied the learning about strategic reading to another course. For instance, a student
instruction to their own learning in higher educa- shared what she was seeing in a field ob-
tion settings and reported this on the blog. Another servation as well the link where others
student shared such a personalized application: students could seek further information:
“My mentor teacher told me that they use a
Another thing that I found interesting in this chap- Developmental Reading Assessment to de-
ter; was the summary writing. Barbara Taylor’s termine students reading level. Each small
five-steps in writing coherent hierarchical sum- group is done by the level of the students
maries are most helpful….I’m applying this to my and she gets her books for students from:
own reading comprehension strategies for my ____ http://www.readinga-z.com” (Blog Post
class [another course]. The text is overwhelming #3)
and I think this will help me to be more successful
with breaking the material down and getting the Interestingly, students began sharing more
main idea. (Blog Post #7) links to outside resources that pertained to literacy
assessment and literacy teaching in early March,
Overall, students were able to connect their when the case study assignment began and the
learning to specific applications and contexts course shifted more from a “textbook” focus to
beyond the textbook readings. more of an application focus. Overall, by sharing
their resources and suggestions, students were
Resource Sharing able to provide teaching ideas collaboratively
amongst themselves; some students mentioned
Students specifically engaged in problem solving that they would be following other’s advice, thus,
by sharing information they found that would sup- expanding the amount of resources that could be
port another student’s “plea for help”. Students, learned beyond the textbooks and course lecture.
for instance, shared their specific case study One student shared, “You have a great list there
scenarios and asked their peers directly for ideas about some of the activities that we can use for
for facilitating success in their case study assign- our students in our classrooms. I know I will be
ment (tutoring a child one-on-one) for specific utilizing most if not all of them.” (Blog Post #6).
curricular ideas and materials, again, fostering a A related theme to resource-sharing was
community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). “information-seeking”. For example, students
Some sub-themes of this type of problem-solving posed questions to their peers where they sought
are listed below: out further information and looked to classmates
226

on the blog for some type of advice, resources, round-robin reading. I really enjoyed that topic
or general ideas as they engaged in the practice because I felt like I learned a lot about why not
of tutoring and assessing a student. This was to use the technique and alternatives to use in my
especially apparent from Blog Post #7 and #8 classroom.” (Blog Post #7)
forward to the end of the semester. Similarly,
students also engaged in “advice giving” where Intertextual Connections
they provided direct advice (both solicited and
unsolicited) or “cautionary tales” to classmates. In their blogs posts and comments, most students
One student shared: made intertextual connections (as defined by
Lemke, 1992) from the course to other courses,
I thought that it would not really matter if I spent some course readings, and readings from other
a lot of time organizing. WRONG! I learned from courses, as well as connections made to their field
experience that taking that extra 10 or 15 minutes placements and case study. Intertextual connec-
to get organized and plan out what I want to do tions can be thought of as the following, as de-
in the session actually saves time in the long run. scribed by Jay Lemke, “Every text, the discourse of
(Blog Post #10) every occasion, makes its social meanings against
the background of other texts, and the discourses
Contextualized Understanding to of other occasions.” (1992, p. 257) There were
High-Interest “Real World” Topics several types of intertextual connections made
across blog posts. Because many of the semi-
Students found certain course topics problematic, structured prompts provided by the instructor (see
such as the topic of how standardized testing Appendix for a representative example) encour-
differed from the notion of informal assessment aged or required students to draw on the textbook
in the classroom. Students engaged in a nuanced readings and/or the multi-media content provided
online conversation about this “real world” topic in in the blog prompt, nearly all students made con-
the communal blog space while also debating the nections to the said textbook and/or multi-media
complexities of the advantages and disadvantages content, as required. In addition to providing their
of standardized testing. The online blog conver- commentary on the textbook readings, students
sation was one where diverse viewpoints were made the following intertextual connections in
shared. Another topic that generated interested in their posts and comments: 1) connections from
the blog and stimulated a lot of online discussion course content to personal narratives or personal
was the topic of “round-robin reading”. This is schema as a way to understand concepts; 2) con-
a traditional teaching practice where elementary nections to knowledge from other courses they
or secondary students read aloud one at a time. were concurrently taking or had previously taken
Students generated much dialogue in Blog Post and 3) connections to experiences such as obser-
#7 about their own experiences with round-robin vations from a field experience placement where
reading in school and what they thought were better they had the chance to observe some of the ideas
alternatives to this teaching practice. Discussions relating to the course topic of literacy assessment
on both of these topics on the blog were exten- as it applied to teaching practice.
sions of conversations begun in the face-to-face As students participated in their field obser-
setting. A representative quote about the round vations, they shared this knowledge and wove
robin reading topic from Blog Post #7 follows: it into their posts. In this way, they provided
“I wanted to focus on our discussion last night of sense-making for their own understanding and
227

connection to practice, but also provided insight course content. Because the course content was
for students who were not in that particular setting. largely new to many students and the class size
Some examples of intertextual connections follow: was fairly large in the face-to-face course, the main
advantage of the blog—besides resources shar-
• “I have learned from last semester to find ing—was the chance to provide a forum where all
ways to keep the childrens’ attention and students could participate in sharing their thoughts,
try to make it fun.” (Blog Post #1) beliefs and responses to the readings.
• “Today, as well as last week, I observed First, across the blog posts students were meta-
in a kindergarten classroom. It was really cognitive, or aware of their own thinking and their
neat to see some of the things we have been sense-making (as defined by Flavell, 1976) as they
talking about being implemented in the attempted to make sense of concepts and what was
classrooms.” (Blog Post #4) beginning to make sense to them. Students noted
when they were having difficulty understanding
Additionally, some intertextual posts contained course content and stated this explicitly in their
multiple instances of connections made. For ex- blog posts. They expressed when they had a limited
ample, in the following quote, the student makes understanding of a topic and had more to learn
connections to a course from a previous semester about a topic. They engaged in self-monitoring
as well as to a connection related to learning from and self-assessment as they read the course
the face-to-face setting from the course. This materials. Some students posed questions about
indicated the student was drawing on multiple areas in which they sought further understanding.
sources of prior knowledge when making sense They also shared changing definitions that were
of course material: transformed as they made progress in the course
and especially as they made connections to their
After learning about literacy assessment last se- experiences in real classrooms and in their work
mester and discussing it in our first class I have for the case study assignment for this course where
come to realize that there are many other ways to they tutored an individual student in the area of
assess and child to make sure they know how to literacy instruction. In writing research memos
read and write and that they actually understand (Miles & Huberman, 1994), I noted that by reading
the material. (Blog Post #1) through student posts on the blog, I was able to
use students’ written blog comments and students’
Overall, students made complex connections self-reported understanding as formative data of
across blog posts and drew upon multiple sources what course topics in the textbooks engaged them
of information, including the face-to-face settings and which topics they may have found confusing.
when composing blog posts and commentary. Examples of sense-making and metacognitive
postings by students follow:
Metacognitive Posts:
“Thinking Aloud” about • “Phonemic awareness has always been a
Emerging Understanding little confusing for me up until now. The
book gives great examples of how to assess
Throughout the posts, and especially at the begin- students.” (Blog Post #3)
ning of the blogging experience, many students • “Everything we are learning in class is re-
wrote about their emerging understanding of ally starting to come together with seeing
228

in it videos and reading about how other appreciation and thanks for the idea sharing with
people have experienced it in the class- each other, building a community of practice (Lave
rooms they are observing.”(Blog Post #5) & Wenger, 1991) and a Community of Inquiry
(Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007); 2) Students rec-
In conclusion, regarding the cognitive presence ognized and empathized with one another when
(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Garrison they weren’t fully understanding course ideas
& Arbaugh, 2007), overall, there was a variety and had anxieties related to future teaching and
of type of posts and comments ranging from understanding of course content; and 3) Students
more analytical to more emotional and affective were envisioning towards their future teaching and
posts and comments such as the overly personal projecting an identity of their professional self into
responses and purely unsubstantiated opinion. the shared discourse about teaching and assessing
However, overall, most students connected what that took place in the blog setting.
they said to some type of background knowledge First, students expressed direct statements of
either grounded in experience(s), other knowledge gratitude and thanks towards their peers for shar-
sources, or specific texts. An emerging ability ing information, enhancing their understanding
to connect theory (course content and topics) to of course content and concepts, and sharing of
practice was present in many of the blog posts. This anecdotes/narratives that related to experiences
provided an initial footing for students on which to and observations of teaching-related scenarios.
connect face-to-face class discussion to the blog The following are statements that expressed this
posts as well as extend on topics that were more sentiment:
nuanced and complex in scope, for instance, in
the discussion and viewpoints expressed relating • “I have the same questions and concerns as
to the topic of standardized testing. By connecting you do.” (Blog Post #1)
their course topics to multi-faceted experiences • “Thank you for the insight!” (Blog Post #1)
and knowledge students were able to discuss top- • “I think it’s so neat that we have such a
ics well beyond the scope and limitations of the strong bond between all of us Education
face-to-face setting. majors- keep posting hands-on experienc-
es, [sic] this is great stuff! (Blog Post #3).
Social Presence in the Course Blog • “It’s amazing to hear all of the different
activities that can be implemented for al-
In this section, I describe the social presence that phabetical and phonological development.
permeated some of the student blog posts. As I was thinking too that you could even
defined by Garrison & Arbaugh (2007), the social implement that into the other curriculum.”
presence is a crucial component of the computer- (Blog Post #4)
mediated communication. It serves to facilitate • “It is comforting to know that someone
communication when engaging in the cognitive else agrees with me regarding the negative
presence or problem-solving scenarios in online aspects of Round Robin Reading.” (Blog
settings; according to Garrison & Arbaugh (2007), Post #7)
social presence includes the ability for students • “Thank you for mentioning Barbara
to take risks in sharing and express themselves Taylor’s five steps to writing summaries
in social capacities. The social presence as seen for hierarchical summaries. I need to prac-
in the student blog posts and comments included tice on doing this for our [name of another
the following key themes: 1) Students expressed course] class also.” (Blog Post #7)
229

Students were inspired to try out other’s ideas • “In the future classroom I will have a va-
in their case study assignment. One student shared riety of text available because each child
on a blog post early in the course: may be at a different level and may enjoy a
variety of different books.” (Blog Post #2).
I want to be able to do what you did with the boy in • “Even so, I am beginning to feel a lot bet-
your tutoring session. I want to be able to see the ter about going into the classroom to teach,
difference between if they are reading for meaning especially after observing real teaching in
or for testing. This is something I cannot wait to action.” (Blog Post #5)
see and try for myself. I want to encourage you
to keep it up and focus because it sounds like you Essentially, students provided a great deal of
will be awesome at what you are doing! Thanks peer-to-peer support regarding course topics, and,
for sharing. (Blog Post #4). later in the semester, support to each other as both
university students and as future teachers.
Another student, later in the semester, also ex-
pressed that she was inspired to try out a peers’ idea
and was grateful to have had the shared resource: DISCUSSION
The website you gave, http://bookwizard.
scholastic.com is GREAT! I really needed some In using asynchronous (not taking place in real
help with books that are on a certain grade level. time) technologies such as blogging combined
The website can be specific or broad and it gave with viewing of embedded videos (via YouTube)
me 5 pages of books. I am really excited to go and podcasting, students engaged in a shared
to the library and check some of these out to try “community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
with my first grader in my case study. Keep the centered around lesson plan design, literacy assess-
websites coming! I write them down for future ment topics, and teaching practices and scenarios.
reference and I think many of them are very help- This community and knowledge construction was
ful. (Blog Post #8) not otherwise possible when only teaching and
Second, students, especially at the beginning learning in face-to-face classrooms on a university
of the course and in their first few blog posts, campus. The communal course blog in this literacy
expressed anxiety about understanding course assessment course in a teacher education program
concepts, about being able to properly assess stu- at a large university served as a place to encourage
dents in their future classroom, and other concerns students to pose questions to each other and to
about teaching in general. compare their prior knowledge with their ongoing
Third, most students, as novices in the field and possibly emerging understandings about the
of teaching, were in the process of forming their complex topic of classroom literacy assessment.
identities as future teachers. They expressed this This Community of Inquiry framework (Gar-
anticipation of having their future classrooms rison & Arbaugh, 2007) seemed especially useful
across many of the blog posts. Some of their posts for noting teacher presence and social presence.
were contextualized by a framing of their learning The cognitive presence was trickier to examine
as it applied to them as future teachers. Examples and analyze as it was often interwoven with the
include the following: social presence. The subject of this literacy assess-
230

ment course posed new information and content to grams should intentionally learn about the other
students, many of who had little to no experience instructors’ courses who teach related content in
in working with children in an applied setting as order to foster such intertextual connections across
required by the nature of the class. Many of their courses and subject areas.
initial posts reflected this anxiety of being respon- Academic and research implications of this
sible in the near future for a roomful of children study include continuing to focus on seeking ways
and having to know and practice the what, why, to use asynchronous learning tools such as blog-
when, and how of literacy assessment. As such, ging to foster reflective thinking and knowledge
pre-service teachers benefited from a support sharing in both face-to-face and online courses.
system that offered not only declarative knowl- Research can seek students’ input and feedback on
edge about literacy instruction (Snow, Griffin, the blogging experience through additional mea-
& Burns, 2005) but also the social and affective sures such as surveys and focus group interviews.
components of being supportive to one another The limitations of this study include the idea that
through an online social presence (as described data was collected only from the blog postings
by Garrison& Arbaugh, 2007). This communal themselves. The instructor will continue to re-
course blog served in these capacities of social flect on the ways that the Community of Inquiry
and cognitive presence; however, the cognitive Framework (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007) provides
presence was more limited in that students drew an intentional and purposeful way to design and
more on their experiences and personal narra- facilitate computer-mediated-communication to
tives in seeking out resources and advice to their support learning in blended learning contexts.
fellow students.
The teacher presence needed to be developed
much more strongly in order to better intentionally REFERENCES
model using research-based and evidence-based
approaches towards teaching practices. Implica- Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of
tions include further seeking ways to help scaffold problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The
these evidence-based approaches in an online nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale,
forum. For instance, the instructor can provide NJ: Erlbaum.
and demonstrate concrete ways for students to Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended
“lend” this support to each other by designing learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA:
specific prompts students can use to be helpful John Whiley & Sons.
while also connecting to research and evidence-
based practice. One idea might be, frontloading Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W.
the students with examples and direct instruction (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and
of what it means to connect literacy assessment computer conferencing in distance education.
to research and evidence-based practice. Studnets American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1),
could also self-asses their own blog posts ac- 7–23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
cording to a rubric that required them to connect
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Re-
their thinking to course readings, research, and
searching the community of inquiry framework:
descriptions of evidence-based practice. Because
Review, issues, and future directions. The In-
students were making intertextual connections in
ternet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
their blog posts, instructors in cohort-based pro-
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
231

Hungerford-Kresser, H., Wiggins, J., & Amaro, Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (2005).
C. (2011). Learning from our mistakes: what mat- Knowledge to support the teaching of reading:
ters when incorporating blogging in the content Preparing teachers for a changing world. San
area literacy classroom. Journal of Adolescent Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
& Adult Literacy, 55(4), 326–335. doi:10.1002/
So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student percep-
JAAL.00039
tions of collaborative learning, social presence and
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: satisfaction in a blended learning environment:
Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, Relationships and critical factors. Computers
NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ & Education, 51(1), 318–336. doi:10.1016/j.
CBO9780511815355 compedu.2007.05.009
Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educa- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualita-
tional research. Linguistics and Education, 4(3-4), tive research: Grounded theory, procedures, and
257–268. doi:10.1016/0898-5898(92)90003-F techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, Top, E. (2011). Blogging as a social medium
D. W. (2005). Toward a theory of.new literacies in undergraduate courses: Sense of commu-
emerging from the Internet and other information nity best predictor of perceived learning. The
and communication technologies. In R. B. Rud- Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.
dell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and iheduc.2011.02.001
processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1037/11193-
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Quali- 000
tative data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
The multi-modal model. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 13(1), 1–9. Asynchronous Learning: The type of learning
that occurs in online settings whereby learners do
Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago, not have to respond in real-time; learning can take
IL: University of Chicago Press. place at the learner’s own pace within structured
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: parameters, for instance, deadlines and prompted
Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, online discussion.
CA: Corwin. Blended Learning: A learning context where
students may participate in both on-campus
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: (face-to-face) learning settings as well as online
Cognitive development in social context. New learning settings.
York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blog: An abbreviated term to describe a we-
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psy- blog or an online journal that is written in reverse
chological and educational considerations. New chronological order and allows for interactive
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. online discussion through posting of comments.
232

Cognitive Presence: A focus of an online often involves more experienced learners assisting
learning experience where students are engaged more novice learners in their practice.
in problem solving and other cognitive tasks. Intertextuality: Knowledge that makes ex-
Communal Blog: An online weblog where plicit connections across texts including diverse
participants are all posting and commenting to mediums such as textbooks, audio files, references
one centralized blog rather than their own indi- to other learning contexts, and other sources of
vidual blogs. information.
Community of Inquiry: An online learning Social Presence: A focus of an online learning
community where learners engage socially while experience that intentionally fosters social support
exploring the cognitive dimension of inquiry, such as building community and interpersonal
for instance, by problem-solving together in an interactions beyond academic learning tasks.
online forum. Teacher Presence: The intentional design of
Community of Practice: A reflective and an online learning experience that fosters cogni-
supportive learning community where learners tive development of students while creating a
are working towards shared learning goals; this community of supported learning.
233
APPENDIX: EXAMPLE OF A SEMI-STRUCTURED PROFESSOR-

CREATED PROMPT TO GUIDE BLOG SHARING
Week 2: Major Concepts in Literacy Assessment
with 60 comments
The class agenda for Week 2 is here: Week 2 Agenda.
The PowerPoint for Week 2 is here: Major Concepts of Literacy Assessment PPT.
**Please print and read the Rubric for Blogging and Service Reflections. I will go over in class.
Click here: Rubric.
This is the blog post for Week 2. You can start posting now. The post for week one is prior to this
one. Post your initial post by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, February 2. Comment on at least one other post
by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, January 28. Topic 2 will be closed for posts and comments at 11:59 p.m.
on Wednesday, February 3. Please be sure your initial post is 2-3 solid paragraphs; your writing should
be reflective and thoughtful, not shallow or superficial, and show a connection to the readings.
This link (click) goes to a searchable database where you can see just about every common assess-
ment available for reading assessment. Most schools primarily use TPRI, DRA, and Flynt Cooter read-
ing inventory to assess reading. Here is also an (optional) intriguing link about what assessments are
mandatory in our surrounding states, including Texas.
The post topic is the following:
What are the major tools and domains of literacy assessment and how do you envision using them in
your future classroom? How can literacy be used to inform instruction? That is, how will the day-to-
day formative (ongoing) assessments you will do in the classroom help you to actually plan meaningful
instruction and lesson plans that will maximize literacy learning and achievement for your students?
(This question is the “big question” of the entire course!).
You can also respond or connect to both the readings and/or the links and podcast (highly relevant
on his concerns for “over-testing”) below.
Optional Links:
Texas Primary Reading Inventory (given to K-2 children in Texas several times a year to screen for
dyslexia)
Released TAKS tests
NAEP Reading Test (national)
Podcast by Dr. Peter Afflerbach on reading assessment.
This link goes to a really great site on emergent literacy assessment, one of our course topics. It has
short videos on it, as well of each type of assessment: Early assessment tools.
Written by peggys. Edit.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
234
235
Chapter 13
Using Technology to
Enhance Teacher Preparation
Field Experiences
Ursula Thomas
Georgia Perimeter College, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter describes a field director’s revision of a field experience placement system and model for
a teacher education program at a two-year institution. In this case study, the field director documented
the conversion from a paper system to using a learning management system to support the field experi-
ence process of 324 students. Results from this case study indicate a positive correlation between the
components of the process and the features of the learning management system. In addition, findings
from the case study reveal that the learning management system provides additional benefits for program
assessment. The conversion of a paper system to a learning management system is documented as well
as the implications for other aspects of teacher education assessment.
INTRODUCTION 2008). Field experiences are a cornerstone in

preservice teacher education programs and they
Teacher education is a dynamic field of study are encouraged to occur early and often.
that bridges theory into practice. This applica-
tion manifests itself in the teaching continuum What is a Field Experience?
through methods courses and field experiences.
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher As a part of the discussion of field experiences,
Education (NCATE) defines Field experience as a the research literature speaks to different types
variety of early and ongoing field based opportuni- of field experiences for preservice teachers’ field
ties in which candidates may observe, assist, tutor, experiences are dictated by conceptual frameworks
instruct and or conduct research. Field experiences of the program accreditation requirement and
may occur in off-campus settings such as schools, the nature of the courses to which they are tied.
community centers or homeless shelters (NCATE, Field experiences are an institution in preservice
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch013

Using Technology to Enhance Teacher Preparation Field Experiences
teacher education programs today. Moreover, Ross, Hughes and Hill (2001) performed a
early teacher educators have found merit in the study of 68 preservice teachers registered in three
“learning by doing” approach as early as the mid- different sections of a mandatory educational psy-
nineteenth century (Cruickshank & Armaline, chology course. These researchers investigated the
1986). Parallel to John Dewey’s emphasis on preservice teachers’ understanding of educational
experiential education, field experiences today are concepts when links to real-life classroom use were
focused on providing examples of best practices integrated in instruction. The results of this study
and pairing students with teachers who are not found enhanced understanding occurred when the
only exceptional teachers, but also first-rate role alliance of educational concepts to application in
models willing to connect in reflective practice K-12 school classrooms was made. The results of
with preservice teachers (Posner, 2005). “Learning their study revealed that field experiences could
to teach effectively requires that students access produce quantifiable improvement in understand-
the minds, not only the observable behaviors of ing explicit course content. Equally important to
effective teachers” (Ethell & McMeniman, 2000, having essential content knowledge and skills for
p. 87). Educational reform efforts have caused teaching, is the notion that preservice teachers
both accrediting and professional organizations should understand the importance of reflective
to cultivate standards that expressly refer to and and evaluative behaviors. The employment of
affect early field-based experience (Hurst, Tan, these higher order thought processes lead them
Meek, & Sellers, 2003). to learn from their teaching so that it repeatedly
Effective teacher education programs rec- improves (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, and
ognize the importance of field experiences in LePage, 2005). The amalgamation of coursework
preparing preservice teachers to be successful and field experience provides possibilities for
in their potential careers. McGlinn (2003) stated preservice teachers to become conscious of the
that field experience is one of the most common value of these practices.
“real world” learning experiences implemented According to Moore (2003), field experiences
in schools of education across the United States. hold great potential for providing candidates
Many preservice teachers believe that field expe- with the opportunity to practice decision-making
riences provide the only “real” learning in their through reflection and evaluation. In her study of
teacher education programs. The importance of 77 preservice teachers enrolled in a 3-week field
including field experience early in the preservice practicum straddling three successive semesters,
teacher’s experience and scaffolding experiences Moore sought to determine how classroom field
in later coursework allows them to understand the settings affected the learning process of preservice
challenges and necessary problem-solving skills teachers. Moore noted that university instructors
innate in teaching. These experiences permit teach preservice teachers about the instructional
them to make the correlation between the content settings they will come across in the classroom
learned in coursework and real-life experiences in and through reflection. They are able to examine
the classroom (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, classroom situations in order to make suitable
Grossman, Rust, and Shulman, 2005). Learning decisions. An important implication of the study
to make these connections amplify the likelihood was the need for preservice teachers, their su-
that the theories, concepts, and skills learned in pervisors, and their mentor teachers to scrutinize
coursework will be committed to memory and and communicate the rationale following many
used later on as they begin their teaching career decisions. A suggestion by the researcher was the
(Bransford, Darling-Hammond, and LePage, need to develop more field experience opportuni-
2005).
236

ties preceding student teaching in which regular acknowledged in the literature. They encompass
reflection focuses on classroom settings. helping students decide if teaching is the proper
In all probability, the most worrisome time for career choice, providing an chance for students to
novice teachers is the first day of school. Devoid exercise skills prior to student teaching, helping
of an opportunity to experience this event and preservice teachers start regarding themselves
ponder upon their observations during teacher as teachers, and improving preservice teachers’
preparation, the novice teachers could start the attitudes concerning matters of teaching (Mc-
New Year off ill equipped. An unstable start the Intyre, 1983). Field experiences are also usually
first day of school can affect the classroom set- offered in combination with a methods course as
ting for the rest of the year. A field experience at a way of helping students to better comprehend
the beginning of the school year gives preservice the conceptual and theoretical knowledge being
teachers an opportunity to see how classroom posed. Early field experience (EFE) includes the
schedules and routines are recognized and put range of school experiences that transpire prior to
into motion. This is how teachers get to know clinical internship for those students in preservice
their students and build an understanding of their teacher education (Guyton & Byrd, 2000).
families and communities; and how prior planning In an early field experience, cooperating
for instruction and procedures enhance classroom teachers serve as exemplars that lead prospec-
management (LePage, Darling-Hammond, Akar, tive teachers in the application of theory and
Gutierrez, Jenkins-Gunn, and Rosebrock, 2005). instructional approaches introduced in methods
Ingersoll (2003) suggested that discernment courses (Anderson, Barksdale & Hite, 2005). The
of the issues beginning teachers face and how objective of such apprenticeship experiences is
we might sustain them during the early years of for preservice teachers to develop and practice
teaching could be a practical measure for nurturing their pedagogical skills, in part through close
those recent to the profession. Darling-Hammond inspection of the cooperating teacher. Of late,
(2006) suggested that future teachers have more much attention has also been paid to the role that
genuine experiences to allow them to manage the field experiences may possibly play in helping
challenges and diversity of today’s schools and preservice teachers ascertain how to efficiently
classrooms. Teacher education programs concur integrate technology into their teaching practices
and recognize the need to provide field experience (Bahr, Shaha, Farnsworth, Lewis, & Benson,
opportunities. 2004; Dawson & Dana, 2007). These outcomes
of field experiences are clearly gainful and draw
The Role of Field Experience attention to the significance of field experiences
in teacher education.
The role of field experience in teacher education While field experiences are clearly a beneficial
is essential to reflective behavior in theories of component of teacher education programs, issues
teaching and learning. The research offers many surrounding their performance may influence
perspectives of the role early field experiences the value and impact of field experiences. Of
play in making teachers according to the literature chief concern to teacher educators is the fact that
early field experiences are used to serve many potential teachers may not be mentally prepared
purposes for teacher education students, teacher to gain from experiences in the field, specifically
educators, and teacher education programs; as when they appear early in their education pro-
well as the prekindergarten grade 12 community gram. When student teachers are not completely
partners. Various advantages of field experi- equipped to learn from experiences in the field,
ences in teacher preparation programs have been they every so often picture the field experience as
237

an off-campus activity as opposed to apprentice their thoughts and make sense of teaching and
training, and believe that the field experiences do learning concepts. Such reflection and inquiry
not buttress “real teaching experiences” (Aiken promote a model of learning that views teaching
& Day, 1999). as an ongoing process of knowledge building and
Research has much to say about the power is adaptable to teaching contexts.
and responsibility of field experiences. Ewart and Kim (2011) found that:
Straw (2005) found supervising teachers stated
that this long-term, preservice field experience … early childhood preservice teachers possess
effectively socialized teacher candidates into the relatively strong beliefs about DAP. Preservice
teaching vocation, equally in the classroom and teachers who were further along in the teacher
the school. They illustrate the strategies they used training program demonstrated stronger DAP
to scaffold teacher candidates into teaching. Suc- beliefs than teachers who had just begun the
cessful scaffolding techniques are located within teacher-training program. Similarly, teachers who
the structure of a comprehensive field experience. had undergone more field placements reported
Marilyn Cochran-Smith (2000) clearly put into stronger beliefs about DAP.
words other teacher education certainties. One
certainty “elevates the practical knowledge that Liakopoulou (2012) explored the role of field
very competent and experienced teachers have as experience in preservice teacher preparation, and
it is grounded in outstanding practice, including specifically to what degree and under what circum-
the sound decisions and professional judgments stances field experience contributes to develop-
teachers make as they construct curriculum and ing the capability of teachers to investigate and
work within the uncertain contexts of daily life assess the teaching process. One initial inference
in schools”(p.15). Teachers develop their practi- coming from the research is that student teach-
cal knowledge through experience and reflection ers find it difficult during their field experience
aided by more veteran mentors. to ruminate on their teaching and when they do
Retallick and Miller (2005) studied eighty-two so, their reflection concentrates on very explicit
agricultural teacher education programs and found topics, and is primarily utilitarian in nature. Tar-
that the most customary purposes expressed in man (2012) investigated how of a group of future
these documents were professional exploration teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about teaching
and observation. Secondary principles of early (as a vocation) change as they finalize a teacher
field experiences were instruction and support- education. The findings denote that field experi-
ing the lead teacher in the classroom. A major ences gave the future teachers the chance to adjust
finding of this study was that over three-fourths their self-perceptions about a career in teaching.
of the programs refer to observation as both an Eisenhardt, Besnoy and Steele (2011) designed
objective and an endeavor. Hughes (2009) deduces a framework of assignments requiring the preser-
in her study that vice teachers to collect data about two distinct
Similarly, involvement in structured field ex- elementary students in their assigned elementary
periences with an integrated reflective component classroom during the twelve weeks of their practi-
will enhance the preparation of students as they cum. The preservice teachers engaged cognitive
enter into their teaching experience. Training dissonance as some of their predetermined ideals
for fieldwork with specific focus on reflective about students and teaching were at odds with
thinking is a way to bridge that gap between their field experiences. The findings indicate that
theory and practice. Further, training in classroom cognitive dissonance between their beliefs and
observation assists student teachers to organize field experiences ensuing in reasonable beliefs
238

about the connection between understanding of that is conducted in, and meets the needs of, a
students and appropriate instruction, hypotheses community. It involves an elementary school,
about students who were nothing like them, and secondary school, institution of higher education,
connotations for future teaching. or community service program, along with the
community. It helps foster civic responsibility.
Types of Field Experiences It is integrated into, and enhances, the academic
curriculum or the educational components of
Professional Development Schools the community service program in which the
participants are enrolled. It provides structured
School-university partnerships, such as profes- time for students or participants to reflect on the
sional development schools, have been talked service experience (Environmental Protection
about in research literature for more than the Agency, 2000).
last ten years. A venerable objective for many It is also important to note in order for a field
teacher preparation programs is to connect theory experience to be considered service learning it
to practice for preservice teachers through allied must be designed in ways that are receptive to
university-school partnerships (Barkesdale-Ladd the needs of the society. Often, the nature of
& Rose, 1997). The field-based experience pro- service learning experiences deviates from more
vides teacher candidates with more opportunities conventional field experiences as conventional
to successfully apply what they are learning within placements tend to be arranged based on the
the milieu of the classroom (Hillman, Bottomley, needs of education faculty rather than a reaction
Raisner, & Malin, 2000). to the needs of schools, educators, or learners in
Capatano and Huisman (2010) investigated a a community.
Community Based Model (CBM) field experi- The budding power of service learning be-
ence. As accounted in the surveys collected after comes transparent in the fact that these learning
each activity of the CBM, preservice teachers experiences can benefit everyone involved, not
replied that completing activities that explicitly just aligning only with the needs of our teacher
gave them experiences in the community, working education candidates, which makes it more likely
with children, families, classroom teachers, and for long-term relationships and collaborations to
interacting with teacher preparation faculty. This develop. They have the promise to result in genu-
also assisted them finding merit in the community ine collaboration with assorted stakeholders. This
and encouraged to consider the child as a whole requires participation in discourse, collaborating
when reflecting on the notion of teaching (Koerner differing perspectives and main concern, and
& Abdul-Tawwab, 2006). What they learned in the constant focus on the conflict and complications
CBM helped them take apart suppositions about experienced in the realm of the teaching (Boyle-
poverty and the com-munity where the children Baise, 2002). They also aid schools and teacher
resided. This aided them in growing abilities as education programs to achieve more than they
teachers in urban learning environments. could in isolation, resulting in better quality learn-
ing for everyone. Research on service learning
Service Learning indicates these touted benefits have actual promise
(Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2003). In addition,
Service learning is a method of encouraging scholars have found that service learning experi-
student learning and development through active ences often positively impact participants’ insight
participation in thought-fully organized service of the intricacies of the field and their skills to
239

problem solve and think decisively while resulting experiences and to engage for effectively with
in instructors’ approval with the level of learning elementary students. Elementary students’ verbal
that takes place (Eyler, et al., 2003). responses and work products were significant
One approach for developing the practice of confirmations to CTs that their teaching was
service learning is to encourage the adoption of making an influential in student learning. In ad-
service learning as an instructional strategy for dition, evidence of students’ belief in CTs became
educator preparation. According to Anderson and a very crucial motivational building block in their
Erickson’s (2003) study, about 59% of all teacher articulated desires to be a teacher.
education programs provide preservice teachers
with opportunities to learn about service learning Alternative Placements
as an instructional approach. Only about 24% of
the programs provided teacher candidates with Conventional school-based field experiences
chances to participate in service learning and may be tricky to implement and offer less-than
about 18% allowed teacher candidates chances to enviable conditions for supporting reform-based
create lesson plans using service learning. About strategies encouraged in the methods courses. In
20% assigned teacher candidates for internships some cases, they simply may not be obtainable.
with teachers experienced in the ways of using While some instructors have turned to alternative
service learning effectively. models, many of which are held in partnership
Marchel, Shields & Winter (2011) studied with informal or nonprofit education programs and
preservice teacher service learning and found organizations, these alternative models may not
that frequent service visits unmitigated over time, provide a background reflective of the classroom
occasions to develop relationships at placements, backdrop in which teachers will be required to
and believing that an individual makes a differ- teach. Hanuscin and Musikul (2007) researched
ence with preschool through high school (P–12) a summer based alternative field experience pro-
learners were connected to advantageous disposi- grams. They conclude that Summer Kids Inquiry
tion results. Further indications for course design Program in Science (SKIPS) mirrors teachers
fundamentals comprise providing activities to ‘future classroom settings in that it allows students
help preservice teachers understand field issues, to create and investigate their own instructional
as well as supporting a good tone with between plans as well as handle materials for inquiry-based
preservice teachers and learner needs. Finally, science within a large group context. They deduce
this means making the character and responsibil- that this event can encouragingly impact teachers’
ity of change agents an ingredient of the training expectations about classroom instruction.
and evaluation procedure. In summary, service
learning field experiences have great promise to Laboratory Experiences
enhance teaching and learning but also require
meticulous design to impact professional teach- Another type of early field placement is the
ing dispositions. “laboratory experience.” This laboratory experi-
Bleicher, Correia and Buchanan (2006) look ence, which is usually for students enrolled in a
at carefully the effectiveness of an early field school located on a college or university campus,
experience program for undergraduate university was created as a kind of alternative experience
students, called classroom tutors in this project for teacher education programs. It was proposed
(CTs). They found functioning in teams amplified to connect conventional coursework and more
mutually support and resulted in increased self- extensive field experiences (Metcalf & Kahlich,
assurance of CTs to both share their classroom 1998). Wasburn-Moses, Kopp, & Hettersimer
240

(2012) studied the interaction between early field Paid Field Experiences
experiences and campus laboratory placements
and found involvement in this laboratory field Burns, Grande and Marable (2008) studied the
experience seem to fortify most of the participants’ notion of a paid field experience in an urban
intentions to teach. Participants indicated that they school district with two groups. The researchers
learned about the distinctiveness of an effective discovered a considerable difference between the
teacher and effective teaching as well as about two groups and their eagerness to teach in urban
diversity of learners. They also notice learning schools after graduation. The study suggests that
about their capacity or teachers’ capability in the quantity of urban field experience is a contrib-
general to make a change and that they learned uting issue influencing involvement in additional
about themselves from experimenting the role of urban field experiences and candidates’ ensuing
the teacher. The experience in the field seemed to contemplation of working in urban schools. If an
be constructive in that it gave students a chance institution of higher education is truly committed
to connect with diverse learners in a manner that to preparing urban teachers, it should contemplate
allowed them to stay encouraged about students augmenting the number of hours that take place
and their aptitude as teachers to make an impact. in urban school settings.
Study Abroad Technology Enhanced

Field Experiences
To tackle the vital need to get ready future teach-
ers to endure the trials of the global world, many Ma, Williams, Prejean, Lai, and Ford, (2008)
higher education institutions have created overseas studied a model pedagogical laboratory to impact
short-term field experiences that help preservice teacher candidates’ beliefs on teaching, learning,
teachers build up global perspectives and foreign and technology integration. Parallel with the
language proficiency (Bodycott & Crew, 2000). teacher perception survey the provided, qualita-
Clardy and Skinner (2012) studied the labor of a tive analysis of preservice teacher’s reflective
predominately-white institution’s bilingual pro- journals and interviews showed that the labora-
gram that helps to students to become culturally tory experience did have an influence on beliefs
responsive teachers via two study abroad programs of the teacher candidates. A number of preservice
in Mexico. They found that participation of educa- teachers commented on the principles of technol-
tion faculty, who have knowledge and experience ogy while engaging students and the intricacy and
in global educational issues, like as bilingual issues involved in using technology.
education, in planning and implementing such
immersion experiences is essential if preservice Paired Field Placements
teachers are to see the immersion experience as
part of future role as teachers. Lee (2011), through In this qualitative study conducted by Gardiner and
participants’ reflections, interviews and program Robinson (2009), in a 100-hour urban field place-
evaluations found that the overseas field experiment pairs of preservice teachers were placed with
ence not only deepened their cultural knowledge, single cooperating teachers. Results from field
teaching knowledge and skills, but also augmented notes, multiple observations, interviews, and work
language awareness, school language and acknowl- samples specify that paired placements endorse
edgment of different English forms. multiple viewpoints, led to greater conversations
241

about teaching and learning, and aided the real- Placement Opportunities
ization of student-centered learning philosophies.
Notably, paired field placements have promise to As a field director, it is very important that an
cultivate and expand skills of collaboration crucial analysis is provided for the types of placements
to current school reform work. offered. When reviewing a placement site there
are many things to consider; for example, does the
Challenges of Field Experience school or learning setting use Fridays for special
project rewards or field trip days? This is a very
Field experience is not without its problems and important question because teacher education
challenges of field experience placements is es- programs really want students to see instructional
sentially broke into two over arcing categories time. There are other things to consider like class-
limited placement opportunities and diverse city room schedules, lunch schedules, and if these
of placements the theories of teacher education are times hinder students from an opportunity to be
littered with the recurrence of field experiences involved in the instructional practices. It is a gen-
being early and often research of the last 20 years eral practice that field placements prefer morning
supports early field experience opportunities. The timeframes because research tells states that that
question becomes how do we in the field make is the bulk of the instructional takes place before
this happen appropriately and beneficially for all lunch. We must consider other things in looking
stakeholders? Lawrence and Butler (2010) found at placement opportunities, especially middle and
constructing meaning regarding the complexities high school levels. Middle and secondary schools
of helping students learn is a critical component of may possibly operate on a block or modified block
preservice teacher education that should not be one schedule and preservice teachers may have a dif-
of the last aspects of teaching on which preservice ficult time actually seeing a complete instructional
teachers focus. In light of the findings, they believe block. These are just a few of the decisions that
teacher educators should continue to seek ways field experience coordinator must be conscious of
to design learning experiences that encourage before they make assignments in the field.
candidates to wrestle with the complexities of
student learning and their preconceptions about Diversity of Placements
the nature of teaching as well as other pertinent
preconceptions as early as possible. Teachers need to have a better understanding of
As Freeman (2010) shares her personal account the cultures and backgrounds of the students in
of conducting field placements, she offers some of their classrooms. There are teachers who have lim-
the challenges of task in terms of preservice teacher ited experience working with students of diverse
readiness for the rigors of field experience. Ex- backgrounds therefore preservice teachers should
amples include, forgetting to turn off cell phones, have a variety of field experiences in a variety of
inappropriate dress or falling asleep and explained settings. Each institution, in the many conceptual
to preservice teachers that in some school settings, frameworks submitted as part of an accreditation
unconventional appearance or presentation could process, promotes preservice teachers engagement
be considered distractive to young learners in a in multiple placements. This is important so that
classroom. It is sometimes difficult for teacher they engage in issues of diversity. This includes
education students to comprehend the need for students who are differently able and students who
toning down personal character traits when moving differ by ethnicity, race, gender, socioeconomic
from their personal life to professional existence status, language, and religious affiliation that
in the world of teaching children. affects the act of teaching, student achievement
242

and develops strategies for improving student Act (FERPA) it is essential. The field placement
learning and the candidates’ teacher effective- office is that of gatekeeper for the protection of
ness. Preservice teachers need more contact and the teacher education student, as well as a filter
practice working with groups of students who are for the professional development sites where they
diverse as well as more incorporation of multicul- are placed. The field placement office is trusted
tural foundations in methods courses. In Irvine’s by local education agencies Public for-profit and
research (2003), findings reveal that even after nonprofit to properly vet and screen preservice
multicultural education coursework, preservice teachers to be placed with minors. The field place-
teachers may still have low expectations and un- ment office is also responsible for verification of
favorable dispositions toward students of diverse professional liability insurance it must verify that
backgrounds. it is with an appropriate agency. This is a require-
In order for placements to profit preservice ment by licensing agencies local education agency
teachers, they should be properly designed in administration and government policies for each
constructive learning environments with effec- state. This flow of information is voluminous and
tive teachers and institutions. Preservice teachers, requires constant attention.
cooperating teachers, as well as administrators on This also leads us to examine how this has
all levels should be made aware of the policies been traditionally managed in administrations past.
and procedures. Preservice teachers should have Previously in this case study the college teacher
helpful and constructive projects coupled with education program used a paper filing system
the observations. Everyone should have a chance and this was inefficient and included multiple
for contribution in the field placement proce- opportunities for security breaches as well as
dures and feel at ease in making suggestions for violation of the Family Educational Rights and
improving the process. Discourse among teacher Privacy Act (FERPA) as the system is converted
education students, faculty, public school teach- so must this information be. This means storing
ers and administrators is one of the most critical and converting thousands of pieces of paper to be
features for an effective field experience program archive needless to say this warrants a conversa-
(Freeman, 2010). tion of what should be secure stored in destroy or
scan into an electronic format. We must consider
the phrase “out with the old in with the new” in
BACKGROUND considering transition time to a new format. A
feasible timetable had to be developed between the
Management, Data, and summer of 2013 and start of fall semester 2013.
Field Placement This timeline was approximately 45 days and this
would otherwise be impossible; here enters the
The data management responsibility of early learning management system Desire 2 Learn (D2l).
field experience is daunting at best. Field place-
ment staff is responsible for extremely sensitive The Implementation of
information connected to student’s identities; this Desire 2 Learn (D2L)
includes birthdays, addresses, Social Security
numbers, previous and or current employment, Desire to learn (D2L) is fairly new and it is an
driver’s licenses, and student numbers visa in- online learning management system. D2L provide
formation for international students as well as students with an interface for accessing the content
criminal histories. In a society where identity theft of the online courses including syllabi calendar
is rampant, Family Educational Rights and Privacy assignments and discussions. It also allows for
243

testing displays upgrades and the class list with produce real associations between Preservice
survey features. It offers a secure environment by teachers and K-12 students and teachers in many
requiring a login process. It allows for live chat locations of the state.
online quizzes a gradebook and email feature and Alger and Kopcha (2009) describe the eSuper-
ability to add content links widgets and website vision program and report its effectiveness. They
resources. It includes a dropbox feature individual found that eSupervision supported continuous
or group lockers or shared document storage as communication and endorsed reflective think-
well. Finally, it includes an e-portfolio option. ing in the field. This proposes that technology
The Board of Regents adopted the D2L learning can perform a significant role in attend to the
management system, so it was a required used for frequent critique related to the field experience.
all public higher education institutions in the state. In this study, the leading topic associated with
This happened to work in favor of revamping the the discussion forums as an expressed sense of
field experience placement process at the college. community support by both classroom teacher and
What does the field say about the relationship preservice teachers. This communication afforded
between technology and supervision and teacher preservice teachers with the psychological support
education? required to do well in the field experience while
also working to update the practices of all triad
Technology, eSupervision, members in positive ways.
and Field Placement When Hixon and So (2009) investigated how
technology has been used to develop or substitute
The notion of using technology to support field field experiences in preservice teacher prepara-
experience in teacher education is relatively tion programs, they found five specific benefits.
new and called by several names; electronically They were identified as exposure to various teach-
supported, computer mediated, electronically ing/learning environments, creation of shared
augmented and so on. Research over last ten years experiences, and promoting reflectivity. They
sheds light on how numerous scaffold teacher also identified preparing students cognitively,
preparation programs make the most of these and learning about technology integration. A
systems in their programs. Lehman, Richardson, number of limitations of technology-integrated
Bai and White (2003) researched a project that field experiences also surfaced, to include a lack
offers support through faculty development and of interaction with teachers and students, limited
support, the improvement and performance of an reality and complexity, availability of relevant
electronic portfolio system for Preservice teach- cases, and technical problems. In the end, they
ers, and the use of video conferencing to facilitate recommended that the general objectives for a
distance field experiences in diverse parts of specific field experience should be an area of
Indiana. They found the universal theme across focus when field experience selections are being
these initiatives is links in teacher education. investigated.
Faculty development allows the faculty to make Clarken (2007) investigated a teacher prepara-
connections within their own practice by using tion program that successfully employed a web-
technology. The electronic portfolio system allows based system to proficiently provide placements
Preservice teachers to make correlations between for teaching internships. Clarken identifies that the
their own work and the accreditation standards program could aptly manage records of placement
that inform licensure. Distance field experiences data, stay in contact with schools, decide requests
244

for honoraria and acquire evaluation information the process and take care of the information this
from student teachers and supervisors in methods originally began by looking at how to better serve
that can straightforwardly decode and evaluate the students during the registration process and
across a number different variables. what their needs were in terms of field experience.
They had a number of needs and multiple docu-
Tools and Taking Charge ments see (Figure 1). Previously the faculty had
been managing the paperwork affiliated with each
When examining desire to learn (D2L) and the student from five different campuses encompass-
field placement process the field director had to ing more than 25 counties in the state. That did
investigate the tools that would take charge of not include the online campus in their particular
Figure 1. Data Management Overview. This is a simple chart that roughly details the volume of data
and documents that has to be managed. These numbers are at the low end of the continuum.
245

locations. All of this paper landed at the feet of the learning management system? This question
those in the field experiences office. With the is essential for program assessment. Each feature
advent of D2L, the tools advertised were matched and component provides rich data for program
with the needs of students, the field experiences assessment, present goals, and future goals for
office, and the director of field experience. The the program.
learning management system actually offered a Questions are generated at every turn. How
tool or feature that matched each of the needs of many students were placed? What students request-
the field experiences process. ed urban rural or suburban placements? Which
The survey tool gathered data about where students requested early learning elementary
students wanted or needed to be placed whether middle grades or secondary setting placements?
that was near home the employment or their par- What students requested diverse placements that
ticular campus. The dropbox feature was used to included English-language learners and children
collect criminal background consent forms and with exceptional needs or children and high pov-
or current criminal histories this was appropri- erty settings? The list is numerous. Other questions
ate because all of this information is stored on a the surface including examining the demographics
secured server within the college. The dropbox of the preservice teachers. How many of them are
feature was also used to collect proof of liability of a particular gender? In which age group do they
insurance in special district information forms as fall? How many are nontraditional students or are
each school district public-private or charter may they new to the field? The next set of questions
possibly have additional requirements. This was alludes to the statistics of student usage. How
extremely important as the school district has its many resources were accessed in the learning
own additional placement process. There are ap- management system? How many times did pre-
proximately 17 public school districts in which service teachers access the handbook registration
the students are placed. Last but not least, the drop procedures or the calendar? The survey tool in
box secured the field experience verification forms Desire 2 Learn answers these questions.
and the hours completed this is where the student The tool offered the field placement limited
submitted documentation other hours at the end options as it does not function like survey monkey
of the experience along with any exemption forms or lime survey but it does allow for reports to be
that may have been applicable. generated by total completed attempts as well as
individual leak a completed attempts. This allows
Data Decisions the director of field placement and assessment
to collect qualitative as well as quantitative data
Once all of this information has been gathered, about a range of topics to include teacher licen-
the beauty of a learning management system is sure testing information grade-point average data
group or course or some other variable can attach graduation application data intentions for a four-
a visual in numerical accounting of data to a stu- year institution assignment perspective choice of
dent profile. This is viewed from two standpoints: grade level in which to be certified, advisement
inflow of data and outflow of data. Inflow of data feedback, and teacher certification requirements
encompasses all that is previously mentioned in for the exit course. The entry course survey al-
terms of collecting data and other information as lows the field placement office to gather and
we examine the outflow, the question becomes review demographic data. This is a part of the
what should be done with the data collected in data managing-data mining cycle.
246

CONCLUSION only to the case study, but all teacher education

field experience programs face-to-face and online.
The next step for this case study with D2L is all There will be a few bumps in the road with an
embedded in application and assessment. As a upgrade. In the cause of the college, this particular
reminder, the learning management system was LMS is new. A measurable number of students
used for managing field experience and gathering struggled with the field experience registration,
data for program assessment and accreditation. not because of the procedure, but because of the
As the learning management system will be used newness of the learning management system. This
for three more cycles in the program assessment, interface made it somewhat difficult for students
more tools will be added and this will generate who were not technologically competent. This
more possibilities and questions for teacher edu- put the field placement office in a position of
cation. These questions will not only arise at our “helpdesk” on many occasions. Fortunately, the
college, but also at any institution that will have new director of field experience had training in
an electronic-based field placement process or an the D2L learning management system the year
electronic assessment system. before at another institution. This was not only
Edens (2000) in a study noted the constraints the case for the students, but the faculty as well.
posed to reflective discussion by having students This learning management system was new
in multiple field sites and outlined an initiative college-wide. Oftentimes the director of field
where an online discussion group was developed experience served in the “helpdesk” capacity
to overcome this difficulty for on-campus students. with the faculty as well. As the faculty, staff and
Evidence, based on an analysis of postings, found students become more familiar with the operations
that students began to function as a professional and nuances of D2L, the process should continu-
community, to ask questions and to gather data ally improve.
on which to reflect. She concludes that online
discussion is viable for promoting reflection and
additionally for linking faculty with the teachers FUTURE TRENDS
at the field sites. Can the self-assessment feature
in the learning management system be used to As we look toward the future of making field expe-
measure disposition? Can discussion forums be rience a multifaceted phenomena with meaningful
used to identify reflective behaviors during field consequences, it behooves us to examine how
experience and discussion about the instructional learning management systems with further parlay
day? Can the groups feature be used to develop in to virtual field experiences in the mainstream.
professionalism and collegiality among preservice Several institutions nationally and internationally,
teachers? Can the competencies feature be used to have adopted this idea. Virtual field experiences
align field experience and course work together? are deemed important because they necessitate
Learning management systems have limits. site-based field experiences in the conventional
The current learning management system provides meaning, schools and times available for con-
field experience problems and opportunity to ventional experiences restrict employed teacher
explore the aforementioned questions. This explo- candidates, and nonetheless programs want them to
ration is vital to teacher education United States be exposed to specific kinds of instructional strat-
where it is currently under attack and scrutiny. egies. They are also advantageous because they
As this case study is being written, a new version are videoed in real classrooms with individually
of D2L is being upgraded for the next semester. selected teachers who typify best practices in an
This still provides more challenges and issues not explicit area of classroom events that preservice
247

teachers should view and critique. There is no and facilitated by a master teacher using blended
script or editing. Why is this even important to technologies within WebCt, a widely used learning
educator preparation programs? It is important management system
because the landscape of school is catching up Moreover, these early field experience modules
with technology and distance learning. mandated that Preservice teachers must read about
In a 2011 study, Kennedy and Archambault multiple viewpoints of VS from the perception
provide a status report on the state of field expe- of the VS student, teacher and field site director
riences in K-12 online learning programs in the from the Virtual High School website. Preservice
United States. Teacher education programs and teachers’ written reflections discovered that they
K-12 online learning programs were surveyed to had conquered misconceptions that they had about
investigate what is being done to assist Preservice VS. Virtual field experience preservice teachers
teachers for K-12 online instructional environ- are privy to a numerous benefits according to
ments. In their findings, they propose that teacher advocates who currently use VFE. Preservice
education programs would profit from attending teachers see models of effective in various environ-
to the increasing demand to train future K-12 ments and obtain contact to classroom dilemmas,
online teachers, and the present study emphasizes complexities, and classroom management.
the enormity of further research in this arena. They see models of reflective behavior, self-
Crucial outcomes subsist for the topic of K-12 assessment, growth, professional developments
online learning as well as for teacher education implemented and hear professional terminology
programs that are engaging in developing educa- used in the proper setting. Preservice teachers have
tors for various online k-12 formats. safe environment for impartial, crucial examina-
McFerrin, Weber, Carlsen, Willis, Gutke, & tion of teacher behaviors and instructional choices.
Albion (2008) also studied virtual field experi- Teacher candidates have the option of replaying
ences. Specifically, they investigated several of video for reflective assignment completion and as
the strong points and restrictions coupled with a source for later assignments. They have contact
each field experience design. Outcomes of this with many types of classroom settings and bridge
study denote that preservice teachers concluding ideas with experience and a library of classroom
the virtual field experience spent additional time demonstration videos.
pondering on their observations than students in They can receive targeted, standards-based
the conventional group, but did not believe that experiences not commonly accessible. Teacher
they got an authentic feel of what it was like to candidates are exposed to a broad range of diver-
be a classroom teacher. The results of this study sity and teacher candidates learn that both solid
suggest that the strengths and limitations of each pre-planning and on the spot decision-making
format need to be considered in relation to the are essential. Finally, they can see best practices
goals and objectives of the field experience. enacted by effective teachers, with many skills
Compton, Davis and Meek (2007) examined a and talents.
pilot for a Virtual School (VS) field experience. Enrollment in K-12 online learning is rapidly
An early field experience was developed and growing in the United States. Watson, Murin,
provided in the form of a one-credit course to Vashaw, Gemin, and Rapp (2011) shares that
include approximately fifteen hours of instruc- all 50 states and the District of Columbia make
tion. It encompassed online instruction along with available to their K-12 students an online learning
twenty hours of observation. The case examined experiences. Various formats of these offerings;
was a science course at a high school level pre- whether fully online, blended, or hybrid, offer
sented concurrently to numerous remote locations all or most of a learner’s opportunities through
248

web-based instruction. Some states have crafted Bahr, D. L., Shaha, S. H., Farnsworth, B. J.,
legislation mandating or recommending K-12 Lewis, V. K., & Benson, L. F. (2004). Preparing
students to complete at least one online learning tomorrow’s teachers to use technology: Attitudinal
experience by the time they complete secondary impacts of technology-supported field experience
education. Escalation in online learning mandates on preservice teacher candidates. Journal of In-
that preservice teachers master how to provide ap- structional Psychology, 31(2), 88–97.
propriate instruction in this learning environment
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Rose, M. C. (1997,
and that educator preparation programs equip
December 07). Qualitative Assessment in Devel-
them adequately. It is extremely important that
opmental Reading. Journal of College Reading
teacher education programs remain responsive
and Learning, 28(1), 34–55. doi:10.1080/10790
to the P-12 population, the preservice teachers
195.1997.10850052
in post secondary programs, and the ever-fluid
notion of “school.” Bleicher, R. E., Correia, M. G., & Buchanan, M.
(2006). Service learning: building commitment to
becoming teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction
REFERENCES Service No. ED, 494, 939.
Aiken, I. P., & Day, B. D. (1999). Early field Bodycott, P., & Crew, V. (2000). Living the lan-
experiences in preservice teacher education: Re- guage: The value of short-term overseas
search and student perspectives. Action in Teacher Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service
Education, 21(3), 7–12. doi:10.1080/01626620. learning: Educating teachers in diverse communi-
1999.10462965 ties. New York: Teachers College Press.
Alger, C., & Kopcha, T. J. (2009, December 07). Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage,
eSupervision: A Technology Framework for the P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond
21st Century Field Experience in Teacher Educa- & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a
tion. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 31–46. changing world: What teachers should learn and be
Allsopp, D. H., DeMarie, D., Alvarez-McHatton, able to do (pp. 1-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
P., & Doone, E. (2007, March 08). Bridging the Byrd, D. M., McIntyre, D. J., & Association of
Gap between Theory and Practice: Connecting Teacher Educators. (2000). Research on effective
Courses with Field Experiences. Teacher Educa- models for teacher education. Thousand Oaks,
tion Quarterly, 33(1), 19–35. CA: Corwin.
Anderson, J. B., & Erickson, J. A. (2003). Ser- Catapano, S., & Huisman, S. (2010). Preparing
vice learning in Preservice Teacher Education. Teachers for Urban Schools: Evaluation of a
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(2), 111–115. Community-Based Model. Penn Gse Perspectives
Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. on Urban Education, 7(1), 80–90.
(2005, January 01). Preservice Teachers’ Observa- Clardy, P. & Skinner, E. (December, 2011). Critical
tions of Cooperating Teachers and Peers While Field and Life Experience for Preservice Bilingual
Participating in an Early Field Experience. Teacher Educators at a Primarily White Institution. Journal
Education Quarterly, 32(4), 97–118. of Multicultural Education, 7(1).
249

Clarken, R. H. (2007). Using Web-Based Technol- Eisenhardt, S., Besnoy, K., & Steele, E. (2012,
ogy to Effectively and Efficiently Place and Evalu- March 07). Creating Dissonance in Preservice
ate Student Teachers. Supervisors and Programs. teachers’ Field Experiences. Srate Journal, 21(1),
1–10.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2000b). The future of
teacher education: Framing the questions that Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000, March
matter. Teaching Education, 11(1), 13–24. 01). Unlocking the Knowledge in Action of an
doi:10.1080/10476210050020327 Expert Practitioner. Journal of Teacher Education,
51(2), 87–101. doi:10.1177/002248710005100203
Compton, L., Davis, N., & Meeks, B. (2007).
Virtual field experience – Preparing Teachers Evans, B. P. (2004). A catalyst for change: Influ-
for e-Learning in secondary schools. Retrieved encing preservice teacher technology proficiency.
from the Deanz.org website: http://deanz.org.nz/ Journal of Educational Mediaand Library Sci-
home/images/stories/conference/2008/compton- ences, 41(3), 325–336.
davis-meek-reviewedpaper.pdf
Ewart, G., & Straw, S. B. (2005, January 01). A
Cruickshank, D. R., Armaline, W. D., Reighart, Seven-Month Practicum: Collaborating Teachers’
P. A., Hoover, R. L., Stuck, A. F., & Traver, R. Response. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue
(1986). As Teachers Mature: Are We Getting Canadienne. Education, 28, 185–202.
Older and Better? Clearing House (Menasha,
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Jr., Stenson, C. M., & Gray,
Wis.), 59(8), 354–358.
C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher the effects of service learning on college students,
education: Lessons from exemplary programs. faculty, institutions, and communities, 1993-2000
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (3rd ed.). Vanderbilt University.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Gross- Freeman, G. G. (2010). Strategies for Successful
man, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The Early Field Experiences in a Teacher Education
design of teacher education programs. In L. Program. Srate Journal, 19(1), 15–21.
Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Prepar-
Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2009). Paired
ing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
Field Placements: A Means for Collaboration.
should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San
New Educator, 5(1), 81–94. doi:10.1080/15476
88X.2009.10399565
Dawson, K., & Dana, N. F. (2007, July 01). When
Grande, M., Burns, B., Schmidt, R., & Marable,
curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field
M. A. (2009). Impact of a Paid Urban Field Ex-
experiences and teacher inquiry coalesce: An
perience on Teacher Candidates’ Willingness to
opportunity for conceptual change? British Jour-
Work in Urban Schools. Teacher Educator, 44(3),
nal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 656–667.
188–203. doi:10.1080/08878730902974264
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00648.x
Hanuscin, D. L., & Musikul, K. (2007). School’s
Edens, K. M. (2000). Promoting communication,
IN for Summer: An Alternative Field Experience
inquiry, and reflection in an early practicum ex-
for Elementary Science Methods Students. Journal
perience via an on-line discussion group. Action
of Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 57–68.
in Teacher Education, 22(2A), 14–23. doi:10.10
doi:10.1007/BF03173654
80/01626620.2000.10463035
250

Hillman, S. L., Bottomley, D. M., Raisner, J. C., & Lawrence, M. N., & Butler, M. B. (2011). Becom-
Malin, B. (2000). Learning To Practice What We ing Aware of the Challenges of Helping Students
Teach: Integrating Elementary Education Methods Learn: An Examination of the Nature of Learning
Courses. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 91–100. during a Service learning Experience. Teacher
doi:10.1080/01626620.2000.10463043 Education Quarterly, 37(1), 155–175.
Hixon, E., & So, H.-J. (2009). Technology’s Lee, J. F. K. (2011). International Field Experi-
Role in Field Experiences for Preservice Teacher ence--What Do Student Teachers Learn? Austra-
Training. Journal of Educational Technology & lian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(10), 1–22.
Society, 12(4), 294–304. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n10.4
Hughes, J. (2009). An Instructional Model for Lehman, J. D., Richardson, J., & Association for
Preparing Teachers for Fieldwork. International Educational Communications and Technology,
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Washington, DC. (2004). Making Connections
Education, 21(2), 252–257. in TeacherEducation: Electronic Portfolios,
Videoconferencing, and Distance Field Experi-
Hurst, D., Tan, A., Meek, A., & Sellers, J. (2003).
ences. Author.
Overview and inventory of state education re-
forms: 1990 to 2000 (NCES publication No. LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Akar, H.,
2003-020). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department Gutierrez, C., Jenkins-Gunn, E., & Rosebrock, K.
of Education National Center for Educational (2005). Classroom management. In L. Darling-
Statistics. Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
teachers for a changing world: What teachers
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). The Teacher Shortage:
should learn and be able to do (pp. 327 357). San
Myth or Reality? Educational Horizons, 81(3),
146–152.
Liakopoulou, M. (2012). The role of field expe-
Irvine, J. J. (2003). When difference makes a dif-
rience in the preparation of reflective teachers.
ference. Paper presentation at the annual meeting
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6),
of the American Education Research Association.
41–54. doi:10.14221/ajte.2012v37n6.4
Chicago, IL.
Ma, Y., Williams, D., Prejean, L., Lai, G., &
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2011). The
Ford, M. J. (2008). A Model for Facilitating Field
Current State of Field Experiences in K-12 Online
Experience in a Technology-Enhanced Model
Learning Programs in the U.S. Technology and
Pedagogical Laboratory. Journal of Computing
Teacher Education Annual, 7, 3454–3461.
in Teacher Education, 24(3), 105–110.
Kim, H. K. (2011). Developmentally Appropri-
Marchel, C. A., Shields, C., & Winter, L. (2011).
ate Practice (DAP) as Defined and Interpreted
Preservice Teachers as Change Agents: Going
by Early Childhood Preservice Teachers: Beliefs
the Extra Mile in Service learning Experiences.
about DAP and Influences of Teacher Education
Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(2), 3-16.
and Field Experience. Srate Journal, 20(2), 12–22.
McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Carlsen, R., Willis, D.
Koerner, M. E., & Abdul-Tawwab, N. (2006). Using
A., Gutke, H. J., & Albion, P. (2008). Exploring
Community as a Resource for Teacher Education:
the worth of online communities and e-mentoring
A Case Study. Equity & Excellence in Education,
programs for beginning teachers. AACE.
39(1), 37–46. doi:10.1080/10665680500478767
251

McGlinn, J. (2003). The impact of experi- Tarman, B. (2012). Prospective Teachers’ Beliefs
ential learning on student teachers. Clear- and Perceptions about Teaching as a Profession.
ing House (Menasha, Wis.), 76(3), 143–148. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3),
doi:10.1080/00098650309601991 1964–1973.
McIntyre, D. J., & the Foundation for Excellence United States. (2000). EPA Student Center.
in Teacher Education. (American Association of
Wasburn-Moses, L., Kopp, T., & Hettersimer,
Colleges for Teacher Education), ERIC Clearing-
J. E. (2012). Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions
house on Teacher Education & National Institute
of the Value of an Early Field Experience in a
of Education (U.S.). (1983). Field experiences
Laboratory Setting. Issues in Teacher Education,
in teacher education from student to teacher.
21, 2, 7–22.
Washington, DC: Foundation for Excellence in
Teacher Education Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B.,
& Rapp, C., & the Evergreen Education Group.
Metcalf, K. K., & Kahlich, P. A. (1999). Nontra-
(2011). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning:
ditional Preservice Teacher Development: The
An Annual Review of Policy and Practice, 2011.
Value of Clinical Experience. Journal of Research
Evergreen Education Group.
and Development in Education, 31(2), 69–82.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the Field
Experience of Preservice Teachers. Jour-
nal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31–42.
doi:10.1177/0022487102238656 Assessment Data: Quantified information
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher communicating the results of an evaluative activity
Education. (2008). Professional Standards for the or task designed to determine the extent to which
Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. candidates meet specific learning proficiencies,
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher outcomes, or standards.
Education. Assessment System: A comprehensive and
integrated set of evaluation measures that pro-
Posner, G. J. (2005). Field experience: A guide vides information for use in monitoring candidate
to reflective teaching. Boston: Pearson/Allyn performance and managing and improving unit
and Bacon. operations and programs for the preparation of
Retallick, M. S., & Miller, G. (2007). Early Field professional educators.
Experience Documents in Agricultural Education. Assessment: An evaluated activity or task used
Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 20–31. by a program or unit to determine the extent to
doi:10.5032/jae.2007.04020 which specific learning proficiencies, outcomes,
or standards have been mastered by candidates.
Ross, S., Hughes, T., & Hill, R. (2001). Field Assessments usually include an instrument that
experiences as meaningful contexts for learning details the task or activity and a scoring guide
about learning. The Journal of Educational Re- used to evaluate the task or activity.
search, 75(2), 103–107.
252

Candidate Performance Data: Information Contemporary Professional Experiences:

derived from assessments of candidate proficien- Meaningful and structured activities in a P–12
cies, in areas of teaching and effects on student school setting within the last five years. Examples
learning, candidate knowledge, and professional include structured observation, working in schools
dispositions. Candidate performance data may as a teacher or other school professional, action
be derived from a wide variety of sources, such research, research projects that are school-based,
as projects, essays, or tests demonstrating subject and participating in professional development
content mastery; employer evaluations; state school activities.
licensure tests; and mentoring year portfolios as Content: The subject matter or discipline
well as assessments, projects, reflections, clinical that teachers are being prepared to teach at the
observations, and other evidence of pedagogical elementary, middle, and/or secondary levels.
and professional teaching proficiencies. Content also refers to the professional field of
Candidates: Individuals admitted to, or study (e.g., special education, early childhood
enrolled in, programs for the initial or advanced education, school psychology, reading, or school
preparation of teachers, teachers continuing administration).
their professional development, or other school Cultural Background: The context of one’s
professionals. Candidates are distinguished from life experience as shaped by membership in groups
students in P–12 schools. based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status,
Certification: The process by which a non- gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual
governmental agency or association grants profes- orientation, and geographical area.
sional recognition to an individual who has met Curriculum: Courses, experiences, and as-
certain predetermined qualifications specified by sessments necessary to prepare candidates to teach
that agency or association. (The National Board for or work with students at a specific age level and/
Professional Teaching Standards grants advanced or to teach a specific subject area.
certification.) Distance Learning Program: A program
Clinical Faculty: P–12 school personnel and in which over half of the required courses in the
professional education faculty responsible for program occur when the learner and the instruc-
instruction, supervision, and/or assessment of tor are not in the same place at the same time.
candidates during field experiences and clinical See Distance Learning. These programs include
practice. See Professional Education Faculty. those offered by the professional educational unit
Clinical Practice: Student teaching or intern- through a contract with an outside vendor or in a
ships that provide candidates with an intensive consortium arrangement with other higher educa-
and extensive culminating activity. Candidates tion institutions, as well as those offered solely
are immersed in the learning community and are by the unit.
provided opportunities to develop and demonstrate Distance Learning: A formal educational pro-
competence in the professional roles for which cess in which instruction occurs when the learner
they are preparing. and the instructor are not in the same place at the
Conceptual Framework: An underlying same time. Distance learning can occur through
structure in a professional education unit that virtually any media including asynchronous or syn-
gives conceptual meaning to the unit’s operations chronous, electronic or printed communications.
through an articulated rationale and provides di- Diversity: Differences among groups of people
rection for programs, courses, teaching, candidate and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeco-
performance, faculty scholarship and service, and nomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language,
unit accountability. religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area.
253

The types of diversity necessary for addressing the P–12 School Personnel: Licensed practitio-
elements on candidate interactions with diverse ners in P–12 schools who provide instruction,
faculty, candidates, and P–12 students are stated supervision, and direction for candidates during
in the rubrics for those elements. field-based assignments. See Professional Educa-
Ethnicity: Physical and cultural characteristics tion Faculty and School Faculty.
that make a social group distinctive. These may Part-Time Faculty: Professional education
include, but are not limited to national origin, an- faculty who have less than a full-time assignment
cestry, language, shared history, traditions, values, in the professional education unit. Some part-time
and symbols—all of which contribute to a sense faculty are full-time employees of the college or
of distinctiveness among members of the group. university with a portion of their assignments in
Exceptionalities: Physical, mental, or emo- the professional education unit. Other part-time
tional conditions, including gifted/talented abili- faculty are not full-time employees of the institu-
ties, that require individualized instruction and/or tion and are commonly considered adjunct faculty.
other educational support or services. See Adjunct Faculty and Professional Education
Field Experiences: A variety of early and Faculty.
ongoing field-based opportunities in which can- Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The inter-
didates may observe, assist, tutor, instruct, and/or action of the subject matter and effective teach-
conduct research. Field experiences may occur in ing strategies to help students learn the subject
off-campus settings such as schools, community matter. It requires a thorough understanding of
centers, or homeless shelters. the content to teach it in multiple ways, drawing
Full-Time Faculty: Professional education on the cultural backgrounds and prior knowledge
faculty with full-time assignments in the profes- and experiences of students.
sional education unit as instructors, professors at Pedagogical Knowledge: The general con-
different ranks, and administrators. See Profes- cepts, theories, and research about effective
sional Education Faculty. teaching, regardless of content areas.
Initial Teacher Preparation Programs: Pro- Performance Assessment: A comprehensive
grams at the baccalaureate or post baccalaureate assessment through which candidates demonstrate
levels that prepare candidates for the first license their proficiencies in subject, professional, and
to teach. They include five-year programs, mas- pedagogical knowledge, skills, and professional
ter’s programs, and other post baccalaureate and dispositions, including their abilities to have posi-
alternate route programs that prepare individuals tive effects on student learning.
for their first license in teaching. Professional Development Schools (PDS):
Institutions: Schools, colleges, or departments Specially structured schools in which the P–12
of education in a university, or non-university school and higher education faculty collaborate
providers. to (1) provide practicum, student teaching, and
Multicultural Perspective: An understanding internship experiences; (2) support and enable
of the social, political, economic, academic, and the professional development of school and higher
historical constructs of ethnicity, race, socioeco- education faculty; (3) support and enable inquiry
nomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, directed at the improvement of practice; and (4)
religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. support and enhance student achievement. PDSs
254

require the institutional commitment of colleges pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade settings.
and universities, school districts, and teachers’ Programs may lead to a degree, a recommendation
organizations. for a state license, both, or neither.
Proficiencies: Required knowledge, skills, and Students: Children and youth attending P–12
professional dispositions identified in the profes- schools as distinguished from teacher candidates.
sional, state, or institutional standards. NOTE: The definitions as provided are the
Program: A planned sequence of courses and official definition NCATE now known as the
experiences for the purpose of preparing teach- Council for the Accreditation of Educator Prepa-
ers and other school professionals to work in ration (CAEP).
255
256
Chapter 14
Blended Learning and
Digital Curation:
A Learning Design Sequence
Nathaniel Ostashewski
Curtin University, Australia
Romana Martin
Andrew Brennan
ABSTRACT
This chapter presents a case of successful integration of digital curation in a repeating series of blended
classroom activities. Digital curation, in education, can be understood as the collection, organization,
interpretation, summary, and sharing of online resources by learners on a topic of inquiry. This research
reports on a blended digital curation learning design integrated into a third-year university course. A
digital curation activity sequence development process and the classroom activity structure form the
basis of the educational implementation presented here. In theory, digital curation activities can support
the sharing of collected resources between learners. In practice, digital curation learning activities in
higher education can also support blended and flipped classroom engagement models while providing
opportunities for the development of critical thinking skills. The chapter describes the activities, the
learning design, and the outcomes of a digital curation activity sequence. This provides other educators
with a learning design roadmap for engaging students in pre-lecture activities or blended learning that
adds value to classroom lectures.
INTRODUCTION was particularly valuable. Students reported that

their exposure to some of the content-focused
In a recent study of online learning activities hyperlinked websites supporting a workplace
(Ostashewski, 2013) students reported that build- topic continued to be helpful beyond the course.
ing a collection of online curated resources that Similarly, sharing of the website URLs and short
could be later used in their professional practice annotations or descriptions of the particular value
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch014

Blended Learning and Digital Curation
of those websites provided a “filtering” or “digital 3. Sharing knowledge by being the curator for
curation” of content for others. Digital curation is others for a particular niche area of expertise
about “maintaining and adding value to, a trusted or interest.
body of digital information for current and future
use” (Beagrie, 2008, p. 3). A simplified definition The unique implementation of digital curation
of digital curation for education is: “the online activities in a university setting described in this
or digital curation of content for education can chapter demonstrates digital curation activities
be understood as the sharing and reviewing of can provide a method for students to prepare
online resources using websites” (Good, 2012). for lectures and critical analysis of topics. The
The literature supports digital curation activities activities are described, including the underlying
as valuable learning designs for both blended and learning design rationale, and the outcomes of the
online learning (Ravitz & Hoadley, 2005). For blended digital curation sequence are outlined in
example, resource sharing or sharing and curation order to provide a roadmap for others looking to
of online resource is reported as a key online- actively engage students in pre-lecture, flipped,
networked learning activity (Wenger, Trayner, or blended learning activities that can add value
de Laat, 2011; Ostashewski & Reid, 2011; Sinha, to classroom lectures.
Rosson, Carroll, & Du, 2010) and may, in fact,
represent a learning design suitable for blended
or flipped education delivery. In summary, the DIGITAL CURATION
literature reports that students engaged in online
or blended learning describe their joint and shared Blended learning often requires a considered
exploration and evaluation of curricular resources use of one or many of the online technologies
(e.g. materials presented to them in a course or which support educational tasks and activities.
found via researching) as valuable online learning Yakel, Conway, Hedstrom, and Wallace (2011)
experiences. This was the basis upon which digital noted that with the ever-expanding collection of
curation activities were integrated into a third year digital information all around us, a new genera-
business education course in one Australian uni- tion of digital curators is needed to manage this
versity. This chapter will provide an examination information. Digital curation, as a process, aligns
of how integration of digital curation activities into positively with the affordances of blended learn-
a blended higher education classroom occurred ing, and has been defined as an active process
and presents a learning design sequence arising whereby content/artifacts are purposely selected
from the research. to be preserved for future access. In the digital
The goal of this chapter is to present a case of environment, additional elements can be lever-
successful integration of digital curation as a series aged, such as the inclusion of social media to
of weekly classroom activities. Some ways that disseminate collected content, the ability for other
digital curation activities can be utilized are by: users to suggest content or leave comments and
the critical evaluation and selection of aggregated
1. Taking advantage of a network of curators content. This latter part especially is important
working for you (building your own custom- in defining this as an active process (Antonio,
ized network) and consuming the curated Martin, & Stagg, 2012).
information. Curation of digital information is, according
2. Collecting, organizing, connecting, attribut- to Mihailidis and Cohen (2013), something that
ing, interpreting, summarizing vast amount we have been doing in classrooms for decades.
of information on any topic. They argue that digital curation activities are
257

those where we have been “[i]ncorporating critical 1. Research: Choose a learning goal and define
approaches to framing, bias, analysis of agendas the task boundaries.
and perspectives in the information landscape has 2. Content Selection and Collection: Filtering
been going on for quite some time, as evidenced out the bad resources and highlighting the
by scholarship dating back decades” (p. 15). In good.
many ways, we all participate in curation of digital 3. Interpretation of Individual Content:
information on our personal computers and de- Annotate individual content to identify
vices. Incorporating meaningful activities in the important points.
classroom that are tied to learning outcomes is one 4. Interpretation Across Content: Annotate
way in which digital curation skills can lead to from a task perspective, finding the important
the development of a more proficient generation relations linking content and annotations.
of information users. 5. Organization: Organising the content and
A digital curation learning cycle proposed annotations in respect to an underlying co-
by Wolff and Mulholland (2013) which utilizes herent story addressing the learning goal.
Internet-based content provides one model suit- 6. Narration: Presentation to an audience
able for blended learning design. Their curatorial through a chosen medium.
inquiry model is designed to support inquiry 7. Research/Recuration: The process through
learning with the development of a digital artifact which the audience become participants in a
as a result of the process. Wolf and Mulholland narrative construction based on a previously
describe the learning process as one where: curated output. Includes reflection (the au-
thor can recurate to improve understanding).
… a learner is assisted in building stories around
the primary and secondary source evidence. The implementation sequence for digital cu-
Learning occurs through the process of develop- ration activities presented in this chapter differs
ing a coherent story in response to the inquiry significantly from the Wolff and Mulholland
question and in curating the web-based source model in that it incorporates a lecture or presenta-
materials to reflect this understanding. (Wolff & tion and face-to-face student discussion as a key
Mulholland, 2013) intermediate stage to the process.
Their model presents an activity approach

whereby the artifact created in the process is repre- LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND
sented as a story. This is the same kind of artifact DIGITAL CURATION
that is shown in museum displays, usually curated
by professionals in the field, and often telling a There are several challenges in providing univer-
story. The storytelling approach to digital cura- sity students with active learning activities that
tion activities is also reported in other literature make effective use of online resources identified
focused on exploring digital curation in education by students. Some of the challenges include
(Antonio, Martin, & Stagg, 2012). linking these resources to unit objectives, and
The seven stages of the curatorial inquiry providing ways for students to engage in reflective
learning cycle in the model developed by Wolff metacognitive activities centered on the related
and Mulholand (2013, p. 2) are: curricular outcomes (Johnson, Smith, Willis,
258

Levine, & Haywood, 2011; Chen and Looi, needed (Baker, 2010). The provision of a guided
2007). A major concern is often one of ensuring opportunity for students to develop an increased
the learning objectives are met over the course understanding and awareness of the critical inquiry
of study. One recently publicized way to engage process (metacognition) helps them improve their
students in active learning is to ‘flip’ classroom regulation of cognition by enabling them to select
activities (Bergmann & Sams, 2012), requiring the appropriate learning strategies correspond-
students to prepare for classroom discussions and ing to the level of inquiry. These critical inquiry
presentations by engaging with unit topics prior to elements informed the integration of the digital
the classroom activities. It has also been reported curation learning sequence.
in the literature that students are now coming to Recent literature states that engaging students
university expecting activity structures and designs in meaningful digital curation activities can sup-
that utilise this approach (Johnson, Adams, Cum- port the development of analytical and critical
mins, Freeman, Ifenthaler, Vardaxis, and Taylor thinking skills (Gadot & Levin, 2012; Mihailidis
2013) mainly due to the shift in K12 education and Cohen, 2013; Verhaart, 2012; Wolff & Mul-
activities towards such approaches. holland, 2013). Furthermore, digital curation can
The literature reports that active learning be described as a system/process for “maintain-
designs in university education, using flipped or ing and adding value to, a trusted body of digital
blended learning models, can improve student information for current and future use” (Beagrie,
attitudes, performance and critical analysis skills 2006, p. 3) and, online digital curation of content
(Armbruster, Patel, Johnson, & Weiss, 2009; for educational purposes has been described as a
Meyers & Jones, 1993) and develop students’ learning activity where students share and review
metacognitive skills (Garrison, 2006; Garrison online resources (Campbell, 2010; Good, 2012).
& Akyol, 2013). In the study reported on in this A number of researchers have suggested that these
chapter, the researchers intended to evaluate an activities can be valuable for blended and flipped
active learning flipped classroom sequence which learning activity designs (Antonio, Martin, &
incorporated a bi-weekly digital curation activity. Stagg, 2012; Barret, 2012; Miller, 2012; Ravitz
The digital curation learning activity was designed & Hoadley, 2005).
and developed to engage students in critical analy-
sis of economic policy issues linked to the unit
outcomes. The goal of this research is toward the THE CONTEXT: UNIVERSITY’S
future development of a digital content curation THIRD YEAR ECONOMICS COURSE
model which incorporates active learning origi-
nating from the evaluation of the digital curation Curtin University is a vibrant, international orga-
learning sequence in a third year economics unit. nization, future focused and committed to making
Supporting the development of 21st Century tomorrow better. It strives to be an international
skills related to online media, such as the develop- leader in research and education, changing minds,
ment of critical analysis and sense-making skills, changing lives and changing the world. Curtin
is paramount in a world where digital resources strives to provide a challenging and rewarding
continue to expand in volume and presence (John- education that is relevant to current careers and
son, Adams, & Cummins, 2012). However, while workplaces. Curtin is the largest and most preferred
this need for developing digital resource analysis university in Western Australia, with more than
skills continues to be noted as a key attribute for 50,000 students spread across 16 different loca-
a 21st Century employee, articulation of educa- tions, including campuses in Sydney, Singapore
tional activities developing these skills is sorely and East Malaysia. It is one of only two Western
259

Australian universities to rank in the prestigious Students are most successful in this course when
Shanghai Jiao Tong Annual Ranking of World they prepare well by completing the weekly read-
Universities (2012) and the Times Higher Educa- ings and other online tasks, and actively contribute
tion’s 2011-12 world university rankings. to class discussions.
The School of Economics and Finance is a part The course is delivered in two semesters each
of one of the Asia-Pacific region’s largest multina- year and often has enrolments of around 30 to 60
tional, multicultural business schools. The School students per semester (over a 12-week teaching
of Economics and Finance has a cosmopolitan schedule). Curtin University has a relatively large
mix of local and international students, offering international learner cohorts and this is reflected
a range of undergraduate and postgraduate pro- in the activities and expectations of students. The
grams in the study areas of economics, banking Economic Policy course is usually made up of
and finance, financial planning and property. The about 40 percent international students and 60
school is striving towards delivering high-quality percent local students. Historically, the course
research and teaching that influences industry— consists of a one 3-hour seminar per week. Two
for instance, the school is home to the Centre for segments split the time during the seminar. In-
Research in Applied Economics (CRAE). There vited guest speakers present on a topic of interest/
is extensive and varied research expertise across expertise for about 1 hour, followed by 15 to 20
all of school’s discipline areas, including econo- minutes of class discussion with the speaker. The
metrics and quantitative modelling. second half is allocated to student presentations on
One of the most popular program choices the previous week’s policy topic. A reading list is
among students is the economics and finance not set because of the nature of the course. Instead
double major, which is part of a larger program in the key references and material for each week’s
the Bachelor of Commerce pass degree (three year topic is given to students through the Blackboard
duration, studying full time). This double major Learning Management System (LMS).
has been designed for students who seek careers The course is designed to give students the op-
in both the public and private sectors, whereby portunity to be active agents in knowledge creation
students acquire good analytical and quantitative and to learn how to apply their economics training
skills. This course is accredited by the Economic to address key economic problems and policy
Society of Australia (Western Australian Branch) issues. It is based upon lectures that provide an
and graduates are eligible to apply for professional overview of key issues and explore selected areas
membership. In the economics major/stream for in depth; as well as using blended learning tech-
example, most courses have regular (weekly) nologies such as the digital curation of resources
2-hour lectures and 1-hour tutorials. Each course (introduced for the first time in semester one 2013);
is typically based on a suitable textbook to aid the and student-based seminar presentations during
Lecturer’s presentation of the course materials. the class that afford students the opportunity to
The Economic Policy course is a little different research a specialized topic in-depth and generate
to others that students typically undertake. Rather some lively academic discussion and debate. An
than a set text and syllabus, the undergraduate/ individual written assignment is included in the
postgraduate course comprises of a series of invited semester’s learning activities.
lectures from specialists (in academia or industry) A range of contemporary policy and current
in a wide range of policy areas. It provides students issues are analyzed in the Economic Policy course.
with a chance to apply their economics training to Topics vary from year to year and typically ad-
a range of topical economic, environmental and dress contemporary policy issues. Topics include
social issues and to engage in stimulating debates. the goals and instruments of economic policy and
260

the principles of policy analysis, the economics orally’, is main outcome assessed for the digital
of climate change, competition policy, monetary curation activities. More specifically, students
policy, productivity growth, taxation policy, the are required to submit their three best activities
social and ecological economics of well-being, at the end of the semester, and are evaluated (out
and socio-cultural issues of indigenous people. of 10) on the extent to which they demonstrated
The topics discussed in the course in semester the following skills: a) ability to think critically
one 2013 and the corresponding link to the digital about the policy issue(s); b) having a perspective
curation activities are show in Table 1. that takes into account various aspects of the issue;
There are four learning outcomes for this and c) presents and evaluates policy alternatives.
course: In short, developing the students’ critical think-
ing skills is a key learning outcome vis-à-vis the
1. Describe and explain key economic issues digital curation activities.
facing the Australian economy;
2. Evaluate economic policies;
3. Apply economic theory and empirical analy- PROFESSIONAL
ses to address policy issues; and DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
4. Research, structure and present policy analy-
sis in both written form and orally. For many university lecturers, educational tech-
nologies are becoming available at such a rapid
Learning outcome four, ‘research, structure and pace that lecturers often feel incompetent in deal-
present policy analysis in both written form and ing with these new technologies. This challenge
Table 1. Economics course topics
Lecture Week Topic Heading and Lecture (L) Digital Curation

Activities
Intro 1 Introduction to Economic Policy: Theory and Principles
L1 2 L1. Economics of Climate Change
L2 3 L2. Poaching & Ivory Trafficking of Elephants Digital Curation 1 on L2
L3 4 L3. Is the Asian Natural Gas Market Large Enough for Digital Curation 2 on L3
All? Implications for Energy Policy in Western Australia
Tuition Free 5
L4 6 L4. Addressing Indigenous Disadvantage: The Role of Digital Curation 3 on L4
Culture
L5 7 L5. Industrial Clusters and Regional Economic Policy
Tuition Free 8
L6 9 L6. Competing Economic Analyses of Equal Pay Digital Curation 4 on L6
L7 10 L7. Women’s Leadership Issues
L8 11 L8. Australia’s Federal Financial Relations
L9 12 L9. Monetary Policy Digital Curation 5 on L9 (Optional)
L10 13 L10. Insider Trading
Review 14 Final Exam
261

is further confounded with institutions requiring ties were presented in the fourteen-week course,
lecturers to adopt new tools and techniques whilst the lecturer was well prepared to implement and
at the same time there is a lack of professional support the activity structure.
development support (Johnson et al., 2013). The professional development activities, which
took place over the four-month period, required
There is a need for more training before being careful thought and consideration due to the as-
asked to teach, and for more professional develop- sessment requirements of the course. As the course
ment opportunities once in the profession. This key had an established assessment pattern and require-
challenge is underscored by the widespread belief ments, the activities needed to result in particular
that most academics are not leveraging emerging assessable artifacts. Despite this restriction, the
technologies for their own work, whether that lecturer fully engaged in the process as a learner
be in the classroom or in support of their own and collaborator with a team of two educational
research. (p. 3) design academics. The driving motivation for the
review and integration of a technology enhance-
In response to this need, Lefoe and colleagues ment into the course came about as the result of
(2009) identified five strategies to support profes- a strategic plan focusing on employing the use of
sional development for university lecturers in the blended learning strategies and learning technolo-
implementation of learning technologies: gies to further enhance courses in that faculty.
The educational design process involved a
1. Development of a shared understanding of series of meetings, research, and design sessions
the theoretical frameworks and philosophies to accomplish the development of the learning
of the approach; design centered on a series of digital curation ac-
2. Development of understanding of the affor- tivities. Key to the initiation of the design was the
dances of the technologies at hand, and hav- lecturer’s willingness to explore the possibilities
ing a significant amount of time to develop offered by incorporating educational technology
these skills before using with students; in the course. As the need for lecturer buy-in with
3. Participation in authentic tasks which model the process was understood to be critical, the uni-
the practices to assist the move from theory versity department also provided a small incentive
to practice; to lecturers willing to embed learning designs
4. Development of a shared language, knowl- utilizing learning technologies in their courses.
edge and understanding of new pedagogies The educational design process included the
and the implications for practice and teaching following:
role;
5. Cycles of reflection on the implications for 1. The design team of two educational design-
the development of new pedagogies (Lefoe, ers and the lecturer met on three occasions
Olney, Wright, & Herrington, 2009, p. 25). to discuss what the course was composed of
in terms of resources, topics, and learning
In the case presented in this chapter, the activities. This also included an audit of the
implementation team had the opportunity to de- learning technologies that were already in
velop the digital curation tasks over a period of use and overall discussions about the kinds
four months prior to the course being offered to of educational technologies the university
students. This preparation time allowed for many had available. One key criterion was that
of the strategies Lafoe and colleagues described to the existing course assessments and learning
be utilized. As a result, when the learning activi- outcomes were set within a fixed framework
262

and therefore the learning activities needed 5. After developing the sequence of digital
to reflect this framework and no change to curation activities for the semester, the
these aspects of the course were possible. lecturer prepared a set of support materials
2. The design team worked through the course for students describing the goals, outcomes
activities and explored potential technologies of the activities, and provided detailed in-
that would engage students in peer-peer dis- structions for completing the digital curation
cussion. Online-based tools such as Twitter tasks. The design team reviewed and revised
and Purdue’s Hotseat were considered. As the digital curation instructions and support
these meetings progressed, it was determined materials for students and these were final-
that a pattern of activities which would sup- ized for distribution to students prior to the
port the numerous guest presenter topics course start date.
– in advance of the guest presentation, as
well as following the presentation – could This design process took place over several
greatly aid students in their preparation and months, and some of the outcomes of this col-
understanding of the topics presented. laborative design process included a deeper
3. The team identified that the following learn- understanding of blended models of education,
ing activity tasks were most likely to add a critical analysis of the curation literature, and
value to the course: reflection, sharing of exposure to new technologies supportive of active
online materials (URLS), and the produc- learning. The result of the process was a learning
tion of an assessable artifact. The assessable sequence of digital curation activities that were
artifact would allow the lecturer to be able implemented into an economics course and ac-
to assess students’ critical thinking skills cording to students resulted in beneficial learning
and understanding of the topics presented. activities.
Critical analysis of relevant topics presented
in the course materials was one of the key
learning outcomes. BLENDED DIGITAL
4. Another meeting and a review of the lit- CURATION SEQUENCE
erature in business education and use of
blended or online technologies supported The blended learning sequence presented in this
the discussions. The sequence of learning chapter is informed by literature, designed to en-
activities was drafted taking into account the gage students with technology enhanced learning
requirements and learning outcomes to be activities, and intended to support critical analysis
achieved in the course. This sequence refers skill development. Figure 1 presents the details
to the organization of the activities over the and structure of a single digital curation activity.
term of the course. For example, in this case During the first week of the digital curation
it meant planning that in week 3 the lecturer activity the topic being curated was briefly in-
would introduce digital curation activity troduced at the end of the first seminar. In this
2, in week 4 have the guest presentation, economics course, the seminar session is divided
and in week 5 students would complete the into two segments, a 1.5-hour guest lecture and
reflection and critical analysis component then a ‘tutorial’ session for 1.5 hours. The tuto-
of the activity. rial component involved students discussing and
263

Figure 1. Blended digital curation activity sequence
presenting their analysis of the guest presenter able to utilize the experience of the authors in
topic. In addition to briefly announcing the digital presenting a digital curation activity sequence
curation activity at the end of the seminar, a more to students, the complete orientation document
detailed announcement was posted to the course for students is provided in the following section.
LMS site shortly after the seminar.
The digital curation activity sequence present-
ed in Figure 1 incorporates three key student tasks: CONCLUSION
research, questioning, and recuration. The three
tasks were described to students as the following As stated previously, there can be multiple benefits
sequence of activities they were to participate in: in incorporating digital curation activities into a
university course. Some of these that have been
1. Before Lecture Day: Research and make reported in the literature include: the provision of
Bb post. (research) meaningful blended learning activities, support of
2. Lecture Day: Listen and engage with the peer learning, preparation for flipped classroom
presenter. (questioning) style activities, and critical analysis skill develop-
3. After Lecture Day: Reflect and make the ment. Stanoevska-Slabeva and colleagues (2012)
second post. (recuration) also note that digital curation is now also evident
in journalism in the form of timely news informa-
In order for students to be able to follow and tion validation:
benefit the most from the digital curation activi-
ties in the course, an orientation document was Social media curation is based on the basic con-
developed. This document supported the lecturer’s cept of media curation proposed by Rosembaum
introduction of the digital curation activity se- (2011) and deals with large corpora of content
quence at the first orientation session of the course. from diverse sources and connotes the activities
Additional explanations and support relating to of identifying, selecting, verifying, organizing,
the structure of activities were provided during describing, maintaining, and preserving exist-
the course; however, the topic most inquired about ing artifacts as well as integrating them into a
by students related to the marking aspect of the holistic resource (Stanoevska-Slabeva, Sacco, &
activity. In order for readers of this chapter to be Giardina, 2012).
264

The authors take this as a sign that digital cu- • Going to class and actually knowing
ration is becoming one way in which networked whats being discussed, DC (digital cura-
or connectedness and sharing is also occurring in tion) forced prior reading meant we could
the workplace and is a valuable means for build- engage in discussions and understand
ing common understanding of topics and issues presentations
supported by a current and reviewable evidence
base. As one goal of university business degrees Students further indicated that the digital cu-
is workplace skill development, for the third year ration activities also supported the development
economics students, digital curation provides an of their critical thinking skills, analysis skills
authentic activity and an authentic assessment and research skills. Overall, the benefits of the
relevant to their future employment. digital curation design supported student learning
According to the lecturer, several lessons and outcomes both internal to the course as well as
key benefits of this digital curation activity be- more global skill development.
came evident over the course term. Anecdotally, The intention of this chapter has not been to
students reported that they enjoyed the learning provide a fixed step-by-step description of the
activities. The lecturer of the course reported that, digital curation process and its incorporation into
as the person being responsible for inviting the courses. Indeed, we do not prescribe to the view
guest lecturer, it was good to see that the students that there is a single way of achieving these kinds
were already familiar with the topic – having of learning outcomes. Nor do we hold the belief
completed the Post 1 activity prior to the guest that technology should simply be ‘added’ to a
lecture. The lecturer noted that students seemed pedagogical approach to make learning more up-
more able to participate, in terms of the questions to-date. Instead, we have presented one example
and discussions during the digital curation weeks of a learning sequence, supported in the literature,
as compared to weeks when there were no digital on how to incorporate a blended digital curation
curation activities embedded. The lecturer also activity into a course design.
stated that it was a positive outcome that students In conclusion, the authors recognise the profes-
were ready to ask informed questions, as that in sional learning curve can be a steep one for many
turn made the expert presenter more interested in university lecturers seated with the important task
returning in the future. In summary, the prepara- of preparing a workforce for the future. This is
tion aspect of the activity had real benefits for the especially true in a world in which rapid change
classroom activity and resulted in an excellent is likely to continue and whole ranges of tech-
outcome of a blended design structure. nologies embedded in the workplace are yet to be
Some other aspects of the digital learning ac- developed. As described by Sharples, Taylor and
tivity were noted by students. When asked about Vavoula (2007): “A world in which children own
the value of the digital curation activities students powerful multimedia communicators and where
commented: they practice new skills of online file sharing and
informal text communication does not fit easily
• The DC (digital curation) exposed me to with traditional classroom schooling” (p. 241).
different policy resources prior to class, Lecturers in universities need to be encouraged
which enabled me to be less restricted to to continue to engage with technology enhanced
participation (views) on different policies learning activities, in order to prepare students for
presented the challenges of their future workplace.
265

REFERENCES Gadot, R., & Levin, I. (2012). Digital Curation

as learning activity. In Proceedings of EDU-
Antonio, A., Martin, N., & Stagg, A. (2012) Engag- LEARN12, (pp. 6038-6045). EDULEARN.
ing higher education students via digital curation.
In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of Garrison, R. (2006). Online collaboration prin-
the Australasian Society for Computers in Learn- ciples. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net-
ing in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE 2012) works, 10(1), 25–34.
(pp. 1-5). Australasian Society for Computers Garrison, R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the
in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). development of a metacognition construct
Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, for communities of inquiry. The Internet and
M. (2009). Active Learning and Student-centered Higher Education, 17, 84–89. doi:10.1016/j.
Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Perfor- iheduc.2012.11.005
mance in Introductory Biology. CBE Life Sciences Good. R. (2012). Re: Why curation will transform
Education, 8(3), 203–213. doi:10.1187/cbe.09- education and learning: 10 Key reasons [Web log
03-0025 PMID:19723815 message]. Retrieved from http://www.masternew-
Baker, R. (2010). Pedagogies and Digital Content media.org/curation-for-education-and-learning/
in the Australian School Sector. Retrieved 29th Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012).
April, 2010, from http://www.thelearningfedera- The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education
tion.edu.au/verve/_resources/Pedagogies_Report. Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
pdf
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M.,
Beagrie, N. (2008). Digital curation for sci- Freeman, A., Ifenthaler, D., & Vardaxis, N. (2013).
ence, digital libraries, and individuals. Interna- Technology Outlook for Australian Tertiary
tional Journal of Digital Curation, 1(1), 3–16. Education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project
doi:10.2218/ijdc.v1i1.2 Regional Analysis. Austin, TX: The New Media
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Consortium.
Classroom: Talk To Every Student. In Every Class Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., &
Every Day. ISTE. Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report.
Berrett, D. (2012). How ‘flipping’ the classroom Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle Lefoe, G., Olney, I., Wright, R., & Herrington, A.
of Higher Education, 19. (2009). Faculty development for new technologies:
Campbell, C. (2010). Education students use of Putting mobile learning in the hands of the teach-
The Le@rning Federation’s digital curriculum ers. In J. Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I.
resources. Paper presented at the 5th International Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new
LAMS and Learning Design Conference. Sydney, pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education
Australia. (pp. 15–27). Wollongong: UOW.
Chen, W., & Looi, C. (2007). Incorporating online Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promot-
discussion in face to face classroom learning: A ing Active Learning. Strategies for the College
new blended learning approach. Australasian Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.,
Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), Publishers.
307–326.
266

Mihailidis, P., & Cohen, J. (2013). Exploring Cu- Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Sacco, V., & Giardina,
ration as a core competency in digital and media M. (2012) Content Curation: a new form of Gate-
literacy education. Journal of Interactive Media watching for social media? In Proceedings of the
in Education, 0(0). International Symposium on Online Journalism.
Austin, TX: Academic Press.
Miller, A. (2012). Five best practices for the
flipped classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from: Verhaart, M. (2012). Curating digital content in
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/flipped-classroom- teaching and learning using wiki technology. In
best-practices-andrew-miller Proceedings of Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT), 2012 IEEE 12th International Confer-
Ostashewski, N. (2013). Networked Teacher Pro-
ence (pp. 191-193). IEEE.
fessional Development: Assessing K-12 Teacher
Professional Development within a social network- Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011).
ing framework. Dissertation available at http://hdl. Promoting and assessing value creation in com-
handle.net/10791/26 munities and networks: A conceptual framework.
The Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum.
Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2011). An Instruc-
tional Design Model utilizing Social Networking Wolff, A., & Mulholland, P. (2013, May). Cura-
Groups; Articulating the Networked Learning tion, curation, curation. In Proceedings of the 3rd
Framework. In Proceedings of World Confer- Narrative and Hypertext Workshop (p. 1). ACM.
ence on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Yakel, E., Conway, P., Hedstrom, M., & Wallace,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (pp.
D. (2011). Digital Curation for Digital Natives.
2057-2065). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Journal of Education for Library and Information
Ravitz, J., & Hoadley, C. (2005). Supporting Science, 52(1), 23.
change and scholarship through review of online
resources in professional development settings.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6),
957–974. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00567.x
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). Blended Learning: Face-to-face learning that
A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. incorporates some online-based activities as part
Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage of the educational experiences.
handbook of elearning research (pp. 221–247). Digital Curation: In general is about “main-
London: Sage. taining and adding value to, a trusted body of
digital information for current and future use”
Sinha, H., Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J., & Du, H. (Beagrie, 2006, p. 3). For education “the online
(2010). Toward a Professional Development Com- or digital curation of content for education can
munity for Teachers. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge be understood as the sharing and reviewing of
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information online resources using websites” (Good, 2012).
Technology & Teacher Education International Educational Design: The sequence of in-
Conference 2010 (pp. 2390-2397). Chesapeake, structional activities planned to be delivered in
VA: AACE. an educational or learning event.
267

Educational Technologies: technologies that Resource Sharing: Sharing and curation of on-
can support learning or learners during educa- line resources using communication technologies.
tional events. Technology Enhancement: An enhancement,
Flipped Classroom: Classroom activities extension, or addition of technology intended to
requiring students to prepare for discussions and further support learning activities.
presentations by engaging with course topics prior
to the classroom activities.
268
269
Chapter 15
Learning through Web-
Based Authoring Tools
Tony Lee
University of Oklahoma, USA
Doo Hun Lim

University of Oklahoma, USA
ABSTRACT
The Web-based authoring tools are great additions to online education and training programs. This
chapter provides a portrait of roles and impacts of Web-based authoring tools in online learning envi-
ronments. With all the unique functions and options that are available in Web-based authoring tools,
it is not required for instructors and trainers to be Web development experts to create quality online
learning instructions that meet the needs of the multi-generational learners (i.e., traditionalist, baby
boomer, generation X, and generation Y). In addition, the Web-based authoring tools enable instructors
and trainers to create media-rich learning instructions and transform dry Web content into engaging
and exciting learning content. Besides recreating and transforming Web content, Web-based authoring
tools also play an important role in expanding learners’ attention spans and their readiness to learn.
INTRODUCTION The changes in technology, demographics of em-

ployees, globalization, and financial incentives
A review of the literature shows that online edu- have also driven corporate organizations to adopt
cation has been growing rapidly in the past few online training systems and methods for effective
years across higher education institutions and and timely learning and performance improve-
corporate organizations (Boling, Krinsky, Sal- ment (Ahmad & Tarmudi, 2012). The flexibility
eem, & Stevens, 2011; Liegle & Janicki, 2006). and convenience of online education and training
According to Allen and Seaman (2010), for the programs have provided many benefits to learners,
past 6 years, the number of students who enrolled instructors, and trainers. Learners who are working
in online education has grown substantially (i.e., full-time and juggling different responsibilities in
17% growth rate) compared to the traditional life (e.g., family, work, and community involve-
higher education enrollments (1.2% growth rate). ments) have an opportunity to learn and receive
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch015

Learning through Web-Based Authoring Tools
training without having to compromise important to simply develop and teach pedagogically oriented
personal times in their life (Daugherty & Funke, instructional content. The other is to create inter-
1998; Virvou & Alepis, 2003). Instructors and action rich learning environments so that learners
trainers not only have the capacity to develop and can be actively engaged and practice intended
implement their training programs at any time knowledge and skills to immediately perform dur-
and any place, but they also have the capacity ing the instruction or on the job (Murray, 1999).
to grade their learners’ assignments and provide In general, the authoring tools not only enable
feedback to them at their convenience. Despite instructors and trainers to build interactive online
all these benefits, some learners, instructors, and content for their teaching and training sessions,
trainers still have reservations towards online but they also enable instructors and trainers to
education and/or training programs. Instructors incorporate different functions or features such
and trainers who were born before the technol- as animations, audio, videos, discussion forums,
ogy era are concerned that they are not able to or hyperlinks to the learning instruction sites to
handle or resolve any technical problems that may capture their learners’ interest and motivation.
incur in delivering training programs through the
Internet. On the other hand, older adult learners
who are new to online education or online training ROLES OF WEB-BASED
programs are fearful that their unfamiliarity with AUTHORING TOOLS IN
computer hardware, multimedia software or web LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
authoring and conference tools may hinder online
learning (Kuchinke, Aragon, & Bartlett, 2001). Web-based authoring tools such as Microsoft
Furthermore, learners who perceive the role of Dreamweaver, NetObjects Fusion, or SyberWorks
instructor-learner interactions as the determining Web Author are great additions to online educa-
factor of instructional satisfaction and academic tion. They are easy and cost-effective alternative
success are concerned that online education or tools to develop and implement instructional or
training programs may not be able to deliver those training programs (Virou & Alepis, 2003). In us-
human interaction elements that they receive in ing these kinds of tools, instructors and trainers
the classroom settings (Kearsley & Moore, 1996). are not required to become web design experts
Web-based authoring tools, the software pack- in developing web rich instructional content and
ages that allow authors (i.e., instructors or trainers) interactions. They can start creating and develop-
to create interactive and media-rich documents on ing their instructional content as soon as they have
webpages, are great solutions for instructors and familiarized themselves with the basic functions
trainers in addressing their instructional devel- of those web-based content authoring tools.
opment and implementation matters (Mai, n.d.). Nowadays, web-based authoring tools are
Web-based authoring tools range from simple tools commonly used in for-profit and not-for-profit
(e.g., Prezi or Articulate) that allow instructors and U.S. higher education institutions and corporate
trainers to convert their instructional PowerPoint organizations for online education and training
slides to online learning materials to advanced programs. In recent years, many U.S. institutions
software that enables authors to create complex have started to expand their business prospects by
online learning content (e.g., Macromedia Dream- creating and developing online degree programs
weaver, NetObjects Fusion, ZebraZapps, or Course that enable them to recruit more U.S.- and foreign-
Builder) (Berking, 2013). Web-based authoring born students (Howell, Williams, & Lindsay,
tools can be classified into two categories based 2003; Lederman, 2013). For example, the Penn
on the purpose of instruction. One is to use them State World Campus, one of the well-recognized
270

U.S. institutions, offers various online programs the instructional content and activities and convert
(i.e., associate, bachelor, master, and certificate) their instructional content lesson-by-lesson or all
to students in the U.S. and around the world. As at once. These tools have indeed simplified the
reported by Dawson (2013), in 2013, a total of process of creating online education and training
13,287 students representing different countries programs. It is no longer the programming experts’
(e.g., U.S., South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, and responsibility to create or develop instructional
Germany) enrolled in their online certificate or programs on the web. Furthermore, web-based
degree programs, which was a 9 percent increase authoring tools enable instructors and trainers
from the previous year. Similarly, many corporate to improve the quality of online instructions or
organizations, especially those that have branches training programs by incorporating various audio,
all over the U.S. or in foreign countries (e.g., airline video or animation features to make their web
companies, Dell, John Deere), have also utilized content more interesting and lively. Additionally,
web-based authoring tools to develop and offer some instructors may even use the authoring tools
more online training and professional develop- to create personalized tutoring services for learn-
ment programs. It not only saves the organizations ers who need additional support and assistance
large sums of training expenses, but also provides for their learning. Instead of using plain text or
more learning opportunities for the organizations’ dull human voices to teach on the web, they can
employees. As evidence of this booming trend create tutoring animation characters that can be
of online learning and training, IBIS reported programmed to produce different effects (i.e.,
that corporate organizations spent $91billion in voices, movements, reaction speed) to resemble
educating and training their employees through human characteristics.
e-learning and web-based training programs From the learners’ perspective, web-based
(2012). They also predict that this expenditure authoring tools have provided learning and train-
will increase 23% by 2017. ing accessibility to different types of learners,
In addition, web-based authoring tools have especially learners who are severely ill or have
affected the instructors, trainers, and learners disabilities. Children with terminal diseases no
within the organizations. From the instructors’ longer need to be left behind; instead, they can
and trainers’ perspectives, web-based authoring learn and connect with their peers and instructors
tools have become useful tools for instructors and at home or in their hospital bed. Also, web-based
trainers to actively engage in online learning and authoring tools can make quality education and
training programs as well as to develop online in- training programs more affordable for the learners.
structional programs with limited programming or For example, learners who have been dreaming
web development skills. Instead of spending time about pursuing a higher education degree from a
learning HyperText Markup Language (HTML) U.S. institution but cannot afford to spend enor-
or any programming languages, instructors and mous amounts of money for the living expenses can
trainers can either work from the Word files or the now make their dreams come true via online edu-
templates that are available in the web authoring cation that is developed by web-based authoring
tools in order to develop instructional content. tools. In addition, with all the navigation controls
Most of the templates consist of the WYSIWYG and bookmarking options that are available in the
(What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) interface, web authoring tools, learners may find it easier
which enables instructors and trainers to visualize to search for specific instructions on the web.
their web content outcomes as they design and Also, the bookmarking or downloading option
edit their learning instructions. Once they have allows learners to download and save a copy of
completed their design phase, they can streamline the instructional content on their computer’s local
271

disk drive or Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive, improved the quality of online learning, delivery
which enables them to have access to the learn- methods, and accessibility of online education
ing instructions at their convenience. Further, the and training programs.
web authoring tools provide functions that allow
learners to receive constant feedback from their
instructors and trainers. GENERATIONAL LEARNING STYLES
While web-based authoring tools provide so
many benefits and advantages over traditional According to Coates (2007), there are four dif-
learning and training design methods, some re- ferent generations of adults living, working, and
searchers indicate several disadvantages of web- learning within the same society. Those are:
based authoring tools (Arthur, 2014). First, one traditionalists, baby boomers, generation X, and
potential problem is that it may limit instructional generation Y. Each generation has its own unique
designers’ and content developers’ creativity by characteristics and group personalities but they
requiring them to use the embedded templates also have different perceptions of learning. To
or content development sequences employed better understand the four generational learners,
by the web-based authoring tools. If this is the this section will cover the characteristics of each
case, instructional content created by the same generation, their learning style differences, and
web-based authoring tools will have very similar perceptions of learning.
looks and features. Second, based on the selected Regarding generational difference, many
web-based authoring tool, instructional designers studies have been conducted and identified those
and content developers will have limited options unique differences found between each genera-
in terms of incorporating media types, interaction (Karp, Fuller, & Sirias, 2002; Lancaster &
tive learning activities, evaluation components, Stillman, 2002; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak,
navigation menus, etc. Third, too much reliance 2000). While some studies indicate slightly dif-
on the selected web-based authoring tools may ferent interpretations about the age spectrum and
create long-term viability of the instructional characteristics of the four generations, we have
and training programs that may be caused by the reviewed all those differences and synthesized
sudden unavailability of the selected web-based them into agreeable integration. Table 1 illustrates
authoring tools. Lastly, technical problems such the general characteristics of the four generations.
as Internet outage or server malfunctioning may When we searched numerous articles about
create difficulties for instructional designers and generational differences in learning style, we
content developers whereas they will not have such found very few studies examined the effect of
problems in using desktop based authoring tools. generational differences on how each generation
In sum, web-based authoring tools have learns. Among them, Honigsfeld and Dunn (2006)
provided many benefits to institutions and orga- identified different learning characteristics of the
nizations. It can provide much convenience and four generations. Schaie (1995) indicated that
flexibility to instructors, trainers, and learners in adult learners’ cognitive abilities such as verbal
online education or training programs. Instruc- comprehension, inductive reasoning, and verbal
tors and trainers have the ability to create and memory have changed as they become older,
re-structure their online instructions to make them which provides an important clue to apply differ-
consistent, engaging, and user-friendly for their ent strategies for individual learning for different
learners. Also, web-based authoring tools have generations. The following section provides de-
272

Table 1. Differences in the characteristics of the four generations
Traditionals Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y

Work ethics & values Hard working Workaholic Work only as hard as Similar with
Discipline Optimism needed generation X
Involvement Skepticism Realism
Informality Confidence
Social
Attitudes towards Value conformity Uncomfortable Not impressed with titles Believe that respect
authority interacting with authority and easily interact with must be earned
authority
Work/life balance Sacrifice personal life Similar with Value work/life balance Value work/life
for work traditionalists balance
Preferred leadership Credible Credible Credible Listens well
style Listens well Trusted Trusted Dependable
Trusted Farsighted Farsighted Dedicated
Preferred way for Classroom instruction Classroom instruction On the job On the job
learning On the job On the job Classroom instruction Technology-based
Work books and manuals Work books and manuals One-on-one coaching One-on-one coaching
Communications Formal In person Direct E-mail
Memo Immediate Voice mail
Texting
*Adapted from “Mixing and managing four generations of employees,” by Hammill, G. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.fdu.edu/
newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm
tailed explanation about the four generations and that involve technology such as online or blended
how instructors and instructional designers utilize learning. Therefore, classroom-based lectures
unique approaches for instructional development or learning are recommended as appropriate
and instructional activities meeting the different alternatives for traditionalist learners. According
learning needs of each generation. to the Defense Centers of Excellence, trainers
can improve traditionalists’ learning motivation
Traditionalist by providing a brief history and context of the
learning materials and explaining the relevance
The traditionalist generation was born before 1946. of the training instructions to the organizational
Occasionally, people also refer to them as the goals. Even though they are reluctant dealing
“Veterans” or “Silent Generation.” The majority with ambiguity and change (Zemke et al., 2000),
of them are retired or at least approaching their they view learning as an opportunity for them to
retirement; therefore, the number of traditionalists develop their leadership skills in organizations.
who choose to pursue higher education is almost
non-existent. However, a small percentage of them Baby Boomer
are still in the workforce. Traditionalists generally
are more conservative and disciplined than other People in this generation were born between 1946
generations. They value formality, well-structured and 1964. The majority of the baby boomers are
environments, and respect for authority (Kersten, still in the workforce; however, most of them are
2002). Since traditionalists were born before the either in the mid- or late part of their careers.
technology era, they are not keen with technology; Baby boomers are optimistic and hard working;
as a result, they do not like any types of learning a small percentage of the baby boomers are back
273

in school to acquire new knowledge and skillsets Generational Y

for new careers. They firmly believe that working
hard and making sacrifices are the pathways to The Yers were born between 1982 and 2000. At
success (Tolbize, 2008). Baby boomers are more times, people also call this generation as “Nexters”,
motivated to learn when they can visualize and “Millennials”, or “The Digital Generation” (Mc-
understand the relevance of the learning instruc- Craw & Martindale, n.d.; Oblinger & Oblinger,
tions to their career goals or professional goals. 2005). The Yers were born in the technology era,
Similar to the traditionalists, they were also born so they are more technology savvy than the other
prior to the technology era. Notwithstanding that generations (Lancaster, 2004). Since an early age,
they are as technologically challenged as the tradi- the Yers have started to use technology to social-
tionalists, they never let it hinder them from being ize and network with their peers, and access the
successful. Instead, some of them would sign up current media and information that is important to
for training courses to help them overcome the fear them. They are used to having 24-hour information
of using technology for learning, whereas others access, so they always expect quick responses from
would select a learning method (e.g., lecture or their peers, colleagues, or instructors. The Yers
workshop) that works well for them. were heavily influenced by their parents when
they were kids; they have developed a strong sense
Generational X of confidence within them and believe they can
achieve anything as long as they set their mind
The Xers were born between 1965 and 1981, and to it. Similar to the Xers, the Yers also put high
have the smallest population size among all four value on education. Most Yers continue to pur-
generations. Growing up with two working parents, sue higher education degrees after high school,
the Xers have learned to become very independent which makes them the dominant group in U.S.
at a young age, but skeptical (Zemke et al., 2000). higher education institutions. The Yers are very
Their self-reliance characteristic has also made comfortable with online education. In fact, many
them known as the latchkey generation (Oblinger Yers even prefer taking online courses instead of
& Oblinger, 2005). Unlike the traditionalists and the traditional classroom courses because online
baby boomers, the Xers greatly value continuing courses give them the flexibility that they want.
education and skill development (Bova & Kroth, For example, they can stay up at 2 a.m. to study
2001); therefore, they always seek professional for their courses or do their assignments and sleep
development opportunities within or outside their in the next morning. Online training programs
organizations, or enroll in different college courses have also become popular demands for the Yers
or degree programs to better themselves. They are due to their flexibility and convenience features.
definitely more educated than their parents. Even
though most Xers were born before the technology
era, they are very comfortable with technology IMPACTS OF WEB-BASED
because they use technology for daily personal AUTHORING TOOLS IN
communication and interactions. Further, they ONLINE LEARNING
also utilize technology (e.g., Internet, email, copy
machine, scanner) at their workplace. Since the The learning culture has shifted in today’s society.
Xers are very independent and self-motivated, in- In the late 1990’s, teaching with texts and chalk
structors and trainers can adopt the individualistic boards were common practices across schools, col-
learning approach to teach and provide feedback leges, universities, and training centers; however,
to the learners. today’s classrooms no longer rely solely on text
274

and chalk boards, especially in higher education can improve the quality of the online learning
and training centers. Instructors and trainers have environment and instructions as well as address-
incorporated various technological tools (e.g., ing the attention spans for learning issue. Also,
smartboard, smartphones, laptops, and tablets) into instructors and trainers can transform the dry and
their teaching and training programs to meet the boring learning content into something more fun,
needs of the changing technology and demograph- lively and exciting. Subsequently, it can improve
ics (Gunasekaran, McNeal, & Shaul, 2002). Acton learners’ interest and their readiness to learn.
et al. (2005) share that learning satisfaction is a Despite online education and training programs
key element in determining the effectiveness of have provided many benefits to learners, a major
online education and training programs; therefore, challenge that learners face is the lack of oppor-
instructors and trainers need to pay attention to tunity for them to meet their peers and instruc-
the details of the learning instructions and online tors face-to-face. Since most of the web-based
software tools that are used to design and support authoring tools work in conjunction with different
online education programs. Learning Management Systems (LMS), instruc-
Web-based authoring tools are useful tools for tors and trainers can encourage learners to com-
creating and developing online education and train- municate synchronously and/or asynchronously
ing programs. With all the unique functions and via the online chat or discussion forum. Learners
options that are available in the tools, instructors can also utilize the audio and video functions as
and trainers are able to design more media rich alternatives for them to communicate with their
learning instructions. In addition, the web author- peers and instructors.
ing tools allow instructors and trainers to provide Another major concern that instructors and
more adaptive guidance mechanism to accommo- trainers have with online learning is to measure
date the learning needs of the multi-generational the learning outcomes of the learners. Without
learners. Based on the generational learning styles the learning outcomes, instructors and trainers
descriptions, all four generational learners possess will not be able to assess the effectiveness of their
different attributes, needs, and motivations for learning instructions and delivery methods. To
learning. Therefore, finding ways to close the gaps overcome the issue, instructors and trainers can
among all four generational learners are crucial utilize the quiz templates that are available in
for instructors and trainers. For traditionalists the web-based authoring tools to create pre- and
and baby boomers who value structured learning post-quizzes to evaluate the learning outcomes
environments, instructors and trainers can utilize and the effectiveness of the learning instructions
the web-based authoring tools to streamline the and delivery methods.
instructional activities and directions. Also, they
can improve the navigation and accessibility of
the web content by adding navigation functions CONCLUSION
or options to the web content. This is extremely
useful for traditionalists and baby boomers who Web-based authoring tools are valuable additions
have limited computer knowledge and skills. to online education and training programs. They
In contrast, the Xers and Yers who are more not only have enabled institutions, instructors, and
knowledgeable about technology have fewer is- trainers to provide a more well-rounded education
sues with web content navigation; however, they and user-friendly learning environment for their
tend to struggle with attention spans for learning. learners, but they have also enabled instructors
The video, audio, and animation functions that and trainers to create and extend more effective
are available through web-based authoring tools online education and training programs to learn-
275

ers without needing to become web developer IBIS Capital. (2014, January 19). Global e-
experts. Furthermore, web-based authoring tools Learning investment review. Retrieved from http://
allow instructors and trainers to craft quality www.ibiscapital.co.uk/
learning programs that meet the needs of the
Coates, J. (2007). Generational learning styles.
multi-generational learners.
River Fall, WI: Lern Books.
Daugherty, M., & Funke, B. L. (1998). University
REFERENCES faculty and student perceptions of web-based in-
struction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1),
Acton, T., Scott, M., & Hill, S. (2005). E-educa- 21–39.
tion: Keys to success for organization. In Proceed-
ings of 18th Bled eCommerce Conference. Bled, Dawson, M. (2013, October 28). World campus
Slovenia: Academic Press. drives Penn State enrollment to all-time high.
Centre Daily Times. Retrieved from http://www.
Ahmad, M. A., & Tarmudi, S. M. (2012). Genera- centredaily.com/2013/10/28/3858688/world-
tional differences in satisfaction with e-learning campus-drives-penn-state.html
among higher learning institution staff. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 304–311. Defense Centers of Excellence. (n.d.). Gen-
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.333 erational learning styles. Retrieved from http://
www.dcoe.mil/content/Navigation/Documents/
Arthur, L. (2014, January 17). The advantages Fact%20Sheet_Generational%20Learning%20
& disadvantages of using a web-authoring ap- Styles.pdf
plication. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.
chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-using- Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R. D., & Shaul, D.
webauthoring-application-27288.html (2002). E-learning: Research and application.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(2), 44.
Berking, P. (2013, June 3). Choosing Authoring doi:10.1108/00197850210417528
Tools: Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL)
Co-Laboratories. Retrieved from http://www.adl- Hammill, G. (2005). Mixing and managing four
net.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/Choosing- generations of employees. FDU Magazine Online.
Authoring-Tools-3.pdf Retrieved from http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/
magazine/05ws/generations.htm
Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem,
H., & Stevens, M. (2011). Cutting the distance in Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2006). Learning style
distance education: Perspectives on what promotes characteristics of adult learners. Delta Kappa
positive, online learning experiences. Internet and Gamma Bulletin, 72(2), 14–31.
Higher Education, 15, 118-126. Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N.
Bova, B., & Kroth, M. (2001). Workplace learning K. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance
and Generation X. Journal of Workplace Learning, education: An informed foundation for strategic
13(2), 57–65. doi:10.1108/13665620110383645 planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 6(3).
276

Karp, H., Fuller, C., & Sirias, D. (2002). Bridging McCraw, M. A., & Martindale, T. (n.d.). Growth
the boomer Xer gap: Creating authentic teams of the multi-generational student population.
for high performance at work. Palo Alto, CA: Academic Press.
Davies-Black Publishing.
Murray, T. (1999). Authoring intelligent tutor-
Kearsley, G., & Moore, M. G. (2011). Distance ing systems: An analysis of the state of the art.
Education: A systems view of online learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Education, 10, 98–129.
Kersten, D. (2002, November 15). Today’s Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age
generations face new communication gaps. or IT: First steps toward understanding the net
USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30. generation. Educating the Net Generation, 1-20.
usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/
Schaie, K. W. (1995). Cohort-sequential longitu-
communication/2002-11-15-communication-
dinal studies of personality and intelligence. In A.
gap_x.htm
Krusel, & R. Schmidt-Scherzer (Eds.), Psycholo-
Kuchinke, P., Aragon, S. R., & Bartlett, K. (2001). gie der lebensalter (pp. 201–208). Darmstadt,
Online instructional delivery: Lessons from the Germany: Steinkopf. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-
instructor’s perspective. Performance Improve- 87993-7_19
ment, 40(1), 19–27. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140400107
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in
Lancaster, L. C. (2014, January 12). When genera- the workplace. Research and Training Center on
tions collide: How to solve the generational puzzle Community Living, 1-21.
at work. Retrieved from http://www.washing-
Virvou, M., & Alepis, E. (2003). Creative tutor-
tonandco.com/pdf/when_generations_collide.pdf
ing characters through a web-based authoring
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When tool for educational software. Systems. Man and
generations collide: Who they are, why they clash, Cybernetics, 5, 4884–4889.
How to solve the generational puzzle at work.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000).
London, U.K.: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Generations at Work: Managing the clash of
Lederman, D. (2013). Growth for online learning. Veterans, Boomers, Xers and Nexters in your
Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www. workplace. Washington, DC: American Manage-
insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/08/survey- ment Association.
finds-online-enrollments-slow-continue-grow
Liegle, J. O., & Janicki, T. N. (2006). The effect
of learning styles on the navigation needs of Web- KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
based learners. Computers in Human Behavior,
22, 885–898. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.024 Asynchronous: Activities or events that do
not take place in real time.
Mai, M. N. (n.d.). Technology-based learning: For-Profit Institutions: Institutions that are
Using web authoring tools to enhance instruction founded with the mission of generating profits
in the classroom. Academic Press. for owners and shareholders through education
services.
277

HyperText Markup Language (HTML): Universal Serial Bus (USB): A portable

A programming language that enables author to device that allows user to store information tem-
write, develop, and edit web pages. porarily.
Non-Traditional Learners: Learners who are Web-Based Authoring Tools: Web-design
above the normal age group (18-24 years old). software packages that allow authors to create,
Not-for-Profit Institutions: Institutions that develop, and edit online learning instructions
are set up to serve students, and prepare them for without any programming knowledge and skillsets.
graduation and a successful career. What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get (WYSI-
Synchronous: Activities or events that take WYG): A user interface that allows authors to
place in real time. visualize the end result of their work while they
Templates: Pre-developed standard layouts are working towards it.
that authors can use to create webpages consis-
tently.
278
279
Related References
To continue our tradition of advancing research in the field of education, we have compiled a list of recommended IGI
Global readings. These references will provide additional information and guidance to further enrich your knowledge
and assist you with your own research and future publications.
Abrami, P. C., Savage, R. S., Deleveaux, G., Aldana-Vargas, M. F., Gras-Martí, A., Montoya,
Wade, A., Meyer, E., & LeBel, C. (2010). The J., & Osorio, L. A. (2013). Pedagogical counsel-
learning toolkit: The design, development, testing program development through an adapted
ing and dissemination of evidence-based educa- community of inquiry framework. In Z. Akyol,
tional software. In P. Zemliansky, & D. Wilcox & D. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities
(Eds.), Design and implementation of educational of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and
games: Theoretical and practical perspectives practice (pp. 350–373). Hershey, PA: Information
(pp. 168–188). Hershey, PA: Information Science Science Reference.
Reference.
Alegre, O. M., & Villar, L. M. (2011). Faculty
Ackfeldt, A., & Malhotra, N. (2012). Do mana- professional learning: An examination of online
gerial strategies influence service behaviours? development and assessment environments.
Insights from a qualitative study. In R. Eid (Ed.), In G. Vincenti, & J. Braman (Eds.), Teaching
Successful customer relationship management through multi-user virtual environments: Apply-
programs and technologies: Issues and trends ing dynamic elements to the modern classroom
(pp. 174–187). Hershey, PA: Business Science (pp. 66–93). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference. Reference.
Adi, A., & Scotte, C. G. (2013). Barriers to emerg- Alegre, O. M., & Villar, L. M. (2012). Faculty
ing technology and social media integration in professional learning: An examination of online
higher education: Three case studies. In M. Pătruţ, development and assessment environments. In
& B. Pătruţ (Eds.), Social media in higher educa- Organizational learning and knowledge: Con-
tion: Teaching in web 2.0 (pp. 334–354). Hershey, cepts, methodologies, tools and applications
PA: Information Science Reference. (pp. 305–331). Hershey, PA: Business Science
Reference.
Related References
Alegre-Rosa, O. M., & Villar-Angulo, L. M. Austin, R., & Anderson, J. (2006). Re-schooling
(2010). Training of teachers in virtual scenario: and information communication technology:
An excellence model for quality assurance in for- A case study of Ireland. In L. Tan Wee Hin, &
mative programmes. In S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research
(Eds.), Cases on transnational learning and tech- on literacy in technology at the K-12 level (pp.
nologically enabled environments (pp. 190–213). 176–194). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Reference.
Andegherghis, S. (2012). Technology and tra- Ayling, D., Owen, H., & Flagg, E. (2014). From
ditional teaching. In I. Chen, & D. McPheeters basic participation to transformation: Immersive
(Eds.), Cases on educational technology integra- virtual professional development. In S. Leone
tion in urban schools (pp. 74–79). Hershey, PA: (Ed.), Synergic integration of formal and infor-
Information Science Reference. mal e-learning environments for adult lifelong
learners (pp. 47–74). Hershey, PA: Information
Anderson, K. H., & Muirhead, W. (2013). Blending
Science Reference.
storytelling with technology in the professional
development of police officers. In H. Yang, & Ayoola, K. A. (2010). An appraisal of a computer-
S. Wang (Eds.), Cases on formal and informal based continuing professional development (CPD)
e-learning environments: Opportunities and Course for Nigerian English teachers and teacher-
practices (pp. 143–165). Hershey, PA: Informa- trainers. In R. Taiwo (Ed.), Handbook of research
tion Science Reference. on discourse behavior and digital communication:
Language structures and social interaction (pp.
Anderson, S., & Oyarzun, B. (2013). Multi-modal
642–650). Hershey, PA: Information Science
professional development for faculty. In J. Keen-
Reference.
gwe, & L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Virtual mentor-
ing for teachers: Online professional development Baia, P. (2011). The trend of commitment: Peda-
practices (pp. 43–65). Hershey, PA: Information gogical quality and adoption. In S. D’Agustino
Science Reference. (Ed.), Adaptation, resistance and access to
instructional technologies: Assessing future
Annetta, L. A., Holmes, S., & Cheng, M. (2012).
trends in education (pp. 273–315). Hershey, PA:
Measuring student perceptions: Designing an
Information Science Reference.
evidenced centered activity model for a serious
educational game development software. In R. Banas, J. R., & Velez-Solic, A. (2013). Designing
Ferdig, & S. de Freitas (Eds.), Interdisciplinary effective online instructor training and professional
advancements in gaming, simulations and virtual development. In J. Keengwe, & L. Kyei-Blankson
environments: Emerging trends (pp. 165–182). (Eds.), Virtual mentoring for teachers: Online
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. professional development practices (pp. 1–25).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
280
Related References
Banks, W. P., & Van Sickle, T. (2011). Digital Begg, M., Dewhurst, D., & Ross, M. (2010). Game
partnerships for professional development: Re- informed virtual patients: Catalysts for online
thinking university–public school collaborations. learning communities and professional develop-
In M. Bowdon, & R. Carpenter (Eds.), Higher ment of medical teachers. In J. Lindberg, & A.
education, emerging technologies, and community Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities
partnerships: Concepts, models and practices and teacher professional development: Methods
(pp. 153–163). Hershey, PA: Information Science for improved education delivery (pp. 190–208).
Reference. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Barbour, M. K., Siko, J., Gross, E., & Waddell, Begg, M., Dewhurst, D., & Ross, M. (2010).
K. (2013). Virtually unprepared: Examining the Game informed virtual patients: Catalysts for
preparation of K-12 online teachers. In R. Harts- online learning communities and professional
horne, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher development of medical teachers. In R. Luppicini,
education programs and online learning tools: & A. Haghi (Eds.), Cases on digital technologies
Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 60–81). in higher education: Issues and challenges (pp.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. 304–322). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Bartlett, J. E. II, & Bartlett, M. E. (2009). Innova-
tive strategies for preparing and developing career Benton, C. J., White, O. L., & Stratton, S. K.
and technical education leaders. In V. Wang (Ed.), (2014). Collaboration not competition: Interna-
Handbook of research on e-learning applications tional education expanding perspectives on learn-
for career and technical education: Technologies ing and workforce articulation. In V. Wang (Ed.),
for vocational training (pp. 248–261). Hershey, International education and the next-generation
PA: Information Science Reference. workforce: Competition in the global economy
(pp. 64–82). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Baylen, D. M., & Glacken, J. (2007). Promoting
Reference.
lifelong learning online: A case study of a pro-
fessional development experience. In Y. Inoue Benus, M. J., Yarker, M. B., Hand, B. M., &
(Ed.), Online education for lifelong learning (pp. Norton-Meier, L. A. (2013). Analysis of discourse
229–252). Hershey, PA: Information Science practices in elementary science classrooms using
Publishing. argument-based inquiry during whole-class dia-
logue. In M. Khine, & I. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches
Beedle, J., & Wang, S. (2013). Roles of a tech-
and strategies in next generation science learning
nology leader. In S. Wang, & T. Hartsell (Eds.),
Technology integration and foundations for ef-
Reference.
fective leadership (pp. 228–241). Hershey, PA:
281
Related References
Betts, K., Kramer, R., & Gaines, L. L. (2013). Bober, M. J. (2009). Ensuring quality in technol-
Online faculty and adjuncts: Strategies for meeting ogy-focused professional development. In P. Rog-
current and future demands of online education ers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice,
through online human touch training and support. & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance
In M. Raisinghani (Ed.), Curriculum, learning, learning (2nd ed., pp. 924–931). Hershey, PA:
and teaching advancements in online education Information Science Reference.
Boling, E. C., & Beatty, J. (2012). Overcoming
Reference.
the tensions and challenges of technology integra-
Biesinger, K. D., & Crippen, K. J. (2010). De- tion: How can we best support our teachers? In R.
signing and delivering technology integration to Ronau, C. Rakes, & M. Niess (Eds.), Educational
engage students. In J. Yamamoto, J. Leight, S. technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom
Winterton, & C. Penny (Eds.), Technology lead- impact: A research handbook on frameworks and
ership in teacher education: Integrated solutions approaches (pp. 136–156). Hershey, PA: Informa-
and experiences (pp. 298–313). Hershey, PA: tion Science Publishing.
Bovard, B., Bussmann, S., Parra, J., & Gonzales,
Bledsoe, C., & Pilgrim, J. (2013). Three instruc- C. (2010). Transitioning to e-learning: Teaching
tional models to integrate technology and build the teachers. In Web-based education: Concepts,
21st century literacy skills. In J. Whittingham, S. methodologies, tools and applications (pp.
Huffman, W. Rickman, & C. Wiedmaier (Eds.), 259–276). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Technological tools for the literacy classroom Reference.
Bowskill, N. (2009). Informal learning projects and
Reference.
world wide voluntary co-mentoring. In P. Rogers,
Bloom, L., & Dole, S. (2014). Virtual school of G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K.
the smokies. In S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi (Eds.), Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning
Handbook of research on transnational higher (2nd ed., pp. 1169–1177). Hershey, PA: Informa-
education (pp. 674–689). Hershey, PA: Informa- tion Science Reference.
tion Science Reference.
Bowskill, N., & McConnell, D. (2010). Collabora-
Bober, M. J. (2005). Ensuring quality in tech- tive reflection in globally distributed inter-cultural
nology-focused professional development. In course teams. In G. Berg (Ed.), Cases on online
C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. Justice, K. Schenk, tutoring, mentoring, and educational services:
P. Rogers, & G. Berg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Practices and applications (pp. 172–184). Her-
distance learning (pp. 845–852). Hershey, PA: shey, PA: Information Science Reference.
282
Related References
Bradley, J. B., Rachal, J., & Harper, L. (2013). On- Burgess, M. (2013). Using second life to support
line professional development for adults: Utilizing student teachers’ socio-reflective practice: A
andragogical methods in research and practice. In mixed-method analysis. In R. Lansiquot (Ed.),
V. Bryan, & V. Wang (Eds.), Technology use and Cases on interdisciplinary research trends in
research approaches for community education and science, technology, engineering, and mathemat-
professional development (pp. 171–193). Hershey, ics: Studies on urban classrooms (pp. 107–127).
PA: Information Science Reference. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Braun, P. (2013). Clever health: A study on the Burner, K. J. (2012). Web 2.0, the individual, and
adoption and impact of an ehealth initiative in the organization: Privacy, confidentiality, and
rural Australia. In M. Cruz-Cunha, I. Miranda, compliance. In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.),
& P. Gonçalves (Eds.), Handbook of research Virtual professional development and informal
on ICTs and management systems for improv- learning via social networks (pp. 25–38). Hershey,
ing efficiency in healthcare and social care (pp. PA: Information Science Reference.
69–87). Hershey, PA: Medical Information Sci-
Buzzetto-More, N. (2010). Applications of second
ence Reference.
life. In H. Song, & T. Kidd (Eds.), Handbook of
Breen, P. (2014). An intramuscular approach to research on human performance and instructional
teacher development in international collabora- technology (pp. 149–162). Hershey, PA: Informa-
tive higher education. In S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi tion Science Reference.
(Eds.), Handbook of research on transnational
Bynog, M. (2013). Development of a technology
higher education (pp. 368–390). Hershey, PA:
plan. In S. Wang, & T. Hartsell (Eds.), Technology
integration and foundations for effective leader-
Brown, C. A., & Neal, R. E. (2013). Definition ship (pp. 88–101). Hershey, PA: Information
and history of online professional development. Science Reference.
In J. Keengwe, & L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Vir-
Calway, B. A., & Murphy, G. A. (2011). A work-
tual mentoring for teachers: Online professional
integrated learning philosophy and the educational
development practices (pp. 182–203). Hershey,
imperatives. In P. Keleher, A. Patil, & R. Harreveld
PA: Information Science Reference.
(Eds.), Work-integrated learning in engineering,
Brown, C. W., & Peters, K. A. (2013). STEM aca- built environment and technology: Diversity of
demic enrichment and professional development practice in practice (pp. 1–24). Hershey, PA:
programs for K-12 urban students and teachers. In Information Science Reference.
R. Lansiquot (Ed.), Cases on interdisciplinary re-
Carlén, U., & Lindström, B. (2012). Informed
search trends in science, technology, engineering,
design of educational activities in online learn-
and mathematics: Studies on urban classrooms
ing communities. In A. Olofsson, & J. Lindberg
(Eds.), Informed design of educational technolo-
Reference.
gies in higher education: Enhanced learning and
teaching (pp. 118–134). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
283
Related References
Cassidy, A., Sipos, Y., & Nyrose, S. (2014). Sup- Clouse, N. K., Williams, S. R., & Evans, R. D.
porting sustainability education and leadership: (2011). Developing an online mentoring program
Strategies for students, faculty, and the planet. In for beginning teachers. In S. D’Agustino (Ed.),
S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi (Eds.), Handbook of Adaptation, resistance and access to instructional
research on transnational higher education (pp. technologies: Assessing future trends in education
207–231). Hershey, PA: Information Science (pp. 410–428). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference. Reference.
Cavanagh, T. B. (2011). Leveraging online univer- Colomo-Palacios, R., Tovar-Caro, E., García-Cre-
sity education to improve K-12 science education: spo, Á., & Gómez-Berbís, J. M. (2012). Identifying
The ScienceMaster case study. In M. Bowdon, & technical competences of IT professionals: The
R. Carpenter (Eds.), Higher education, emerg- case of software engineers. In R. Colomo-Palacios
ing technologies, and community partnerships: (Ed.), Professional advancements and manage-
Concepts, models and practices (pp. 221–233). ment trends in the IT sector (pp. 1–14). Hershey,
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. PA: Information Science Publishing.
Chapman, D. L. (2013). Overview of technology Corbeil, M. E., & Corbeil, J. R. (2012). Creating
plans. In S. Wang, & T. Hartsell (Eds.), Technol- ongoing online support communities through
ogy integration and foundations for effective social networks to promote professional learn-
leadership (pp. 71–87). Hershey, PA: Information ing. In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual
Science Reference. professional development and informal learning
via social networks (pp. 114–133). Hershey, PA:
Chapman, D. L., Bynog, M., & Yocom, H.
(2013). Assessment, evaluation, and revision
of a technology plan. In S. Wang, & T. Hartsell Corbitt, B., Holt, D., & Segrave, S. (2008). Stra-
(Eds.), Technology integration and foundations tegic design for web-based teaching and learning:
for effective leadership (pp. 124–150). Hershey, Making corporate technology systems work for the
PA: Information Science Reference. learning organization. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Online
and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies,
Chylinski, R., & Hanewald, R. (2009). Creat-
tools, and applications (pp. 897–904). Hershey,
ing supportive environments for CALL teacher
autonomy. In R. de Cássia Veiga Marriott, & P.
Lupion Torres (Eds.), Handbook of research on Corbitt, B., Holt, D. M., & Segrave, S. (2008).
e-learning methodologies for language acquisi- Strategic design for web-based teaching and
tion (pp. 387–408). Hershey, PA: Information learning: Making corporate technology system
Science Reference. work for the learning organization. In L. Esnault
(Ed.), Web-based education and pedagogical
Chylinski, R., & Hanewald, R. (2011). Creating
technologies: Solutions for learning applications
supportive environments for CALL teacher au-
(pp. 280–302). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
tonomy. In Instructional design: Concepts, meth-
odologies, tools and applications (pp. 840–860).
284
Related References
Coutinho, C. P. (2010). Challenges for teacher Cunningham, C. A., & Harrison, K. (2011).
education in the learning society: Case studies of The affordances of second life for education.
promising practice. In H. Yang, & S. Yuen (Eds.), In G. Vincenti, & J. Braman (Eds.), Teaching
Handbook of research on practices and outcomes through multi-user virtual environments: Apply-
in e-learning: Issues and trends (pp. 385–401). ing dynamic elements to the modern classroom
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. (pp. 94–119). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Cowie, B., Jones, A., & Harlow, A. (2011).
Technological infrastructure and implementation Curwood, J. S. (2014). From collaboration to
environments: The case of laptops for New Zealand transformation: Practitioner research for school
teachers. In S. D’Agustino (Ed.), Adaptation, re- librarians and classroom teachers. In K. Kennedy,
sistance and access to instructional technologies: & L. Green (Eds.), Collaborative models for librar-
Assessing future trends in education (pp. 40–52). ian and teacher partnerships (pp. 1–11). Hershey,
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. PA: Information Science Reference.
Crichton, S. (2007). A great wall of difference: Cuthell, J. P. (2010). Thinking things through:
Musings on instructional design in contempo- Collaborative online professional development.
rary China. In M. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online
design: Case studies in communities of practice learning communities and teacher professional
(pp. 91–105). Hershey, PA: Information Science development: Methods for improved education
Publishing. delivery (pp. 154–167). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Croasdaile, S. (2009). Inter-organizational e-
collaboration in education. In N. Kock (Ed.), D’Agustino, S., & King, K. P. (2011). Access and
E-collaboration: Concepts, methodologies, tools, advancement: Teacher transformation and student
and applications (pp. 1157–1170). Hershey, PA: empowerment through technology mentoring. In
Information Science Reference. S. D’Agustino (Ed.), Adaptation, resistance and
access to instructional technologies: Assessing
Croasdaile, S. (2009). Inter-organizational e-
future trends in education (pp. 362–380). Hershey,
collaboration in education. In J. Salmons, & L.
Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of research on elec-
tronic collaboration and organizational synergy Dana, N. F., Krell, D., & Wolkenhauer, R. (2013).
(pp. 16–29). Hershey, PA: Information Science Taking action research in teacher education online:
Reference. Exploring the possibilities. In R. Hartshorne, T.
Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education
Csoma, K. (2010). EPICT: Transnational teacher
programs and online learning tools: Innovations
development through blended learning. In S.
in teacher preparation (pp. 357–374). Hershey,
Mukerji, & P. Tripathi (Eds.), Cases on techno-
logical adaptability and transnational learning:
Issues and challenges (pp. 147–161). Hershey,
285
Related References
Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. Doherty, I. (2013). Achieving excellence in
(2013). ARTI: An online tool to support teacher teaching: A case study in embedding profes-
action research for technology integration. In R. sional development for teaching within a research-
Hartshorne, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher intensive university. In D. Salter (Ed.), Cases on
education programs and online learning tools: quality teaching practices in higher education
Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 375–391). (pp. 280–290). Hershey, PA: Information Science
De Simone, C., Marquis, T., & Groen, J. (2013). Donnelly, R. (2009). Transformative potential of
Optimizing conditions for learning and teaching constructivist blended problem-based learning
in K-20 education. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook in higher education. In C. Payne (Ed.), Informa-
of research on teaching and learning in K-20 tion technology and constructivism in higher
education (pp. 535–552). Hershey, PA: Informa- education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp.
tion Science Reference. 182–202). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Dennen, V. P., & Jiang, W. (2012). Twitter-based
knowledge sharing in professional networks: The Donnelly, R. (2010). The nature of complex
organization perspective. In V. Dennen, & J. blends: Transformative problem-based learning
Myers (Eds.), Virtual professional development and technology in Irish higher education. In Y.
and informal learning via social networks (pp. Inoue (Ed.), Cases on online and blended learning
241–255). Hershey, PA: Information Science technologies in higher education: Concepts and
Reference. practices (pp. 1–22). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Dexter, S. (2002). eTIPS - Educational technology
integration and implementation principles. In P. Donnelly, R., & O’Farrell, C. (2006). Construc-
Rogers (Ed.), Designing instruction for technol- tivist e-learning for staff engaged in coninuous
ogy-enhanced learning (pp. 56-70). Hershey, PA: professional development. In J. O’Donoghue (Ed.),
Idea Group Publishing. doi: doi:10.4018/978-1- Technology supported learning and teaching: A
930708-28-0.ch003 staff perspective (pp. 160–175). Hershey, PA:
Information Science Publishing.
Dickerson, J., Winslow, J., & Lee, C. Y. (2013).
Teacher training and technology: Current uses Downing, K. F., & Holtz, J. K. (2008). Virtual
and future trends. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of school science. In K. Downing, & J. Holtz (Eds.),
research on technologies for improving the 21st Online science learning: Best practices and tech-
century workforce: Tools for lifelong learning nologies (pp. 30–48). Hershey, PA: Information
(pp. 243–256). Hershey, PA: Information Science Science Publishing.
Publishing.
Ehmann Powers, C., & Hewett, B. L. (2008).
DiMarco, J. (2006). Cases and interviews. In J. Building online training programs for virtual
DiMarco (Ed.), Web portfolio design and appli- workplaces. In P. Zemliansky, & K. St.Amant
cations (pp. 222–276). Hershey, PA: Idea Group (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual work-
Publishing. places and the new nature of business practices
Reference.
286
Related References
Ellis, J. B., West, T. D., Grimaldi, A., & Root, G. Farmer, L. S. (2014). The roles of professional
(2013). Ernst & Young leadership and professional organizations in school library education. In V.
development center: Accounting designed for Wang (Ed.), International education and the next-
leaders. In R. Carpenter (Ed.), Cases on higher generation workforce: Competition in the global
education spaces: Innovation, collaboration, and economy (pp. 170–193). Hershey, PA: Information
technology (pp. 330–355). Hershey, PA: Informa- Science Reference.
Fok, A. W., & Ip, H. H. (2009). An agent-based
Falco, J. (2008). Leading the art of the conference: framework for personalized learning in continu-
Revolutionizing schooling through interactive ous professional development. In M. Syed (Ed.),
videoconferencing. In D. Newman, J. Falco, S. Strategic applications of distance learning tech-
Silverman, & P. Barbanell (Eds.), Videoconferenc- nologies (pp. 96–110). Hershey, PA: Information
ing technology in K-12 instruction: Best practices Science Reference.
and trends (pp. 133–143). Hershey, PA: Informa-
Fragaki, M., & Lionarakis, A. (2011). Education
for liberation: A transformative polymorphic
Farmer, L. (2009). Fostering online communities model for ICT integration in education. In G. Ku-
of practice in career and technical education. In rubacak, & T. Yuzer (Eds.), Handbook of research
V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of research on e- on transformative online education and liberation:
learning applications for career and technical Models for social equality (pp. 198–231). Hershey,
education: Technologies for vocational training PA: Information Science Reference.
Fuller, J. S., & Bachenheimer, B. A. (2013). Using
Reference.
an observation cycle for helping teachers integrate
Farmer, L. (2010). Lights, camera, action! Via technology. In A. Ritzhaupt, & S. Kumar (Eds.),
teacher librarian video conferencing. In S. Rum- Cases on educational technology implementation
mler, & K. Ng (Eds.), Collaborative technologies for facilitating learning (pp. 69–84). Hershey, PA:
and applications for interactive information de- Information Science Reference.
sign: Emerging trends in user experiences (pp.
Gairin-Sallán, J., & Rodriguez-Gómez, D. (2010).
Teacher professional development through knowl-
Reference.
edge management in educational organisations.
Farmer, L. S. (2012). Curriculum development In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online
for online learners. In V. Wang, L. Farmer, J. learning communities and teacher professional
Parker, & P. Golubski (Eds.), Pedagogical and development: Methods for improved education
andragogical teaching and learning with informa- delivery (pp. 134–153). Hershey, PA: Information
tion communication technologies (pp. 88–104). Science Reference.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Gairín-Sallán, J., & Rodríguez-Gómez, D. (2012).
Farmer, L. S. (2013). Assessment processes for Teacher professional development through knowl-
online professional development. In J. Keengwe, edge management in educational organisations.
& L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Virtual mentoring In Organizational learning and knowledge:
for teachers: Online professional development Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications
practices (pp. 161–180). Hershey, PA: Informa- (pp. 1297–1315). Hershey, PA: Business Science
tion Science Reference. Reference.
287
Related References
García, K., & Suzuki, R. (2008). The blended Grant, M. R. (2010). Train the trainer: A
learning classroom: An online teacher training competency-based model for teaching in virtual
program. In M. Lytras, D. Gasevic, P. Ordóñez de environments. In W. Ritke-Jones (Ed.), Virtual
Pablos, & W. Huang (Eds.), Technology enhanced environments for corporate education: Employee
learning: Best practices (pp. 57–80). Hershey, learning and solutions (pp. 124–146). Hershey,
PA: IGI Publishing. PA: Business Science Reference.
Gerbic, P., & Stacey, E. (2009). Conclusion. In Griffin, P., Care, E., Robertson, P., Crigan, J., Aw-
E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic (Eds.), Effective blended wal, N., & Pavlovic, M. (2013). Assessment and
learning practices: Evidence-based perspectives learning partnerships in an online environment.
in ICT-facilitated education (pp. 298–311). Her- In E. McKay (Ed.), ePedagogy in online learn-
shey, PA: Information Science Reference. ing: New developments in web mediated human
computer interaction (pp. 39–54). Hershey, PA:
Gibbons, A. N. (2010). Reflections concerning
technology: A case for the philosophy of tech-
nology in early childhood teacher education and Griswold, W. (2013). Transformative learning
professional development programs. In S. Blake, and educational technology integration in a post-
& S. Izumi-Taylor (Eds.), Technology for early totalitarian context: Professional development
childhood education and socialization: Develop- among school teachers in rural Siberia, Russia.
mental applications and methodologies (pp. 1–19). In E. Jean Francois (Ed.), Transcultural blended
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. learning and teaching in postsecondary education
Gonzales, C., Bussmann, S., Bovard, B., & Parra,
Reference.
J. (2007). Transitioning to e-learning: Teaching
the teachers. In R. Sharma, & S. Mishra (Eds.), Gruich, M. R. (2013). Defining professional devel-
Cases on global e-learning practices: Successes opment for technology. In S. Wang, & T. Hartsell
and pitfalls (pp. 52–72). Hershey, PA: Information (Eds.), Technology integration and foundations
Science Publishing. for effective leadership (pp. 152–170). Hershey,
Gormley, P., Bruen, C., & Concannon, F. (2010).
Sustainability through staff engagement: Apply- Guidry, K. R., & Pasquini, L. (2013). Twitter chat
ing a community of practice model to web 2.0 as an informal learning tool: A case study using
academic development programmes. In R. Don- #sachat. In H. Yang, & S. Wang (Eds.), Cases on
nelly, J. Harvey, & K. O’Rourke (Eds.), Critical formal and informal e-learning environments: Op-
design and effective tools for e-learning in higher portunities and practices (pp. 356–377). Hershey,
education: Theory into practice (pp. 326–345). PA: Information Science Reference.
Gunn, C., & Blake, A. (2009). Blending technol-
Grandgenett, N., Ostler, E., Topp, N., & Goeman, ogy into an academic practice qualification for
R. (2012). Robotics and problem-based learning university teachers. In E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic
in STEM formal educational environments. In (Eds.), Effective blended learning practices:
B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Ad- Evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated
amchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new education (pp. 259–279). Hershey, PA: Informa-
technology for learning (pp. 94–119). Hershey, tion Science Reference.
288
Related References
Hanewald, R. (2013). Professional development Hartsell, T., & Wang, S. (2013). Introduction to
with and for emerging technologies: A case study technology integration and leadership. In S. Wang,
with Asian languages and cultural studies teachers & T. Hartsell (Eds.), Technology integration and
in Australia. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical foundations for effective leadership (pp. 1–17).
applications and social effects of mobile tech- Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
nology integration (pp. 175–192). Hershey, PA:
Hauge, T. E., & Norenes, S. O. (2010). VideoPaper
as a bridging tool in teacher professional develop-
Hansen, C. C. (2012). ABCs and PCs: Effective ment. In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online
professional development in early childhood edu- learning communities and teacher professional
cation. In I. Chen, & D. McPheeters (Eds.), Cases development: Methods for improved education
on educational technology integration in urban delivery (pp. 209–228). Hershey, PA: Information
schools (pp. 230–235). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Science Reference.
Haythornthwaite, C., & De Laat, M. (2012). Social
Hao, S. (2012). Turn on your mobile devices: network informed design for learning with educa-
Potential and considerations of informal mobile tional technology. In A. Olofsson, & J. Lindberg
learning. In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual (Eds.), Informed design of educational technolo-
professional development and informal learning gies in higher education: Enhanced learning and
via social networks (pp. 39–58). Hershey, PA: teaching (pp. 352–374). Hershey, PA: Information
Information Science Reference. Science Reference.
Harteis, C. (2010). Contributions of e-collabora- Heinrichs, L., Fellander-Tsai, L., & Davies, D.
tive knowledge construction to professional learn- (2013). Clinical virtual worlds: The wider implica-
ing and expertise. In B. Ertl (Ed.), E-collaborative tions for professional development in healthcare. In
knowledge construction: Learning from computer- K. Bredl, & W. Bösche (Eds.), Serious games and
supported and virtual environments (pp. 91–108). virtual worlds in education, professional develop-
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. ment, and healthcare (pp. 221–240). Hershey, PA:
Hartsell, T., Herron, S. S., Fang, H., & Rathod,
A. (2011). Improving teachers’ self-confidence Helleve, I. (2010). Theoretical foundations of
in learning technology skills and math education teachers’ professional development. In J. Lindberg,
through professional development. In Instruc- & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communi-
tional design: Concepts, methodologies, tools ties and teacher professional development: Meth-
and applications (pp. 1487–1503). Hershey, PA: ods for improved education delivery (pp. 1–19).
Information Science Reference. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Hartsell, T., Herron, S. S., Fang, H., & Rathod, Hemphill, L. S., & McCaw, D. S. (2009). Moodling
A. (2012). Improving teachers’ self-confidence professional development training that worked.
in learning technology skills and math education In L. Tan Wee Hin, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.),
through professional development. In L. Tomei Handbook of research on new media literacy at the
(Ed.), Advancing education with information K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 808–822).
communication technologies: Facilitating new Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
trends (pp. 150–164). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
289
Related References
Hensley, M. K. (2010). Teaching new librarians Holland, I. E. (2007). Evolution of the Milwaukee
how to teach: A model for building a peer learn- public schools portal. In A. Tatnall (Ed.), Ency-
ing program. In E. Pankl, D. Theiss-White, & M. clopedia of portal technologies and applications
Bushing (Eds.), Recruitment, development, and (pp. 397–401). Hershey, PA: Information Science
retention of information professionals: Trends in Reference.
human resources and knowledge management
Holt, J., Unruh, L., & Dougherty, A. M. (2011).
(pp. 179–190). Hershey, PA: Business Science
Enhancing a rural school-university teacher
Reference.
education partnership through an e-mentoring
Hernández-Gantes, V. M. (2011). Helping faculty program for beginning teachers. In M. Bowdon,
design online courses in higher education. In V. & R. Carpenter (Eds.), Higher education, emerg-
Wang (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information coming technologies, and community partnerships:
munication technologies and adult education Concepts, models and practices (pp. 212–220).
integration (pp. 779–794). Hershey, PA: Informa- Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Hood, D. W., & Huang, W. D. (2013). Profes-
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2006). Professional sional development with graduate teaching as-
development for the online teacher: An authentic sistants (TAs) teaching online. In J. Keengwe,
approach. In T. Herrington, & J. Herrington (Eds.), & L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Virtual mentoring
Authentic learning environments in higher edu- for teachers: Online professional development
cation (pp. 283–295). Hershey, PA: Information practices (pp. 26–42). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Publishing. Science Reference.
Hicks, T. (2013). Adding the “digital layer”: Ex- Hu, X. C., & Meyen, E. L. (2013). A comparison
amining one teacher’s growth as a digital writer of student and instructor preferences for design
through an NWP summer institute and beyond. and pedagogy features in postsecondary online
In K. Pytash, & R. Ferdig (Eds.), Exploring courses. In M. Raisinghani (Ed.), Curriculum,
technology for writing and writing instruction learning, and teaching advancements in online
(pp. 345–357). Hershey, PA: Information Science education (pp. 213–229). Hershey, PA: Informa-
Reference. tion Science Reference.
Hinson, J. M., & Bordelon Sellers, R. (2004). Hucks, D., & Ragan, M. (2013). Technology
Professional development recommendations for expanding horizons in teacher education: Trans-
online courses. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed.), Develop- formative learning experiences. In J. Keengwe
ment and management of virtual schools: Issues (Ed.), Research perspectives and best practices in
and trends (pp. 135–157). Hershey, PA: Informa- educational technology integration (pp. 61–79).
tion Science Publishing. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Hirtle, J., & Smith, S. (2010). When virtual com- Hui, D., & Russell, D. L. (2009). Understand-
munities click: Transforming teacher practice, ing the effectiveness of collaborative activity in
transforming teachers. In H. Yang, & S. Yuen online professional development with innovative
(Eds.), Handbook of research on practices and educators through intersubjectivity. In L. Tomei
outcomes in e-learning: Issues and trends (pp. (Ed.), Information communication technologies
182–196). Hershey, PA: Information Science for enhanced education and learning: Advanced
Reference. applications and developments (pp. 283–302).
290
Related References
Hulme, M., & Hughes, J. (2006). Patchwork e- Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (2009). Mea-
dialogues in the professional development of new suring and evaluating ICT use: Developing an in-
teachers. In J. O’Donoghue (Ed.), Technology sup- strument for measuring student ICT use. In L. Tan
ported learning and teaching: A staff perspective Wee Hin, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of
(pp. 210–223). Hershey, PA: Information Science research on new media literacy at the K-12 level:
Publishing. Issues and challenges (pp. 326–339). Hershey,
Hunt, L., & Sankey, M. (2013). Getting the con-
text right for quality teaching and learning. In D. Jarvis, D. H. (2012). Teaching mathematics teach-
Salter (Ed.), Cases on quality teaching practices ers online: Strategies for navigating the intersec-
in higher education (pp. 261–279). Hershey, PA: tion of andragogy, technology, and reform-based
Information Science Reference. mathematics education. In A. Juan, M. Huertas,
S. Trenholm, & C. Steegmann (Eds.), Teaching
Hur, J. W., Brush, T., & Bonk, C. (2012). An
mathematics online: Emergent technologies and
analysis of teacher knowledge and emotional shar-
methodologies (pp. 187–199). Hershey, PA: In-
ing in a teacher blog community. In V. Dennen,
formation Science Reference.
& J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual professional develop-
ment and informal learning via social networks Jimoyiannis, A., Gravani, M., & Karagiorgi,
(pp. 219–239). Hershey, PA: Information Science Y. (2012). Teacher professional development
Reference. through virtual campuses: Conceptions of a ‘new’
model. In H. Yang, & S. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook
Hurst, A. (2012). Reflections on personal experi-
of research on practices and outcomes in virtual
ences of staff training and continuing professional
worlds and environments (pp. 327–347). Hershey,
development for academic staff in the develop-
PA: Information Science Publishing.
ment of high quality support for disabled students
in higher education. In D. Moore, A. Gorra, M. Johnson, E. S., & Pitcock, J. (2008). Preparing
Adams, J. Reaney, & H. Smith (Eds.), Disabled online instructors: Beyond using the technology.
students in education: Technology, transition, and In K. Orvis, & A. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-sup-
inclusivity (pp. 288–304). Hershey, PA: Informa- ported collaborative learning: Best practices and
tion Science Reference. principles for instructors (pp. 89–113). Hershey,
PA: Information Science Publishing.
Hyatt, K. J. (2011). Technology: A reflective tool
for professional development. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Johnson, K., & Tashiro, J. (2010). Interprofessional
Online courses and ICT in education: Emerging care and health care complexity: Factors shaping
practices and applications (pp. 134–142). Her- human resources effectiveness in health informa-
shey, PA: Information Science Reference. tion management. In S. Kabene (Ed.), Human
resources in healthcare, health informatics and
Jackson, T. (2012). Ways to mentor methods’ fac-
healthcare systems (pp. 250–280). Hershey, PA:
ulty integration of technologies in their courses.
Medical Information Science Reference.
In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.),
Developing technology-rich teacher education
programs: Key issues (pp. 519–534). Hershey,
291
Related References
Johnson, K., & Tashiro, J. (2013). Interprofessional Kelly, D. K. (2010). Modeling best practices in
care and health care complexity: Factors shaping web-based academic development. In A. Tatnall
human resources effectiveness in health informa- (Ed.), Web technologies: Concepts, methodolo-
tion management. In User-driven healthcare: gies, tools, and applications (pp. 1578–1595).
Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
(pp. 1273–1302). Hershey, PA: Medical Informa-
Kelly, R. (2014). Administration: Making a con-
nection with the library’s strongest advocate. In
Johnson, M. L. (2014). Moving from theory to K. Kennedy, & L. Green (Eds.), Collaborative
practice: Integrating personal learning networks models for librarian and teacher partnerships
into a graduate-level student development theory (pp. 175–184). Hershey, PA: Information Science
course. In S. Leone (Ed.), Synergic integration of Reference.
formal and informal e-learning environments for
Kennedy-Clark, S., & Thompson, K. (2013). A
adult lifelong learners (pp. 165–177). Hershey,
MUVEing success: Design strategies for profes-
sional development in the use of multi-user virtual
Johnson, V. (2009). Understanding dynamic environments and educational games in science
change and creation of learning organizations. education. In S. D’Agustino (Ed.), Immersive
In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, environments, augmented realities, and virtual
L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia worlds: Assessing future trends in education
of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 2187–2191). (pp. 16–41). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Jones, M. G., & Harris, L. (2012). Using student Kent, A. M. (2013). Teacher leadership: Learning
choice to promote technology integration: The buf- and leading. In J. Lewis, A. Green, & D. Surry
fet model. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Technology as a tool for diversity leader-
(Eds.), Developing technology-rich teacher educa- ship: Implementation and future implications
tion programs: Key issues (pp. 192–204). Hershey, (pp. 230–242). Hershey, PA: Information Science
PA: Information Science Reference. Reference.
Joyes, G., Fisher, T., Firth, R., & Coyle, D. (2014). Keppell, M. J. (2007). Instructional designers on
The nature of a successful online professional the borderline: Brokering across communities
doctorate. In K. Sullivan, P. Czigler, & J. Sullivan of practice. In M. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional
Hellgren (Eds.), Cases on professional distance design: Case studies in communities of practice
education degree programs and practices: Suc- (pp. 68–89). Hershey, PA: Information Science
cesses, challenges, and issues (pp. 296–330). Publishing.
Kidd, T. T., & Keengwe, J. (2012). Technology
Kelly, D. (2009). Modeling best practices in web- integration and urban schools: Implications for in-
based academic development. In R. Donnelly, & structional practices. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Advancing
F. McSweeney (Eds.), Applied e-learning and e- education with information communication tech-
teaching in higher education (pp. 35–55). Hershey, nologies: Facilitating new trends (pp. 244–256).
PA: Information Science Reference. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
292
Related References
King, K. P. (2008). The transformation model. In Koumpis, A. (2010). Culture of services. In A.

C. Van Slyke (Ed.), Information communication Koumpis (Ed.), Service science for socio-eco-
technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, nomical and information systems advancement:
and applications (pp. 1102–1108). Hershey, PA: Holistic methodologies (pp. 312–347). Hershey,
Information Science Reference. PA: Information Science Reference.
King, K. P. (2012). Impact of podcasts as profes- Kyei-Blankson, L., & Keengwe, J. (2013).
sional learning: Teacher created, student created, Faculty-faculty interactions in online learning
and professional development podcasts. In S. environments. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Learning tools
Chhabra (Ed.), ICTs for advancing rural com- and teaching approaches through ICT advance-
munities and human development: Addressing ments (pp. 127–135). Hershey, PA: Information
the digital divide (pp. 237–250). Hershey, PA: Science Reference.
Larson, L., & Vanmetre, S. (2010). Learning
Kitchenham, A. (2011). Blending professional together with the interactive white board. In N.
development for rural educators an exploratory Lambropoulos, & M. Romero (Eds.), Educa-
study. In D. Parsons (Ed.), Combining e-learning tional social software for context-aware learning:
and m-learning: New applications of blended Collaborative methods and human interaction
educational resources (pp. 225–238). Hershey, (pp. 69–78). Hershey, PA: Information Science
PA: Information Science Reference. Reference.
Klieger, A., & Oster-Levinz, A. (2010). How Laurillard, D., & Masterman, E. (2010). TPD as
online tasks promote teachers’ expertise within online collaborative learning for innovation in
the technological pedagogical content knowledge teaching. In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.),
(TPACK). In T. Yuzer, & G. Kurubacak (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher pro-
Transformative learning and online educa- fessional development: Methods for improved
tion: Aesthetics, dimensions and concepts (pp. education delivery (pp. 230–246). Hershey, PA:
219–235). Hershey, PA: Information Science Information Science Reference.
Reference.
Lawrence, J., Burton, L., Summers, J., Noble, K.,
Koh, S., Lee, S., Yen, D. C., & Havelka, D. (2005). & Gibbings, P. D. (2013). An associate dean’s
Information technology professional career devel- community of practice: Rising to the leadership
opment: A progression of skills. In M. Hunter, & challenges of engaging distance students using
F. Tan (Eds.), Advanced topics in global informa- blended models of learning and teaching. In J.
tion management (Vol. 4, pp. 142–157). Hershey, Willems, B. Tynan, & R. James (Eds.), Global
PA: Idea Group Publishing. challenges and perspectives in blended and
distance learning (pp. 212–222). Hershey, PA:
Kopcha, T., & Valentine, K. D. (2013). A frame-
work for developing robust online professional
development materials to support teacher practice Lee, D. M. (2004). Organizational entry and tran-
under the common core. In D. Polly (Ed.), Common sition from academic study: Examining a critical
core mathematics standards and implementing step in the professional development of young IS
digital technologies (pp. 319–331). Hershey, PA: workers. In M. Igbaria, & C. Shayo (Eds.), Strate-
Information Science Reference. gies for managing IS/IT personnel (pp. 113–142).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
293
Related References
Leh, A. S., & Grafton, L. (2009). Promoting new Lloyd, M., & Duncan-Howell, J. (2010). Chang-
media literacy in a school district. In L. Tan Wee ing the metaphor: The potential of online com-
Hin, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of munities in teacher professional development.
research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online
Issues and challenges (pp. 607–619). Hershey, learning communities and teacher professional
PA: Information Science Reference. development: Methods for improved education
delivery (pp. 60–76). Hershey, PA: Information
Lehew, A. J., & Polly, D. (2013). The use of
Science Reference.
digital resources to support elementary school
teachers’ implementation of the common core Lockyer, L., Patterson, J., Rowland, G., & Hearne,
state standards. In D. Polly (Ed.), Common core D. (2007). ActiveHealth: Enhancing the communi-
mathematics standards and implementing digital ty of physical and health educators through online
technologies (pp. 332–338). Hershey, PA: Infor- technologies. In M. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional
mation Science Reference. design: Case studies in communities of practice
Leng, J., & Sharrock, W. (2010). Collaborative
Publishing.
practices in computer-aided academic research.
In I. Portela, & M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.), Informa- Loose, C. (2013). Teachers as researchers and
tion communication technology law, protection instructional leaders. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook
and access rights: Global approaches and issues of research on teaching and learning in K-20 edu-
(pp. 249–270). Hershey, PA: Information Science cation (pp. 710–725). Hershey, PA: Information
Reference. Science Reference.
Ley, K., & Gannon-Cook, R. (2010). Marketing Luetkehans, L. M., & Hunt, R. D. (2014). School
a blended university program: An action research librarians as significant other: Using online profes-
case study. In S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi (Eds.), sional learning communities for the development
Cases on technology enhanced learning through of pre-service teachers. In K. Kennedy, & L. Green
collaborative opportunities (pp. 73–90). Hershey, (Eds.), Collaborative models for librarian and
PA: Information Science Reference. teacher partnerships (pp. 56–66). Hershey, PA:
Linton, J., & Stegall, D. (2013). Common core
standards for mathematical practice and TPACK: Lyublinskaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2012). The ef-
An integrated approach to instruction. In D. Polly fects of teacher content authoring on TPACK and
(Ed.), Common core mathematics standards and on student achievement in algebra: Research on
implementing digital technologies (pp. 234–249). instruction with the TI-Nspire™ handheld. In R.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Ronau, C. Rakes, & M. Niess (Eds.), Educational
technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom
Lithgow, C. M., Wolf, J. L., & Berge, Z. L. (2011).
impact: A research handbook on frameworks and
Virtual worlds: Corporate early adopters pave the
approaches (pp. 295–322). Hershey, PA: Informa-
way. In S. Hai-Jew (Ed.), Virtual immersive and
tion Science Publishing.
3D learning spaces: Emerging technologies and
trends (pp. 25–43). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
294
Related References
Mackey, J. (2009). Virtual learning and real Marshall, K. (2008). E-portfolios in teacher edu-
communities: Online professional development cation. In G. Putnik, & M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.),
for teachers. In E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic (Eds.), Encyclopedia of networked and virtual organiza-
Effective blended learning practices: Evidence- tions (pp. 516–523). Hershey, PA: Information
based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education Science Reference.
Martin, M. (2008). Integrating videoconferencing
Reference.
into the classroom: A perspective from Northern
Mackey, J., & Mills, A. (2003). An examination Ireland. In D. Newman, J. Falco, S. Silverman,
of ICT planning maturity in schools: A stage & P. Barbanell (Eds.), Videoconferencing tech-
theory perspective. In T. McGill (Ed.), Current nology in K-12 instruction: Best practices and
issues in IT education (pp. 376–395). Hershey, trends (pp. 253–268). Hershey, PA: Information
PA: IRM Press. Science Reference.
Manathunga, C., & Donnelly, R. (2009). Open- Maurer, M. J. (2012). Telementoring and virtual
ing online academic development programmes professional development: A theoretical perspec-
to international perspectives and dialogue. In tive from science on the roles of self-efficacy,
R. Donnelly, & F. McSweeney (Eds.), Applied teacher learning, and professional learning
e-learning and e-teaching in higher education communities. In Organizational learning and
(pp. 85–109). Hershey, PA: Information Science knowledge: Concepts, methodologies, tools and
Reference. applications (pp. 1158–1176). Hershey, PA: Busi-
ness Science Reference.
Marinho, R. (2010). Faculty development in in-
structional technology in the context of learning McAnuff-Gumbs, M., & Verbeck, K. (2013). To-
styles and institutional barriers. In S. Mukerji, & ward a model of multi-level professional learning
P. Tripathi (Eds.), Cases on interactive technology communities to guide the training and practice of
environments and transnational collaboration: literacy coaches. In H. Yang, & S. Wang (Eds.),
Concerns and perspectives (pp. 1–38). Hershey, Cases on online learning communities and beyond:
PA: Information Science Reference. Investigations and applications (pp. 361–402).
Mark, C. L. (2013). Evaluating and funding the
professional development program. In S. Wang, McCarthy, J. (2012). Connected: Online men-
& T. Hartsell (Eds.), Technology integration and toring in Facebook for final year digital media
foundations for effective leadership (pp. 206–226). students. In A. Okada, T. Connolly, & P. Scott
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. (Eds.), Collaborative learning 2.0: Open edu-
cational resources (pp. 204–221). Hershey, PA:
Marshall, J. C. (2013). Measuring and facilitat-
ing highly effective inquiry-based teaching and
learning in science classrooms. In M. Khine, McConnell, D. (2005). Networked collaborative
& I. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches and strategies in e-learning. In E. Li, & T. Du (Eds.), Advances in
next generation science learning (pp. 290–306). electronic business (Vol. 1, pp. 222–257). Hershey,
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. PA: Idea Group Publishing.
295
Related References
McCormack, V. (2010). Utilizing VoiceThread to McPherson, M., Baptista Nunes, M., Sandars, J.,
increase teacher candidates’ reflection and global & Kell, C. (2008). Technology and continuing
implications for usage. In J. Yamamoto, J. Kush, professional education: The reality beyond the
R. Lombard, & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Technology hype. In T. Kidd, & I. Chen (Eds.), Social informa-
implementation and teacher education: Reflective tion technology: Connecting society and cultural
models (pp. 108–123). Hershey, PA: Information issues (pp. 296–312). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference. Science Reference.
McGrath, E., Lowes, S., McKay, M., Sayres, J., Medina, A. L., Tobin, M. T., Pilonieta, P., Chiap-
& Lin, P. (2012). Robots underwater! Learning pone, L. L., & Blanton, W. E. (2012). Application
science, engineering and 21st century skills: The of computer, digital, and telecommunications
evolution of curricula, professional development technologies to the clinical preparation of teach-
and research in formal and informal contexts. In ers. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.),
B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Ad- Developing technology-rich teacher education
amchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new programs: Key issues (pp. 480–498). Hershey,
technology for learning (pp. 141–167). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2012). Online com-
McGuigan, A. (2012). Blogospheric learning in munities of practice as vehicles for teacher pro-
a continuing professional development context. fessional development. In A. Juan, M. Huertas,
In A. Okada, T. Connolly, & P. Scott (Eds.), S. Trenholm, & C. Steegmann (Eds.), Teaching
Collaborative learning 2.0: Open educational mathematics online: Emergent technologies and
resources (pp. 222–237). Hershey, PA: Informa- methodologies (pp. 142–166). Hershey, PA: In-
tion Science Reference. formation Science Reference.
McIntosh, S. (2005). Expanding the classroom: Meltzer, S. T. (2013). The impact of new technolo-
Using online discussion forums in college and gies on professional development. In V. Bryan,
professional development courses. In K. St.Amant, & V. Wang (Eds.), Technology use and research
& P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Internet-based workplace approaches for community education and profes-
communications: Industry and academic appli- sional development (pp. 40–52). Hershey, PA:
cations (pp. 68–87). Hershey, PA: Information Information Science Reference.
Science Publishing.
Milman, N. B., Hillarious, M., O’Neill, V., &
McNair, V., & Marshall, K. (2006). How eportfo- Walker, B. (2013). Going 11 with laptop comput-
lios support development in early teacher educa- ers in an independent, co-educational middle and
tion. In A. Jafari, & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook high school. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical
of research on eportfolios (pp. 474–485). Hershey, applications and social effects of mobile tech-
PA: Idea Group Publishing. nology integration (pp. 156–174). Hershey, PA:
McNair, V., & Marshall, K. (2008). How ep-
ortfolios support development in early teacher Moon, B. (2012). Teaching teachers: The biggest
education. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Online and dis- educational challenge in sub-Saharan Africa. In
tance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, R. Hogan (Ed.), Transnational distance learning
and applications (pp. 2130–2137). Hershey, PA: and building new markets for universities (pp.
Information Science Reference. 198–209). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
296
Related References
Mørch, A. I., & Andersen, R. (2012). Mutual Mustapha, W. Z. (2012). The art and science
development: The software engineering context of designing and developing an online English
of end-user development. In A. Dwivedi, & S. language training module for adult learners.
Clarke (Eds.), End-user computing, development, In N. Alias, & S. Hashim (Eds.), Instructional
and software engineering: New challenges (pp. technology research, design and development:
103–125). Hershey, PA: Information Science Lessons from the field (pp. 270–286). Hershey,
Reference. PA: Information Science Reference.
Morrow, D., & Bagnall, R. G. (2010). Hybridizing Mutohar, A., & Hughes, J. E. (2013). Toward
online learning with external interactivity. In F. web 2.0 integration in indonesian education:
Wang, J. Fong, & R. Kwan (Eds.), Handbook of Challenges and planning strategies. In N. Azab
research on hybrid learning models: Advanced (Ed.), Cases on web 2.0 in developing countries:
tools, technologies, and applications (pp. 24–41). Studies on implementation, application, and use
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. (pp. 198–221). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Mountain, L. A. (2008). Videoconferencing: An
alternative to traditional professional development Newman, D. L., Clure, G., Deyoe, M. M., & Con-
in the K-12 setting. In D. Newman, J. Falco, S. Sil- nor, K. A. (2013). Using technology in a studio
verman, & P. Barbanell (Eds.), Videoconferencing approach to learning: Results of a five year study of
technology in K-12 instruction: Best practices and an innovative mobile teaching tool. In J. Keengwe
trends (pp. 213–225). Hershey, PA: Information (Ed.), Pedagogical applications and social effects
Science Reference. of mobile technology integration (pp. 114–132).
Mouzakis, C., & Bourletidis, C. (2010). A blended
learning course for teachers’ ongoing professional Newman, D. L., Coyle, V. C., & McKenna, L. A.
development in Greece. In J. Yamamoto, J. Kush, (2013). Changing the face of ELA classrooms: A
R. Lombard, & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Technology case study of TPACK professional development.
implementation and teacher education: Reflec- In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Research perspectives and
tive models (pp. 1–24). Hershey, PA: Information best practices in educational technology integra-
Science Reference. tion (pp. 270–287). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Mouzakis, C., Tsaknakis, H., & Tziortzioti, C.
(2012). Theoretical rationale for designing a Ng, A. W., & Ho, F. (2014). Dynamics of knowl-
blended learning teachers’ professional develop- edge renewal for professional accountancy under
ment program. In P. Anastasiades (Ed.), Blended globalization. In P. Ordóñez de Pablos, & R.
learning environments for adults: Evaluations Tennyson (Eds.), Strategic approaches for hu-
and frameworks (pp. 274–289). Hershey, PA: man capital management and development in a
Information Science Reference. turbulent economy (pp. 264–278). Hershey, PA:
Business Science Reference.
Murphy, M. G., & Calway, P. B. (2011). Continu-
ing professional development: Work and learning Ng, F. F. (2005). Knowledge management in
integration for professionals. In P. Keleher, A. Patil, higher education and professional development
& R. Harreveld (Eds.), Work-integrated learning in the construction industry. In A. Kazi (Ed.),
in engineering, built environment and technology: Knowledge management in the construction indus-
Diversity of practice in practice (pp. 25–51). Her- try: A socio-technical perspective (pp. 150–165).
shey, PA: Information Science Reference. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
297
Related References
Ng, F. F. (2008). Knowledge management in Northrup, P. T., Rasmussen, K. L., & Dawson, D.
higher education and professional development B. (2008). Designing and reusing learning objects
in the construction industry. In M. Jennex (Ed.), to streamline WBI development. In S. Clarke (Ed.),
Knowledge management: Concepts, methodolo- End-user computing: Concepts, methodologies,
gies, tools, and applications (pp. 2355–2368). tools, and applications (pp. 1–1). Hershey, PA:
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Information Science Reference.
Nguyen, V., & Szymanski, M. (2013). A state of the Oigara, J. N. (2013). Integrating technology
art cart: Visual arts and technology integration in in teacher education programs. In J. Keengwe
teacher education. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Research (Ed.), Research perspectives and best practices in
perspectives and best practices in educational educational technology integration (pp. 28–43).
technology integration (pp. 80–104). Hershey, Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Orrill, C. H., & Polly, D. (2012). Technology
Niemitz, M., Slough, S., St. John, K., Leckie, R. integration in mathematics: A model for integrat-
M., Peart, L., & Klaus, A. (2010). Integrating ing technology through content development.
K-12 hybrid online learning activities in teacher In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.),
education programs: Reflections from the school Developing technology-rich teacher education
of rock expedition. In J. Yamamoto, J. Kush, programs: Key issues (pp. 337–356). Hershey,
R. Lombard, & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Technology PA: Information Science Reference.
implementation and teacher education: Reflective
Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2013). The networked
models (pp. 25–43). Hershey, PA: Information
learning framework: A model for networked pro-
Science Reference.
fessional learning utilizing social networking sites.
Norris, D. M. (2005). Driving systemic change In J. Keengwe, & L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Vir-
with e-learning. In C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. tual mentoring for teachers: Online professional
Justice, K. Schenk, P. Rogers, & G. Berg (Eds.), development practices (pp. 66–83). Hershey, PA:
Encyclopedia of distance learning (pp. 687–695). Information Science Reference.
Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2013). The iPad
Northrup, P. T., & Harrison, W. T. Jr. (2011). in the classroom: Three implementation cases
Using learning objects for rapid deployment to highlighting pedagogical activities, integration
mobile learning devices for the U.S. coast guard. issues, and teacher professional development
In Instructional design: Concepts, methodologies, strategies. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical ap-
tools and applications (pp. 527–540). Hershey, plications and social effects of mobile technology
PA: Information Science Reference. integration (pp. 25–41). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Northrup, P. T., Rasmussen, K. L., & Dawson, D.
B. (2004). Designing and reusing learning objects Pachler, N., Daly, C., & Turvey, A. (2010). Teacher
to streamline WBI development. In A. Armstrong professional development practices: The case of
(Ed.), Instructional design in the real world: A the haringey transformation teachers programme.
view from the trenches (pp. 184–200). Hershey, In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online
PA: Information Science Publishing. learning communities and teacher professional
development: Methods for improved education
Science Reference.
298
Related References
Parker, D. (2013). Implementing the professional Polly, D. (2013). Designing and teaching an online
development program. In S. Wang, & T. Hartsell elementary mathematics methods course: Prom-
(Eds.), Technology integration and foundations ises, barriers, and implications. In R. Hartshorne,
for effective leadership (pp. 190–205). Hershey, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education
PA: Information Science Reference. programs and online learning tools: Innovations
in teacher preparation (pp. 335–356). Hershey,
Payne, A. (2013). Designing a professional de-
velopment program. In S. Wang, & T. Hartsell
(Eds.), Technology integration and foundations Polly, D., Grant, M. M., & Gikas, J. (2011). Sup-
for effective leadership (pp. 171–189). Hershey, porting technology integration in higher educa-
PA: Information Science Reference. tion: The role of professional development. In D.
Surry, R. Gray Jr, & J. Stefurak (Eds.), Technol-
Peacock, S., & Dunlop, G. M. (2006). Develop-
ogy integration in higher education: Social and
ing e-learning provision for healthcare profes-
organizational aspects (pp. 58–71). Hershey, PA:
sionals’ continuing professional development.
In J. O’Donoghue (Ed.), Technology supported
learning and teaching: A staff perspective (pp. Polly, D., Mims, C., & McCombs, B. (2012).
106–124). Hershey, PA: Information Science Designing district-wide technology-rich profes-
Publishing. sional development. In I. Chen, & D. McPheeters
(Eds.), Cases on educational technology integra-
Piecka, D. C., Ruberg, L., Ruckman, C., & Full-
tion in urban schools (pp. 236–243). Hershey, PA:
wood, D. (2012). NASATalk as a discovery learn-
ing space: Self-discovery learning opportunities.
In S. Hai-Jew (Ed.), Constructing self-discovery Powell, E. (2009). Facilitating reflective teaching:
learning spaces online: Scaffolding and decision Video-stimulated reflective dialogues as a profes-
making technologies (pp. 49–71). Hershey, PA: sional development process. In V. Wang (Ed.),
Information Science Reference. Handbook of research on e-learning applications
for career and technical education: Technologies
Pilkington, R. (2010). Building practitioner
for vocational training (pp. 100–111). Hershey,
skills in personalised elearning: Messages for
professional development. In J. O’Donoghue
(Ed.), Technology-supported environments for Prisk, J., & Lee, K. (2012). How to utilize an
personalized learning: Methods and case studies online community of practice (CoP) to enhance
(pp. 167–184). Hershey, PA: Information Science innovation in teaching and learning. In V. Wang
Reference. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of e-leadership, counseling
and training (pp. 532–544). Hershey, PA: Infor-
Polly, D. (2011). Preparing teachers to integrate
mation Science Reference.
technology effectively: The case of higher-order
thinking skills (HOTS). In S. D’Agustino (Ed.), Prpic, J. K., & Moore, G. (2012). E-portfolios as
Adaptation, resistance and access to instructional a quantitative and qualitative means of demon-
technologies: Assessing future trends in education strating learning outcomes and competencies in
(pp. 395–409). Hershey, PA: Information Science engineering. In K. Yusof, N. Azli, A. Kosnin, S.
Reference. Yusof, & Y. Yusof (Eds.), Outcome-based sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education: Innovative practices (pp. 124–154).
299
Related References
Pullman, N., & Streff, K. (2009). Creating a secu- Rieber, L. P., Francom, G. M., & Jensen, L. J.
rity education, training, and awareness program. (2011). Feeling like a first year teacher: Toward
In M. Gupta, & R. Sharman (Eds.), Handbook of becoming a successful online instructor. In D.
research on social and organizational liabilities Surry, R. Gray Jr, & J. Stefurak (Eds.), Technol-
in information security (pp. 325–345). Hershey, ogy integration in higher education: Social and
PA: Information Science Reference. organizational aspects (pp. 42–57). Hershey, PA:
Quinton, S. (2007). Delivering online expertise,
online. In M. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional design: Ring, G., & Foti, S. (2006). Using eportfolios
Case studies in communities of practice (pp. to facilitate professional development among
193–214). Hershey, PA: Information Science pre-service teachers. In A. Jafari, & C. Kaufman
Publishing. (Eds.), Handbook of research on eportfolios (pp.
340–357). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Reali, A. M., Tancredi, R. M., & Mizukami, M.
D. (2012). Online mentoring as a tool for profes- Riverin, S. (2009). Blended learning and profes-
sional development and change of novice and sional development in the K-12 sector. In E. Stacey,
experienced teachers: A Brazilian experience. In & P. Gerbic (Eds.), Effective blended learning
V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual professional practices: Evidence-based perspectives in ICT-
development and informal learning via social facilitated education (pp. 182–202). Hershey, PA:
networks (pp. 203–218). Hershey, PA: Informa- Information Science Reference.
Robertshaw, M. B., Leary, H., Walker, A., Blox-
Redmon, R. J. Jr. (2009). E-mail reflection groups ham, K., & Recker, M. (2009). Reciprocal mentor-
as collaborative action research. In J. Salmons, & ing “in the wild”: A retrospective, comparative case
L. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of research on elec- study of ICT teacher professional development. In
tronic collaboration and organizational synergy E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic (Eds.), Effective blended
(pp. 349–361). Hershey, PA: Information Science learning practices: evidence-based perspectives in
Reference. ICT-facilitated education (pp. 280–297). Hershey,
Rice, M. L., & Bain, C. (2013). Planning and
implementation of a 21st century classroom proj- Robertson, L., & Hardman, W. (2013). More than
ect. In A. Benson, J. Moore, & S. Williams van changing classrooms: Professors’ transitions to
Rooij (Eds.), Cases on educational technology synchronous e-teaching. In P. Ordóñez de Pablos,
planning, design, and implementation: A project & R. Tennyson (Eds.), Strategic role of tertiary
management perspective (pp. 76–92). Hershey, education and technologies for sustainable com-
PA: Information Science Reference. petitive advantage (pp. 156–175). Hershey, PA:
Richardson, S. L., Barnes, S. L., & Torain, D. S.
(2012). Using technology to support algebra teach- Rockland, R., Kimmel, H., Carpinelli, J., Hirsch, L.
ing and assessment: A teacher development case S., & Burr-Alexander, L. (2012). Medical robotics
study. In I. Chen, & D. McPheeters (Eds.), Cases in K-12 education. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N.
on educational technology integration in urban Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in
schools (pp. 224–229). Hershey, PA: Information K-12 education: A new technology for learning
Science Reference. (pp. 120–140). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
300
Related References
Rockland, R., Kimmel, H., Carpinelli, J., Hirsch, L. Sáenz, J., Aramburu, N., & Rivera, O. (2010).
S., & Burr-Alexander, L. (2014). Medical robotics Exploring the links between structural capital,
in K-12 education. In Robotics: Concepts, method- knowledge sharing, innovation capability and
ologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1096-1115). business competitiveness: An empirical study.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi: In D. Harorimana (Ed.), Cultural implications
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4607-0.ch053 of knowledge sharing, management and transfer:
Identifying competitive advantage (pp. 321–354).
Rodesiler, L., & Tripp, L. (2012). It’s all about
personal connections: Pre-service English teach-
ers’ experiences engaging in networked learning. Sales, G. C. (2009). Preparing teachers to teach
In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual profes- online. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. How-
sional development and informal learning via ard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia
social networks (pp. 185–202). Hershey, PA: of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 1665–1672).
Information Science Reference. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Ronau, R. N., & Rakes, C. R. (2012). A compre- Sales, G. C. (2011). Preparing teachers to teach
hensive framework for teacher knowledge (CFTK): online. In Instructional design: Concepts, meth-
Complexity of individual aspects and their interac- odologies, tools and applications (pp. 8–17).
tions. In R. Ronau, C. Rakes, & M. Niess (Eds.), Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and
Sampson, D. G., & Kallonis, P. (2012). 3D vir-
classroom impact: A research handbook on frame-
tual classroom simulations for supporting school
works and approaches (pp. 59–102). Hershey, PA:
teachers’ continuing professional development.
Information Science Publishing.
In J. Jia (Ed.), Educational stages and interac-
Rosen, Y., & Rimor, R. (2013). Teaching and tive learning: From kindergarten to workplace
assessing problem solving in online collabora- training (pp. 427–450). Hershey, PA: Information
tive environment. In R. Hartshorne, T. Heafner, Science Reference.
& T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education programs
Sari, E., & Lim, C. P. (2012). Online learning
and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher
community: building the professional capacity of
preparation (pp. 82–97). Hershey, PA: Information
Indonesian teachers. In J. Jia (Ed.), Educational
Science Reference.
stages and interactive learning: From kindergarten
Ruberg, L., Calinger, M., & Howard, B. C. (2010). to workplace training (pp. 451–467). Hershey,
Evaluating educational technologies: Historical PA: Information Science Reference.
milestones. In L. Tomei (Ed.), ICTs for modern
Scheckler, R. (2010). Case studies from the in-
educational and instructional advancement: New
quiry learning forum: Stories reaching beyond the
approaches to teaching (pp. 285–297). Hershey,
edges. In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online
learning communities and teacher professional
Russell, D. L. (2007). The mediated action of development: Methods for improved education
educational reform: An inquiry into collaboative delivery (pp. 42–59). Hershey, PA: Information
online professional development. In R. Sharma, Science Reference.
& S. Mishra (Eds.), Cases on global e-learning
practices: Successes and pitfalls (pp. 108–122).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
301
Related References
Schifter, C. (2008). “Making teachers better”: A Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (2012). Multi-faceted pro-
brief history of professional development for teach- fessional development models designed to enhance
ers. In C. Schifter (Ed.), Infusing technology into teaching and learning within universities. In A.
the classroom: Continuous practice improvement Olofsson, & J. Lindberg (Eds.), Informed design
(pp. 41–57). Hershey, PA: Information Science of educational technologies in higher education:
Publishing. Enhanced learning and teaching (pp. 412–435).
Schifter, C. (2008). Effecting change in the
classroom through professional development. In Scott, S. (2010). The theory and practice divide
C. Schifter (Ed.), Infusing technology into the in relation to teacher professional development.
classroom: Continuous practice improvement In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online
(pp. 259–274). Hershey, PA: Information Science learning communities and teacher professional
Publishing. development: Methods for improved education
Schifter, C. (2008). Continuous practice improve-
Science Reference.
ment. In C. Schifter (Ed.), Infusing technology into
the classroom: Continuous practice improvement Semich, G. W., & Gibbons, B. (2011). The profes-
(pp. 58–86). Hershey, PA: Information Science sional development school: A building block for
Publishing. training public school faculty on new technologies.
In L. Tomei (Ed.), Online courses and ICT in
Schifter, C. (2008). Finger painting to digital
education: Emerging practices and applications
painting: First grade. In C. Schifter (Ed.), Infus-
ing technology into the classroom: Continuous
Reference.
practice improvement (pp. 109–126). Hershey,
PA: Information Science Publishing. Shambaugh, N. (2013). A professional develop-
ment school technology integration and research
Schrader, P., Strudler, N., Asay, L., Graves, T.,
plan. In A. Ritzhaupt, & S. Kumar (Eds.), Cases
Pennell, S. L., & Stewart, S. (2012). The pathway
on educational technology implementation for
to Nevada’s future: A case of statewide technol-
facilitating learning (pp. 45–68). Hershey, PA:
ogy integration and professional development.
In I. Chen, & D. McPheeters (Eds.), Cases on
educational technology integration in urban Sherman, G., & Byers, A. (2011). Electronic
schools (pp. 204–223). Hershey, PA: Information portfolios in the professional development of
Science Reference. educators. In S. D’Agustino (Ed.), Adaptation,
resistance and access to instructional technolo-
Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (2010). Innovations in
gies: Assessing future trends in education (pp.
the use of technology and teacher professional
development. In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson
Reference.
(Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher
professional development: Methods for improved Simelane, S. (2010). Professional development
education delivery (pp. 169–189). Hershey, PA: programme in the use of educational technol-
Information Science Reference. ogy to implement technology-enhanced courses
successfully. In S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi (Eds.),
Cases on technology enhanced learning through
collaborative opportunities (pp. 91–110). Hershey,
302
Related References
Skibba, K. (2013). Adult learning influence on Stanfill, D. (2012). Standards-based educational

faculty learning cycle: Individual and shared technology professional development. In V. Wang
reflections while learning to teach online lead (Ed.), Encyclopedia of e-leadership, counseling
to pedagogical transformations. In J. Keengwe, and training (pp. 819–834). Hershey, PA: Infor-
& L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Virtual mentoring mation Science Reference.
for teachers: Online professional development
Steel, C., & Andrews, T. (2012). Re-imagining
practices (pp. 263–291). Hershey, PA: Informa-
teaching for technology-enriched learning spaces:
An academic development model. In M. Keppell,
Skinner, L. B., Witte, M. M., & Witte, J. E. K. Souter, & M. Riddle (Eds.), Physical and virtual
(2010). Challenges and opportunities in career and learning spaces in higher education: Concepts for
technical education. In V. Wang (Ed.), Definitive the modern learning environment (pp. 242–265).
readings in the history, philosophy, theories and Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
practice of career and technical education (pp.
Stewart, C., Horarik, S., & Wolodko, K. (2013).
Maximising technology usage in research synthe-
Reference.
sis of higher education professional development
Slabon, W. A., & Richards, R. L. (2012). Story- research. In J. Willems, B. Tynan, & R. James
based professional development: Using a conflict (Eds.), Global challenges and perspectives in
management wiki. In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.), blended and distance learning (pp. 1–16). Hershey,
Virtual professional development and informal PA: Information Science Reference.
learning via social networks (pp. 256–275). Her-
Stieha, V., & Raider-Roth, M. (2012). Disrupting
shey, PA: Information Science Reference.
relationships: A catalyst for growth. In J. Faulkner
Spaulding, D. T. (2008). Virtual field trips: Ad- (Ed.), Disrupting pedagogies in the knowledge
vantages and disadvantages for educators and society: Countering conservative norms with
recommendation for professional development. creative approaches (pp. 16–31). Hershey, PA:
In D. Newman, J. Falco, S. Silverman, & P. Bar- Information Science Reference.
banell (Eds.), Videoconferencing technology in
Stockero, S. L. (2010). Serving rural teachers us-
K-12 instruction: Best practices and trends (pp.
ing synchronous online professional development.
In J. Yamamoto, J. Leight, S. Winterton, & C.
Reference.
Penny (Eds.), Technology leadership in teacher
Speaker, R. B., Levitt, G., & Grubaugh, S. (2013). education: Integrated solutions and experiences
Professional development in a virtual world. In (pp. 111–124). Hershey, PA: Information Science
J. Keengwe, & L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Virtual Reference.
mentoring for teachers: Online professional de-
Stylianou-Georgiou, A., Vrasidas, C., Christo-
velopment practices (pp. 122–148). Hershey, PA:
doulou, N., Zembylas, M., & Landone, E. (2006).
Technologies challenging literacy: Hypertext,
Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2009). Introduction to community building, reflection, and critical
blended learning practices. In E. Stacey, & P. Ger- literacy. In L. Tan Wee Hin, & R. Subramaniam
bic (Eds.), Effective blended learning practices: (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy in tech-
Evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated nology at the K-12 level (pp. 21–33). Hershey, PA:
education (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: Information Information Science Reference.
Science Reference.
303
Related References
Szecsy, E. M. (2011). Building knowledge with- Thompson, T. L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Estab-
out borders: Using ICT to develop a binational lishing communities of practice for effective and
education research community. In G. Kurubacak, sustainable professional development for blended
& T. Yuzer (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning. In E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic (Eds.), Effec-
transformative online education and liberation: tive blended learning practices: Evidence-based
Models for social equality (pp. 67–85). Hershey, perspectives in ICT-facilitated education (pp.
PA: Information Science Reference. 144–162). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Tawfik, A. A., Reiseck, C., & Richter, R. (2013).
Project management methods for the implementa- Thornton, J. (2010). Framing pedagogy, dimin-
tion of an online faculty development course. In ishing technology: Teachers experience of online
A. Benson, J. Moore, & S. Williams van Rooij learning software. In H. Song, & T. Kidd (Eds.),
(Eds.), Cases on educational technology planning, Handbook of research on human performance and
design, and implementation: A project manage- instructional technology (pp. 263–283). Hershey,
ment perspective (pp. 153–167). Hershey, PA: PA: Information Science Reference.
Thornton, K., & Yoong, P. (2010). The applica-
Taylor, D. B., Hartshorne, R., Eneman, S., Wilkins, tion of blended action learning to leadership
P., & Polly, D. (2012). Lessons learned from the development: A case study. In P. Yoong (Ed.),
implementation of a technology-focused profes- Leadership in the digital enterprise: Issues and
sional learning community. In D. Polly, C. Mims, challenges (pp. 163–180). Hershey, PA: Business
& K. Persichitte (Eds.), Developing technology- Science Reference.
rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp.
Ting, A., & Jones, P. D. (2010). Using free source
eportfolios to empower ESL teachers in collab-
Reference.
orative peer reflection. In J. Yamamoto, J. Kush,
Tedford, D. (2010). Perspectives on the influ- R. Lombard, & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Technology
ences of social capital upon internet usage of rural implementation and teacher education: Reflective
Guatemalan teachers. In S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi models (pp. 93–107). Hershey, PA: Information
(Eds.), Cases on technological adaptability and Science Reference.
transnational learning: Issues and challenges
Tomei, L. A. (2008). The KARPE model revis-
ited – An updated investigation for differentiating
Reference.
teaching and learning with technology in higher
Terantino, J. M. (2012). An activity theoreti- education. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Adapting informa-
cal approach to examining virtual professional tion and communication technologies for effective
development and informal learning via social education (pp. 30–40). Hershey, PA: Information
networks. In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual Science Reference.
professional development and informal learning
Torrisi-Steele, G. (2005). Toward effective use
via social networks (pp. 60–74). Hershey, PA:
of multimedia technologies in education. In S.
Mishra, & R. Sharma (Eds.), Interactive mul-
timedia in education and training (pp. 25–46).
Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
304
Related References
Torrisi-Steele, G. (2008). Toward effective use Venkatesh, V., Bures, E., Davidson, A., Wade, C.
of multimedia technologies in education. In M. A., Lysenko, L., & Abrami, P. C. (2013). Elec-
Syed (Ed.), Multimedia technologies: Concepts, tronic portfolio encouraging active and reflective
methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. learning: A case study in improving academic self-
1651–1667). Hershey, PA: Information Science regulation through innovative use of educational
Reference. technologies. In A. Ritzhaupt, & S. Kumar (Eds.),
Cases on educational technology implementation
Trujillo, K. M., Wiburg, K., Savic, M., & McKee,
for facilitating learning (pp. 341–376). Hershey,
K. (2013). Teachers learn how to effectively in-
tegrate mobile technology by teaching students
using math snacks animations and games. In J. Watson, C. E., Zaldivar, M., & Summers, T. (2010).
Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical applications and ePortfolios for learning, assessment, and profes-
social effects of mobile technology integration sional development. In R. Donnelly, J. Harvey, &
(pp. 98–113). Hershey, PA: Information Science K. O’Rourke (Eds.), Critical design and effective
Reference. tools for e-learning in higher education: Theory
into practice (pp. 157-175). Hershey, PA: Informa-
Tynan, B., & Barnes, C. (2010). Web 2.0 and
tion Science Reference. doi: doi:10.4018/978-1-
professional development of academic staff. In M.
61520-879-1.ch010
Lee, & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-
learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary Whitehouse, P., McCloskey, E., & Ketelhut, D.
teaching (pp. 365–379). Hershey, PA: Information J. (2010). Online pedagogy design and develop-
Science Reference. ment: New models for 21st century online teacher
professional development. In J. Lindberg, & A.
Tynan, B., & Barnes, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and
Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities
professional development of academic staff. In
and teacher professional development: Methods
Virtual learning environments: Concepts, meth-
for improved education delivery (pp. 247–262).
odologies, tools and applications (pp. 94–108).
Williams, I. M., & Olaniran, B. A. (2012). Profes-
Uehara, D. L. (2007). Research in the Pacific:
sional development through web 2.0 collaborative
Utilizing technology to inform and improve
applications. In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.),
teacher practice. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Technology
Virtual professional development and informal
and diversity in higher education: New challenges
learning via social networks (pp. 1–24). Hershey,
Publishing.
Wilson, A., & Christie, D. (2010). Realising the
Velez-Solic, A., & Banas, J. R. (2013). Professional
potential of virtual environments: A challenge for
development for online educators: Problems,
Scottish teachers. In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson
predictions, and best practices. In J. Keengwe,
(Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher
& L. Kyei-Blankson (Eds.), Virtual mentoring
professional development: Methods for improved
for teachers: Online professional development
education delivery (pp. 96–113). Hershey, PA:
practices (pp. 204–226). Hershey, PA: Informa-
305
Related References
Wilson, G. (2009). Case studies of ICT-enhanced Yukawa, J. (2011). Telementoring and project-
blended learning and implications for professional based learning: An integrated model for 21st
development. In E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic (Eds.), century skills. In D. Scigliano (Ed.), Telementoring
Effective blended learning practices: Evidence- in the K-12 classroom: Online communication
based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education technologies for learning (pp. 31–56). Hershey,
(pp. 239–258). Hershey, PA: Information Science PA: Information Science Reference.
Reference.
Zellermayer, M., Mor, N., & Heilweil, I. (2009).
Witt, L. A., & Burke, L. A. (2003). Using cogni- The intersection of theory, tools and tasks in a
tive ability and personality to select information postgraduate learning environment. In C. Payne
technology professionals. In M. Mahmood (Ed.), (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism
Advanced topics in end user computing (Vol. 2, in higher education: Progressive learning frame-
pp. 1–17). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. works (pp. 319–333). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Wynne, C. W. (2014). Cultivating leaders from
within: Transforming workers into leaders. In Zuidema, L. A. (2008). Parawork. In P. Zemlian-
S. Mukerji, & P. Tripathi (Eds.), Handbook of sky, & K. St.Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research
research on transnational higher education on virtual workplaces and the new nature of
(pp. 42–58). Hershey, PA: Information Science business practices (pp. 81–97). Hershey, PA:
Reference. Information Science Reference.
Yakavenka, H. (2012). Developing professional Zygouris-Coe, V. I. (2013). A model for online
competencies through international peer learning instructor training, support, and professional de-
communities. In V. Dennen, & J. Myers (Eds.), velopment. In J. Keengwe, & L. Kyei-Blankson
Virtual professional development and informal (Eds.), Virtual mentoring for teachers: Online
learning via social networks (pp. 134–154). Her- professional development practices (pp. 97–121).
shey, PA: Information Science Reference. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Yamamoto, J., Linaberger, M., & Forbes, L. S. Zygouris-Coe, V. I., & Swan, B. (2010). Chal-
(2005). Mentoring and technology integration lenges of online teacher professional develop-
for teachers. In D. Carbonara (Ed.), Technology ment communities: A statewide case study in
literacy applications in learning environments the United States. In J. Lindberg, & A. Olofsson
(pp. 161–170). Hershey, PA: Information Science (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher
Publishing. professional development: Methods for improved
education delivery (pp. 114–133). Hershey, PA:
306
307
Compilation of References
Abel, R., Brown, M., & Suess, J. (2013). A new archi- Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simula-
tecture for learning. Higher Education in the Connected tions, and virtual worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Age. EDUCAUSE.
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for
Abernathy, K., Mason, D., Abshire, S., Cummings, C., learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston,
Borel, D., Mixon, J., & Stephens, L. (2011). Taking K-12 MA: Allyn & Bacon.
to the cloud: Building an online masters program. National
Alger, C., & Kopcha, T. J. (2009, December 07). eSuper-
Social Science Technology Journal, 1(4). Retrieved from
vision: A Technology Framework for the 21st Century
http://www.nssa.us/tech_journal/volume_1-4/vol1-4_toc.
Field Experience in Teacher Education. Issues in Teacher
htm
Education, 18(2), 31–46.
Acton, T., Scott, M., & Hill, S. (2005). E-education: Keys
Allen, E. I., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending
to success for organization. In Proceedings of 18th Bled
In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the
eCommerce Conference. Bled, Slovenia: Academic Press.
United States. Sloan Consortium.
Africa’s Talking SMS and USSD API. (n.d.). Retrieved
Allen, I., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2010). Blending In:
October 10, 2013, from https://www.africastalking.com
The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the
Ahmad, M. A., & Tarmudi, S. M. (2012). Generational United States. Retrieved from The Sloan Consortium:
differences in satisfaction with e-learning among higher Individuals, Institutions and Organizations Committed
learning institution staff. Procedia: Social and Behavioral to Quality Online Education: http://sloanconsortium.org/
Sciences, 67, 304–311. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.333 publications/survey/blended06 (Retrieved 11/4/2013)
Aiken, I. P., & Day, B. D. (1999). Early field experiences Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade:
in preservice teacher education: Research and student Online education in the United States 2006. Needham:
perspectives. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3), 7–12. Sloan Center for Online Education.
doi:10.1080/01626620.1999.10462965
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance
Ajjan, A., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Sur-
decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and vey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2),
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten
71–80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
years of tracking online education in The United States.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2008). The development of Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research
a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Group, LLC.
Understanding the progression and integration of social,
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten
cognitive, and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous
years of tracking online education in the United States.
Learning Networks, 12(3), 3-22. Retrieved December 1,
Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
2013 from http://www.editlib.org/p/104059
Allsopp, D. H., DeMarie, D., Alvarez-McHatton, P., & Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2009). Reveal the Collabo-
Doone, E. (2007, March 08). Bridging the Gap between ration in an Open Learning Environment. Lecture Notes
Theory and Practice: Connecting Courses with Field in Computer Science, 5601, 464–475. doi:10.1007/978-
Experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19–35. 3-642-02264-7_48
Alvarez, B. (2012). Flipping the classroom: Homework in Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Crui-
class, lessons at home. Education Digest, 77(8), 18–21. kshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., et al. (2001). A tax-
onomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision
Aman, R. (2009). Improving Student Satisfaction and
of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Abridged
Retention with Online Instruction Through Systematic
Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Faculty Peer Review of Courses. (Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation). Oregon State University, Eugene, OR. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., Archer, W.
(2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer con-
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.,
ference environment. JALN, 5(2).
& Norman, M. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven
Research-based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Anderson, D. L., Standerford, N. S., & Imdieke, S. (2010).
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. A self-study on building community in the online class-
room. Networks, 12(2), 1–10.
America.gov Archive (2008). Nontraditional students en-
rich U.S. college campuses: Older students value challeng- Anderson, J. B., & Erickson, J. A. (2003). Service learn-
ing courses with real world applications. Retrieved from ing in Preservice Teacher Education. Academic Exchange
http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/12//9/2011 Quarterly, 7(2), 111–115.
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2009). A Data Mining Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. (2005,
Approach to Reveal Representative Collaboration Indica- January 01). Preservice Teachers’ Observations of Co-
tors in Open Collaboration Frameworks. In Proceedings operating Teachers and Peers While Participating in an
of the Second International Conference on Educational Early Field Experience. Teacher Education Quarterly,
Data Mining (EDM09). Academic Press. 32(4), 97–118.
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2009). Clustering Learn- Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations
ers according to their Collaboration. In Proceedings of the of distance education pedagogy. International Review
13th International Conference on Computer Supported of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3).
Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2009). IEEE. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/890/1663
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2010). Ranking Learner
Collaboration according to their Interactions, In Proceed- Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer,
ings of the 1st Annual Engineering Education Confer- W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in computer
ence (EDUCON 2010). Madrid, Spain: IEEE Computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Society Press. Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Anaya, A.R., & Boticario, J.G. (2011). Application Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003).
of Machine Learning Techniques To Analyze Student Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-
Interactions And Improve The Collaboration Process. supported collaborative learning environments. Norwell,
Expert Systems with Applications on Computer Supported MA: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7
Cooperative Work in Design, 38(2).
Angelora, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). “If you don’t tell
Anaya, A.R., & Boticario, J.G. (2011). Content-free me, how can I know” A case study of four international
Collaborative Learning Modeling Using Data Mining. students learning to write the U.S. way. Written Communi-
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction on Data cation, 16, 491–525. doi:10.1177/0741088399016004004
Mining in Education.
308
Anstine, M., & Skidmore, M. (2005). A small sample Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity
study of traditional and online courses with sample selec- theory and the organization. Academy of Management
tion adjustments. The Journal of Economic Education, Review, 14(1), 20–39.
107–127.
Atkins, S., O’Connor, G., & Rowe, L. (2007). Differen-
Antonio, A., Martin, N., & Stagg, A. (2012) Engaging tiating the curriculum: A lot of effort for little gain?. In
higher education students via digital curation. In Proceed- Proceedings of ascilite 2007 conference. Retrieved from
ings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Australasian http://www. ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/
Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education procs/atkins.pdf
(ASCILITE 2012) (pp. 1-5). Australasian Society for Com-
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The
puters in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE).
critical role of vocabulary development for English Lan-
Aranda, E. K., Aranda, L., & Conlon, K. (1998). Teams: guage Learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Prac-
Structure, process, culture, and politics. Upper Saddle tice, 20, 50–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). The impor- literacy in second-language learners: Report of the Na-
tance of participant interaction in online environments. tional Literacy Panel on Language-Minority and Youth.
Decision Support Systems, 43, 853–865. doi:10.1016/j. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
dss.2006.12.013
Bahr, D. L., Shaha, S. H., Farnsworth, B. J., Lewis, V. K., &
Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching Benson, L. F. (2004). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use
presence” exist in online MBA courses? The Internet technology: Attitudinal impacts of technology-supported
and Higher Education, 9, 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.ihe- field experience on preservice teacher candidates. Journal
duc.2005.12.001 of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 88–97.
Arendale, D. R. (2005). Postsecondary peer coopera- Baker, J. W. (2000, April). The classroom flip: Using web
tive learning programs: Annotated bibliography. Online course management tools to become the guide by the side.
Submission. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on
College Teaching and Learning. Jacksonville, FL.
Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M.
(2009). Active Learning and Student-centered Pedagogy Baker, R. (2010). Pedagogies and Digital Content in the
Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introduc- Australian School Sector. Retrieved 29th April, 2010,
tory Biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. from http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/verve/_re-
doi:10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025 PMID:19723815 sources/Pedagogies_Report.pdf
Arslan, R. Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, A. (2010). How can the use Baker, E., Pearson, P., & Rozendal, M. (2010). Theoreti-
of blog software facilitate the writing process of English cal perspectives and literacy studies: An exploration of
Language Learners? Computer Assisted Language Learn- roles and insights. In E. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies:
ing, 23(3), 183–197. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.486575 Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 1–22).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Arthur, L. (2014, January 17). The advantages & disad-
vantages of using a web-authoring application. Retrieved Barbour, M. K., Siko, J., Gross, E., & Waddell, K. (2013).
from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disad- Virtually unprepared: Examining the preparation of
vantages-using-webauthoring-application-27288.html K-12 online teachers. In R. Hartshorne, T. Heafner, &
T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education programs and online
Ascough, R. (2007). Welcoming design: Hosting a hos-
learning tools: Innovations in teacher preparation (pp.
pitable online course. Teaching Theology and Religion,
60-81). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
10(3), 131–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9647.2007.00340.x
doi: doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1906-7.ch004
309
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Rose, M. C. (1997, December Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L. (2005).
07). Qualitative Assessment in Developmental Reading. The online interaction learningmodel learning model:
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 28(1), 34–55. An integrated theoretical framework for learning net-
doi:10.1080/10790195.1997.10850052 works. In S. R. Hiltz, & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning
together online: Research together online: Research on
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teach-
asynchronous learning networks (pp. 18–37). Mahwah,
ing for meaningful learning: A review of research on
inquiry-based and cooperative learning. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional
learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
Barrows, H. S. (1994). Practice-Based Learning:
Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of
Problem-Based Learning Applied to Medical Education.
Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University of School
of Medicine. Berge, Z. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing:
Recommendations from the field. Educational Technol-
Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning-
ogy, 35(1), 22–30.
A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change,
27(6), 12–25. doi:10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672 Berge, Z. (1997). Computer Conferencing and the Online
Classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecom-
Bartholomew, D. (2005). Taking the e-train. Industry
munications, 3–21.
Week, 254(6), 34–37. Retrieved from http://search.pro-
quest.com/docview/219754473?accountid=14749 Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective
e-learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
Battalio, J. (2009). Success in distance education: Do
3(2), 181–190.
learning styles and multiple formats matter? Ameri-
can Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 71–87. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom:
doi:10.1080/08923640902854405 Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene,
OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bay, E., Bagceci, B., & Bayram, C. (2012). The effects
of social constructivist approach on the learners’ problem Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom:
solving and metacognitive levels. Journal of the Social Talk To Every Student. In Every Class Every Day. ISTE.
Sciences, 8(3), 343–349. doi:10.3844/jssp.2012.343.349
Berking, P. (2013, June 3). Choosing Authoring Tools:
Beach, R., Anson, C., Breuch, L., & Swiss, T. (2008). Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Co-Laboratories.
Teaching writing using blogs, wikis, and other digital Retrieved from http://www.adlnet.gov/wpcontent/up-
tools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. loads/2013/06/Choosing-Authoring-Tools-3.pdf
Beagrie, N. (2008). Digital curation for science, digital Bernsteiner, R., Ostermann, H., & Staudinger, R. (2010).
libraries, and individuals. International Journal of Digital E-learning with wikis, weblogs and discussion forums:
Curation, 1(1), 3–16. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v1i1.2 An empirical survey about the past, the present and the
future. In N. Karacapilidis (Ed.), Novel developments in
Beck, D., & Ferdig, R. E. (2008). Evolving roles of online
web-based learning technologies: Tools for modern teach-
and face-to-face instructors in a lecture/lab/hybrid course.
ing (pp. 174–198). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-938-0.ch010
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
7(1), 5017. Berrett, D. (2012, February). How flipping the classroom
can improve the traditional lecture. Chronicle of Higher
Behnke, C. (2012). Blended Learing in Culinary Arts:
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/
Tradition Meets Technology. In F. Glazer (Ed.), Blended
How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857/
Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy
(pp. 13 - 30). Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
310
Berrett, D. (2012). How ‘flipping’ the classroom can Bodycott, P., & Crew, V. (2000). Living the language:
improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher The value of short-term overseas
Education, 19.
Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. M. (1999). Faculty guide for
Betrus, A. K. (2008). Resources. In Educational technol- moving teaching and learning to the web. Mission Viejo,
ogy: A definition with commentary (213-240). New York, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College.
NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. M. (2010). The online
Bhattacharya, M., & Dron, J. (2009, July). Cultivating teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical
the web 2.0 jungle. Paper presented at the Seventh IEEE tips. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
international conference on advanced learning technolo-
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid
gies. Niigata, Japan.
look at how much students learn and why they should be
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis student writing
Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Ste-
the discussion section. Journal of Education for Academic
vens, M. (2011). Cutting the distance in distance education:
Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning
Black, E. W., Dawson, K., & Priem, J. (2008). Data for experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118-126.
free: Using LMS activity logs to measure community in
Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocul-
online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2),
tural to adult learning. In M. C. Smith, & T. Pourchot
65–70. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.002
(Eds.), Adult Learning and Development: Perspectives
Black, R. W. (2009). English-Language Learners, fan com- from Educational Psychology (pp. 67–88). Mahwah, NJ:
munities, and 21st-century skills. Journal of Adolescent & Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Adult Literacy, 52(8), 688–697. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.8.4
Borstorff, P. C., & Lowe, S. K. (2007). Student perceptions
Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2007). Reconsidering simu- and opinions toward e-learning in the college environment.
lations in science education at a distance: Features of Academy of Educational Leadership Journal., 2(2), 13–29.
effective use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
Bos, N., & Shami, N. S. (2006). Adapting a face-to-face
23(6), 491–502. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00239.x
role playing simulation for online play. Educational
Bleicher, R. E., Correia, M. G., & Buchanan, M. (2006). Technology Research and Development, 54(5), 493–521.
Service learning: building commitment to becoming doi:10.1007/s11423-006-0130-z
teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning
ED, 494, 939.
and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Edu-
Blended Learning Toolkit, University of Central Florida. cation, 24(4), 413–426. doi:10.1080/0260293990240405
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://blended.online.ucf.edu/
Bova, B., & Kroth, M. (2001). Workplace learning and
Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, Generation X. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(2),
D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The clas- 57–65. doi:10.1108/13665620110383645
sification of educational goals. New York: David McKay.
Bowen, W. G. (2013). The potential for online learning:
Bluestone, C. (2000). Feature films as a teach- Promises & Pitfalls. EDUCASE Review, 48(5).
ing tool. College Teaching, 48(4), 141–146.
Bowers, C. (2000). Let Them Eat Data: How Computers
doi:10.1080/87567550009595832
Affect Education, Cultural Diversity and the Prospects
Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: of Ecological Sustainability. Athens: The University of
Teaching styles, sex and settings. Buckingham, UK: Open Georgia Press.
University Press.
311
Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning: Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cogni-
Educating teachers in diverse communities. New York: tion and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,
Teachers College Press. 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training:
Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford Which employees learn and why? Personnel Psychology,
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What 54(2), 271–296. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00093.x
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). San
Brown, L. A., Eastham, N. P., & Heng-Yu, K. (2006). A per-
formance evaluation of the collaborative efforts in an online
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). group research project. Performance Improvement Quar-
(2000). How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience, and terly, 19(3), 121–140. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2006.
School. Washington, DC: National Research Council. tb00381.x
Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction.
D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
can’t be told. In S. Vosiadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similar-
Buckley, P. (2002). In Pursuit of the Learning Paradigm:
ity and analogical reasoning. New York, NY: Cambridge
Coupling Faculty Transformation and Institutional
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511529863.022
Change. EDUCAUSE Review, 37(1), 29–38.
Brickman, P. (2006). The case of the Druid Dracula.
Buckley, P., Garvey, J., & McGrath, F. (2011). A case
Buffalo, NY: National Center for Case Study Teaching
study on using prediction markets as a rich environment for
in Science, University at Buffalo.
active learning. Computers & Education, 56(2), 418–428.
Brindley, J., Blaschke, L.M., & Walti, C. (2009). Creat- doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.001
ing effective collaborative learning groups in an online
Bush, R., Castelli, P., Lowry, P., & Cole, M. (2010). The
environment. The International Review of Research in
importance of teaching presence in online and hybrid
Open and distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://
classrooms. Proceedings of the Academy of Educational
www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/675
Leadership, 15(1), 7–13.
Brindley, J., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. (2009). Creating
Butler, M. B., Lee, S., & Tippins, D. (2006, Spring).
effective collaborative learning groups in an online envi-
Case-based methodology as an instructional strategy for
ronment. International Review of Research in Open and
understanding diversity: Preservice teachers’ perceptions.
Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.
Multicultural Education, 13(3), 20–26.
irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped
Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2002). Social constructivist teaching:
classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business
Affordances and constraints. London: Emerald Group
Education and Accreditation, 6(1), 33–43.
Publishing.
Byrd, D. M., McIntyre, D. J., & Association of Teacher
Brown, J., Hinze, S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2008). Tech-
Educators. (2000). Research on effective models for teacher
nology and formative assessment. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st
education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
century education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning
Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J.
in science and their implications for science pedagogy: A
C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding.
literature review. International Journal of Environmental
In J. H. Flavell, & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael’s
and Science Education, 3(4), 193–206.
Manual of Child Psychology (Vol. 1). New York, NY:
Wiley.
312
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant Center for Excellence in Teaching (CET), University of
theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. The Southern California. (2013). Faculty mentoring paper
Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182–190. doi:10.1598/RT.49.3.1 summary. Retrieved from http://cet.usc.edu/resources/
teaching_learning/docs/facultypaper.pdf
Camhi, P. J., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2008). Merging a
metalinguistic grammar approach with L2 academic Cervantez, V. A. (2010). The influence of classroom
process writing: ELLs in community college. TESL-EJ, community and self-directed learning readiness on stu-
12(2), 1–25. dent retention in online distance courses: A sabbatical
report, spring 2010. Retrieved from http://www.google.
Campbell, C. (2010). Education students use of The Le@
com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd
rning Federation’s digital curriculum resources. Paper
=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fiws2.
presented at the 5th International LAMS and Learning
collin.edu%2Fhr%2Fsabbatical%2FReports%2FACerv
Design Conference. Sydney, Australia.
antez_SabbaticalRprt_Spr2010.pdf&ei=NYK8Uor7B
Cao, Y., & Sakchutchawan, S. (2011). Online vs. traditional M7goATqoIK4CA&usg=AFQjCNHIdLlJ0zyeVY8EP
MBA: An empirical study of students’ characteristics, RGOIj-t3BlEuQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU&cad=rja
course satisfaction, and overall success. The Journal of
Chang, M. T. (1997). The use of business gaming in Hong
Human Resource and Adult Learning, 7(2).
Kong academic institutions. In J. Butler, & N. Leonard
Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center. (n.d.). Design and teach (Eds.), Developments in business simulation and experi-
a course: Case studies. Retrieved from http://www.cmu. ential exercises (pp. 218–220). Statesboro, GA: Georgia
edu/teaching/designteach/teach/instructionalstrategies/ Southern University Press.
casestudies.html
Chen, B., & Denoyelles, A. (2013). Exploring students’
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2011). Power, expertism, and the mobile learning practices in higher education. EDUCAUSE
practice of instructional design. In Instructional technol- Review, 49(1).
ogy: Past, present, and future (pp. 105-115). Santa Barbara,
Cheng, Y. C. (2006). New paradigm of learning and
teaching in a networked environment: implications for
Carr, N. (2000). As distance education comes of age, ICT literacy. In L. T. Wee Han, & R. Subramaniam
the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Literacy in Technol-
Higher Education, 46(23), A39–A41. ogy at the K-12 Level. Hershey, PA: IDEA Group, Inc.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-494-1.ch001
Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as
a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and Chen, R. T. H., & Bennett, S. (2012). When Chinese
feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educa- learners meet constructivist pedagogy online. Higher Edu-
tion, 35(5), 551–564. doi:10.1080/02602931003632381 cation, 64(5), 677–691. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9520-9
Catapano, S., & Huisman, S. (2010). Preparing Teachers Chen, W., & Looi, C. (2007). Incorporating online discus-
for Urban Schools: Evaluation of a Community-Based sion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended
Model. Penn Gse Perspectives on Urban Education, learning approach. Australasian Journal of Educational
7(1), 80–90. Technology, 23(3), 307–326.
Caulfield, J. (2011). How to design and teach a hybrid Chen, Y. L., Liu, E. Z. F., Shih, R. C., Wu, C. T., &
course: Achieving student-centered learning through Yuan, S. M. (2011). Use of peer feedback to enhance
blended classroom, online, and experiential activities. elementary students’ writing through blogging. Brit-
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. ish Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), E1–E4.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01139.x
313
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). The future of teacher educa-
the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. AAHE Bul- tion: Framing the questions that matter. Teaching Educa-
letin, 3 - 6. tion, 11(1), 13–24. doi:10.1080/10476210050020327
Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. (2007). Codde, J. R. (2006). Using learning contracts in the col-
Social networks, communication styles, and learning lege classroom. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/
performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Educa- user/coddejos/contract.htm
tion, 49, 309–329. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.07.003
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building
Chou, P., & Chen, W. (2008). Exploratory study of the collaborative understanding through immersive dy-
relationship between self-directed learning and academic namic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4),
performance in a web-based learning environment. Online 471–500. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_4
Journal of Distance Learning, 9(1).
Collins, A., & Brown, J. (1988). The computer as a
Chou, P. (2012). The relationship between engineering tool for learning through reflection. In H. Mandl, & A.
students’ self-directed learning abilities and online learn- Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring
ing performances: A pilot study. Contemporary Issues in systems. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-
Education Research, 5(1), 33–38. 4684-6350-7_1
Christie, M., & Jurado, R. G. (2008). Barriers to innova- Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and
tion in online pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.sefi. processes in higher education: Quality perspectives.
be/wp-content/abstracts/1051.pdf Educational Media International, 45(2), 93–106.
doi:10.1080/09523980802107179
Chung, S. K. (2013). Virtual teamwork in a business
school master’s program: Do team charters have an Community of Inquiry. (2011). Retrieved from http://
impact? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University communitiesofinquiry.com/
of San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Compton, L., Davis, N., & Meeks, B. (2007). Virtual
Clardy, P. & Skinner, E. (December, 2011). Critical Field field experience – Preparing Teachers for e-Learning
and Life Experience for Preservice Bilingual Educators in secondary schools. Retrieved from the Deanz.org
at a Primarily White Institution. Journal of Multicultural website: http://deanz.org.nz/home/images/stories/con-
Education, 7(1). ference/2008/compton-davis-meek-reviewedpaper.pdf
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging
argumentation in online environments to relate structure, the online learner: Activities and resources for creative
grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321. doi:10.1002/tea.20216
Conway, R. N., Easton, S. S., & Schmidt, W. V. (2005).
Clarken, R. H. (2007). Using Web-Based Technology to Strategies for enhancing student interaction and im-
Effectively and Efficiently Place and Evaluate Student mediacy in online courses. Business Communication
Teachers. Supervisors and Programs. Quarterly, 68(1), 23–35. doi:10.1177/1080569904273300
Coates, J. (2007). Generational learning styles. River Corbeil, J. R. (2003). Online technologies self-efficacy,
Fall, WI: Lern Books. self-directed learning readiness, and locus of control of
learners in a graduate-level web-based distance educa-
Cobanoglu, C., & Berezina, K. (2011). The impact of the
tion program. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
use of blogs on students’ assignment engagement. Journal
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Order No. 3094002)
of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education,
10(1), 99–105. doi:10.3794/johlste.101.282
314
Corich, S. K., & Hunt, L. M. (2004). Assessing discus- Danzak, R. L. (2011). The interface of language profi-
sion forum participation: In search of Quality. Journal of ciency and identity: A profile analysis of bilingual adoles-
Instructional Technology and distance learning. Retrieved cents and their writing. Language, Speech, and Hearing
from http://itdl.org/journal/Dec_04/article01.htm Services in Schools, 42, 506–519. doi:10.1044/0161-
1461(2011/10-0015) PMID:21844398
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differ-
ences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6), Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher educa-
1–30. doi:10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125 tion: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Crandall, J., & Sheppard, K. (2004). Adult ESL and the
community college (Working Paper 7). New York: CAAL Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P.,
Community College Series, Council for Advancement of Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher edu-
Adult Literacy. cation programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
Crawley, D. C., & Frey, B. A. (2010). Examining the
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441).
relationship between course management systems, pre-
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
sentation software, and student learning: An exploratory
factor analysis. In L. Tomei (Ed.), ICTs for modern edu- Daugherty, M., & Funke, B. L. (1998). University faculty
cational and instructional advancement: New approaches and student perceptions of web-based instruction. Journal
to teaching (pp. 136–151). Academic Press. of Distance Education, 13(1), 21–39.
Cronje, J. (2013). What is this thing called “Design” in Davidson, C. N. (2009). How to crowdsource grading.
instructional design research?—The ABC instant research HASTAC. Retrieved Dec 1, 2013 from http://www.hastac.
question generator. Media in Education, 15–28. org/blogs/cathy-davidson/how-crowdsource-grading
Cruickshank, D. R., Armaline, W. D., Reighart, P. A., Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2006). Web
Hoover, R. L., Stuck, A. F., & Traver, R. (1986). As Teach- based learning: Design, implementation and evaluation.
ers Mature: Are We Getting Older and Better? Clearing Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
House (Menasha, Wis.), 59(8), 354–358.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2007).
Cuhadar, C., & Kuzu, A. (2010). Improving interaction Competencies for instructional design and technology
through blogs in a constructivist learning environment. professionals. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.),
The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
11(1), 134–161. (pp. 94 – 103). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cumming, J. J., & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextual- Davis, C. (2013). Flipped or inverted learning: Strategies
ising authentic assessment. Assessment in Education: for course design. Smyth, E. G., Volker J. X., (Eds.),
Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(2), 177–194. Enhancing instruction with visual media: Utilizing video
and lecture capture (pp. 241-261). Hershey, PA: Informa-
Cunningham, D., & Duffy, T. (1996). Constructivism:
tion Science.
Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In
D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educa- Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco,
tional Communications and Technology (pp. 170–198). CA: Jossey-Bass.
New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.
Dawley, L. (2007). Content areas: Syllabus, notes, lesson
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A plans, and documents. In L. Dawley (Ed.), The tools for
framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. successful online teaching (pp. 24–49). Academic Press.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-956-4.ch002
315
Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (7th printing,
2010. Academic Press. 1967). New York: Collier.
Dawson, M. (2013, October 28). World campus Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J. Dewey
drives Penn State enrollment to all-time high. Centre (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 19–32). New York, NY:
Daily Times. Retrieved from http://www.centredaily. Teachers College, Columbia University. (Original work
com/2013/10/28/3858688/world-campus-drives-penn- published 1897)
state.html
DeZure, D. (2000). Learning from Change: Landmarks in
Dawson, K., & Dana, N. F. (2007, July 01). When curric- Teaching and Learning in Higher Education from Change
ulum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences and Magazine. Stylus Publishing.
teacher inquiry coalesce: An opportunity for conceptual
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The Systematic Design of
change? British Journal of Educational Technology,
Instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
38(4), 656–667. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00648.x
Dick, W. (1992). An instructional designer’s view of
Daymont, T., & Blau, G. (2008). Student performance
constructivism. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),
in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate
Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A con-
management course. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
versation (pp. 91–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Management, 9(3), 275–279.
Associates.
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific dis-
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design
covery learning with computer simulations of concep-
of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Haper Collins
tual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2),
College Publishers.
179–201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179
Dobbs, K. (2002). Take the gamble out of an LMS.
De Wever, B., Shellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M.
Workforce, 81(12), 52-58. Retrieved from http://search.
(2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups
proquest.com/docview/219795874?accountid=14749
by introducing roles: Do students act in line with as-
signed roles? Small Group Research, 39(6), 770–794. Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. (1978).
doi:10.1177/1046496408323227 Generative processes in reading comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 109–118.
DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran,
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.70.2.109
S. (2011). Completing college: Assessing graduation rates
at four year colleges. Retrieved from www.heri.ucla.edu Dougiamas, M. (2011). Moodle keynote [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/
Defense Centers of Excellence. (n.d.). Generational learn-
moodler/moodle-keynote-july-2011-8597385\
ing styles. Retrieved from http://www.dcoe.mil/content/
Navigation/Documents/Fact%20Sheet_Generational%20 Dove, L. (1986). Teachers and Teacher Education in
Learning%20Styles.pdf Developing Countries. London, UK: Croom Helm Ltd.
Delahaye, B. L., & Smith, H. E. (1995). The validity of the Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors
learning preference assessment. Adult Education Quar- Affecting Student Attitudes Toward Flexible Online
terly, 45, 159–173. doi:10.1177/0741713695045003003 Learning in Management Education. The Journal of
Educational Research, 98(6), 331–338. doi:10.3200/
Department of Defense (DOD). (1998). Integrated Product
JOER.98.6.331-338
and Process Development Handbook. Washington, DC:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct
or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (rev.ed.). Boston: D.C.
Computers & Education, 51, 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.
Heath.
compedu.2007.05.001
316
DuFrene, D. D. & Lehman, C. M. (2002). Building high- EDUCAUSE. (2012, February). Things you should know
performance teams. Retrieved from http://www.swlearn- about flipped classrooms. EDUCAUSE Learning Initia-
ing.com/bcomm/lehman/lehman_13e/team_handbook/ tive. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/
team_resources.html#projectt pdf/eli7081.pdf
Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach Eisenhardt, S., Besnoy, K., & Steele, E. (2012, March
online: What works for pre-service teachers. Journal 07). Creating Dissonance in Preservice teachers’ Field
of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 357–376. Experiences. Srate Journal, 21(1), 1–10.
doi:10.2190/EC.40.3.f
Eison, J. (2010, March). Using active learning instruction-
Dunlap, J. (1999). Rich environments for active learning al strategies to create excitement and enhance learning.
on the web: Guidelines and examples. In P. de Bra & J. Retrieved from http://www.cte.cornell.edu/documents/
Leggett (Eds.), WebNet World Conference on the WWW presentations/Eisen-Handout.pdf
and Internet (vol. 1, pp. 313–318). Honolulu, HI: IEEE.
Ekmekci, O. (2013). Being there: Establishing instruc-
Durr, R. E. (1992). An examination of readiness for self- tor presence in an online learning environment. Higher
directed learning and selected personnel variables at a large Education Studies, 3(1), 29–38. doi:10.5539/hes.v3n1p29
Midwestern electronics development and manufacturing
El-Ghalayini, H., & El-Khalili, N. (2012). An approach to
corporation. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic
designing and evaluating blended courses. Education and
University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International,
Information Technologies, 17(4), 417–430. doi:10.1007/
53, 1825.
s10639-011-9167-7
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2010). Blended
Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2007). Minimum indicators to
Learning and the Generations. Retrieved from University
assure quality of LMS-supported blended learning. Jour-
of Central Florida: Center for Distributed Learning: http://
nal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 60–70.
dl.ucf.edu/files/2010/04/Online-blended-generations-
Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_2/6.pdf
presentation.ppt
Engstrom, E. U. (2005). Reading, writing and assistive
Dzuiban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended
technology: An integrated developmental curriculum for
Learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 7, 2–12.
college students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational 49(1), 30–39. doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.1.4
Work Teams: A New Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Errington, E. (2005). Creating learning scenarios. Palm-
Erlbaum.
erston North, New Zealand: Cool Books.
ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research)
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism,
Study of UG Students and Information Technology.
cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features
(2013). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/
from an instructional design perspective. Performance
resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-infor-
Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
mation-technology-2013
Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000, March 01).
Edens, K. M. (2000). Promoting communication, inquiry,
Unlocking the Knowledge in Action of an Expert Prac-
and reflection in an early practicum experience via an
titioner. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 87–101.
on-line discussion group. Action in Teacher Education,
doi:10.1177/002248710005100203
22(2A), 14–23. doi:10.1080/01626620.2000.10463035
Evans, B. P. (2004). A catalyst for change: Influencing
Edmonson, S. (2002). Effective internships for effective
preservice teacher technology proficiency. Journal of
new administrators. Paper presented at the Annual meet-
Educational Mediaand Library Sciences, 41(3), 325–336.
ing of the National Council of Professors of Educational
Administration. Burlington, VT.
317
Ewart, G., & Straw, S. B. (2005, January 01). A Seven- Finegold, A., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the attitudes,
Month Practicum: Collaborating Teachers’ Response. experiences and dynamics of interaction in online groups.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 201–215.
Education, 28, 185–202. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.003
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Jr., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. Finestone, P. (1984). A construct validation of the Self-
J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects Directed Learning Readiness Scale with labour educa-
of service learning on college students, faculty, institution participants. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
tions, and communities, 1993-2000 (3rd ed.). Vanderbilt Toronto). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 5A.
University.
Finkel, E. (2012, November). Flipping the script in
Fang, Y. (2010). Perceptions of the computer-assisted K12. District Administration, 48(10), 28–30, 32, 34.
writing program among EFL college learners. Journal Retrieved from www.districtadministration.com/article/
of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 246–256. flippingscript-k12
Faria, A., & Wellington, W. (2004). A survey of simulation Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in
game users, former users and never users. Simulation & face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling
Gaming, 29(3), 178–207. doi:10.1177/1046878104263543 the contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19–32.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0101
Feinstein, A. H. (2001). An assessment of the effective-
ness of simulation as an instructional system. Journal First Year Learning Initiative, Northern Arizona Uni-
of Hospitality & Tourism Research (Washington, D.C.), versity. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nau.edu/University-
25(4), 421–443. doi:10.1177/109634800102500405 College/First-Year-Learning-Initiative/
Fenton, E. (1991). Reflections on the “new social stud- Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, G. (2001). Development of
ies”. Social Studies, 82(3), 84–90. doi:10.1080/003779 a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing educa-
96.1991.9958313 tion. Nurse Education Today, 21, 516–525. doi:10.1054/
nedt.2001.0589 PMID:11559005
Ferreri, S. P., & O’Connor, S. K. (2013). Redesign of a
large lecture course into a small-group learning course. Fitchett, P. G., & Russell, W. B. (2012). Reflecting on
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(1), MACOS: Why it failed and what we can learn from its
1–9. doi:10.5688/ajpe77113 PMID:23460753 demise. Paedagogica Historica, 48(3), 469–484. doi:10
.1080/00309230.2011.554423
Field, L. (1991). Guglielmino’s Self-directed
Learning readiness Scale: Should it continue to be Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem
used? Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 100–103. solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence
doi:10.1177/0001848191041002004 (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fillion, G., Limayem, M., Leferriere, T., & Mantha, R. Flew, T. (2008). New media: An introduction (3rd ed.).
(2007). Integrating ICT into higher education: A study Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
of onsite vs. online students’ perceptions. Academy of
Freeman, G. G. (2010). Strategies for Successful Early
Educational Leadership Journal, 11(2), 45–72.
Field Experiences in a Teacher Education Program. Srate
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Journal, 19(1), 15–21.
Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate
Freeman, W., & Tremblay, T. (2013). Design Consider-
business course. Business Education and Accreditation,
ations for Supporting the Reluctant Adoption of Blended
6(1), 63–71.
Learning. MERLOT, 9(1), 80–88.
318
Fregeau, L. (1999). Preparing ESL students for college Gapp, R., & Fisher, R. (2012). Undergraduate manage-
writing: Two case studies. The Internet TESL Journal, ment students’ perceptions of what makes a successful
5 (10). virtual group. Education + Training, 54(2/3), 167–179.
doi:10.1108/00400911211210279
Frey, B. A., Fuller, R., & Kuhne, G. (2010). Differentiat-
ing instruction: Four types of courses. In R. Fuller, G. Gardiner, L. (1994). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re-
Kuhne, & B. Frey (Eds.), Distinctive distance education port: Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic
design: Models for differentiated instruction (pp. 13–26). gains in student learning (vol. 7). Washington, DC: ERIC
Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-865-4.ch002 Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Friesen, N. (2012). Report: Defining Blended Learning. Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2009). Paired Field
Retrieved from Learning Spaces: http://learningspaces. Placements: A Means for Collaboration. New Educator,
org/papers/Defining_Blended_Learning_NF.pdf 5(1), 81–94. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2009.10399565
Frost Davis, R. (2013). Blog. Retrieved from http:// Garrison, D. R. (1993). A cognitive constructivist view
rebeccafrostdavis.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/challenges- of distance education: An analysis of teaching-learning
of-blended-learning-in-the-humanities-ancient-greek/ assumptions. Distance Education, 14(2), 199–211.
doi:10.1080/0158791930140204
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your
classroom to improve student learning. Learning and Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry
Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17. review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1),
Fulton, K., & Riel, M. (1999). Professional development
61–72.
through learning communities. Edutopia, 6(2), 8–10.
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of Inquiry
Gabriel, M. (2004). Learning together: Exploring group
review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues.
interactions online. Journal of Distance Education,
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1),
19(1), 54–72.
61–72.
Gadot, R., & Levin, I. (2012). Digital Curation as learning
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the
activity. In Proceedings of EDULEARN12, (pp. 6038-
21st century: A framework for research and practice. Lon-
6045). EDULEARN.
don, UK: Routledge/Falmer. doi:10.4324/9780203166093
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000).
M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instructional
Critical inquiry in a text based environment: Computer
design (5th ed.). Performance Improvement, 44, 44–46.
conferencing in higher education. The Internet and
doi:10.1002/pfi.4140440211
Higher Education, 2, 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. 7516(00)00016-6
M. (2004). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.).
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical
Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing
Galusha, J.M. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance in distance education. American Journal of Distance Edu-
education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: cation, 15(1), 7–23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 5 (3-4),
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching
6-14. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues,
ED416377.pdf
and future directions. The Internet and Higher Educa-
Ganzel, R. (2001, May). Associated learning. Online tion, 10(3), 157–172. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Learning, 5 (5), 36-38, 40-41.
319
Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1980). Teaching and media:
perspective on teaching-learning: A framework for adult A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
and higher education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Prentice-Hall Incorporated.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Giambona, J., & Birchall, D. (2008). Developing an
cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not engaging virtual action learning programme for SME
enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), managers – a UK perspective. International Journal of
133–148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2 Advanced Corporate Learning, 1(1), 9–16.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blending learn- Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. The Journal of
ing in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Communication, 141–148. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.
tb00344.x
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2009). Blended
Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, Gibbons, A. S. (2012). Instructional design: An architec-
and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. tural approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2007). Blended Gibson, K., & Shaw, C. A. (2010). Assessment of active
Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Prin- learning. In R. A. Denmark (Ed.), The international stud-
ciples and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ies encyclopedia. Blackwell Publishing.
doi:10.1002/9781118269558
Gilbert, P., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure on-
Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in line discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study.
higher education. San Francisco, CA: John Whiley & Sons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x
Garrison, R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Jour-
nal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34. Glazer, F. (2012). Introduction. In F. Glazer (Ed.), Blended
Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy
Garrison, R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the develop-
(pp. 1 - 12). Sterling: Stylus Publsihing.
ment of a metacognition construct for communities of
inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 84–89. Glazer, F. S. (Ed.). (2012). Blended Learning: Across the
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.005 Disciplines, Across the Academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Garrote, R., & Pettersson, T. (2011). The use of learning Goldbert, A., & Riemer, F. (2006). All Aboard-Destination
management systems: A Longitudinal case study. eleed, Unknown: A Sociological Discussion of Online Learn-
8(1), 1–12. ing. Education Technology and Society, 9(4), 166–172.
Gau, T. (2012). Combining Tradition with Technology: Re- Golich, V., Boyer, M., Franko, P., & Lamy, S. (2000). The
designing a Literature Couse. In F. Glazer (Ed.), Blended ABCs of case teaching: Pew case studies in international
Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy affairs. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Retrieved
(pp. 87 - 114). Sterling: Stylus Publishing. from http://www.usc.edu/programs/cet/private/pdfs/
abcs.pdf
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. (2007). Effective online
instructional and assessment strategies. American Good. R. (2012). Re: Why curation will transform
Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132. education and learning: 10 Key reasons [Web log mes-
doi:10.1080/08923640701341653 sage]. Retrieved from http://www.masternewmedia.org/
curation-for-education-and-learning/
Gentry, C. G. (2011). Educational technology: A question
of meaning. In Instructional technology: Past, present, and Gopez-Sindac, R. (2004). Going the distance at the click
future (pp. 1-9). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. of a mouse. Church Executive, 3(11), 47–49.
320
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2002). Applying the Grzeda, M., Haq, R., & LeBrasseur, R. (2008). Team build-
REAL model to web-based instruction: An overview. In ing in an online organizational behavior course. Journal
Proceedings from ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference of Education for Business, 83(5), 275–281. doi:10.3200/
on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecom- JOEB.83.5.275-282
munications. Denver, CO: Academic Press.
Gueldenzoph, L. E., & May, G. L. (2002). Collaborative
Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. (2002). Applying the REAL peer evaluation: Best practices for group member assess-
model to web-based instruction: An overview. In Proceed- ments. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 9–20.
ings of ED-MEDIA World Conference on Educational doi:10.1177/108056990206500102
Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Denver,
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-
CO: AACE.
directed learning readiness scale. Doctoral dissertation,
Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active University of Georgia. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research tional, 38, 6467A.
for educational communications and technology: A project
Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (1991). Learning
of the association for educational communications and
preference assessment. King of Prussia. PA: Organization
technology (pp. 665–692). New York, NY: Simon &
Design and Development.
Schuster Macmillan.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A.
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environ-
(2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic
ments for active learning: A definition. The Journal of
assessment. Educational Technology Research and
the Association for Learning Technology, 3(2), 5–34.
Development, 52(3), 67–86. doi:10.1007/BF02504676
doi:10.1080/0968776950030202
Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R. D., & Shaul, D. (2002). E-
Grabinger, R. S., Dunlap, J. C., & Duffield, J. A. (1997).
learning: Research and application. Industrial and Commer-
Rich environments for active learning in action: Problem-
cial Training, 34(2), 44. doi:10.1108/00197850210417528
based learning. The Journal of the Association for Learning
Technology, 5(2), 5–17. doi:10.1080/0968776970050202 Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of
instructional design models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY:
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective
Syracuse University.
strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and
high school – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2007). What is instruc-
York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. tional design? In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.),
Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
Grande, M., Burns, B., Schmidt, R., & Marable, M.
(pp. 10 – 16). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
A. (2009). Impact of a Paid Urban Field Experi-
ence on Teacher Candidates’ Willingness to Work in Hafner, K., & Lyon, M. (1996). Where wizards stay up late:
Urban Schools. Teacher Educator, 44(3), 188–203. The origins of the Internet. New York, NY: Touchstone.
doi:10.1080/08878730902974264
Hakkarainen, P., Saarelainen, T., & Ruokamo, H. (2009).
Green, G. (2012, July). The flipped classroom and school Assessing teaching and students’ meaningful learning pro-
approach: Clintondale high school. Paper presented at cesses in an e-learning course. In C. Spratt & P. Lajbcygier
the annual Building Learning Communities Education (Eds.), E-Learning technologies and evidence-based
Conference. Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://2012. assessment approaches (pp. 20–36). Academic Press.
blcconference.com/documents/flipped-classroom- doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-410-1.ch002
school-approach.pdf
321
Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: Achiev- Hara, & Kling. (2000). Students’ distress with a web-based
ing high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on distance education course. Information, Communication,
Technology in Education, 42(3), 231–254. doi:10.1080/ and Society, 3, 557-579.
15391523.2010.10782550
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K., & Artfstrom, analysis of online discussion in an applied educational
K. M. (2013). A review of flipped learning. Flipped psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.
Learning Network. Retrieved from http://flippedlearn- doi:10.1023/A:1003764722829
ing.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995).
LitReview_FlippedLearning.pdf
Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learn-
Hammill, G. (2005). Mixing and managing four genera- ing Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
tions of employees. FDU Magazine Online. Retrieved
Hargis, J. (2005). Collaboration, community, and project-
from http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/
based learning: Does it still work online? International
generations.htm
Journal of Instructional Media, 32(2), 157–162.
Haney, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance-
Harlow, S., Cummings, R., & Aberasturi, S. (2007).
learning: A companion of online and traditional learning.
Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A rationale for con-
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
structivism. The Educational Forum, 71(1), 41–48.
2(1), 1–11.
doi:10.1080/00131720608984566
Hanke, U., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2011). Ef-
Hartman, J. L., Dziuban, C., & Brophy-Ellison, J. (2007).
fects of creative dispositions on the design of les-
Faculty 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(5), 62–77.
sons. The Open Educational Journal, 4, 113–119.
doi:10.2174/1874920801104010113 Hartwell, R., & Barkley, E. (2012). Blended, With a
Twist. In F. Glazer (Ed.), Blended Learning: Across the
Hanlon, B. (2008). Considering a simulation? Benefits
Disciplines, Across the Academy (pp. 115 - 126). Sterling:
+ tips to guide enhanced experiential learning. In Pro-
Sylus Publishing.
ceedings of the Marketing Management Association, (pp.
90-91). Retrieved from http://www.mmaglobal.org/pub- Hasler-Waters, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Building and
lications/ProceedingsArchive/2008_FALL_MMA.pdf supporting student team collaboration in the virtual
classroom. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
Hannum, W. H., Irvin, M. J., Banks, J. B., & Farmer, T. W.
3(3), 345–352.
(2009). Distance education use in rural schools. Journal
of Research in Rural Education, 24(3), 2–13. Retrieved Hassan, B., Maqsood, A., & Riaz, M. N. (2011). Rela-
from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-3.pdf tionship between organizational communication climate
and interpersonal conflict management styles. Pakistan
Hanover Research Council. (2009). Best practices in online
Journal of Psychology, 42(2).
teaching strategies. Retrieved from http://www.uwec.
edu/AcadAff/resources/edtech/upload/Best-Practices-in- Hawryszkiewycz, I. T. (2004). Towards active learning
Online-Teaching-Strategies-Membership.pdf management systems. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D.
Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort
Hanuscin, D. L., & Musikul, K. (2007). School’s IN for
zone: Proceedings of the 21st ascilite conference (pp.
Summer: An Alternative Field Experience for Elementary
348–356). Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/
Science Methods Students. Journal of Elementary Sci-
conferences/perth04/procs/hawryszkiewycz.htm
ence Education, 19(1), 57–68. doi:10.1007/BF03173654
322
Heinich, R. (2011). The proper study of instructional Hirumi, A., & Kidney, G. (2011). Contemporary issues
technology. In Instructional technology: Past, present, facing distance educators: An e-learning perspective. In
and future (pp. 31-54). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp.
Unlimited. 145-160). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Henri, F., & Rigault, C. R. (1996). Collaborative distance Hixon, E., & So, H.-J. (2009). Technology’s Role in Field
learning and computer conferencing. In Advanced educa- Experiences for Preservice Teacher Training. Journal
tional technology: Research issues and future potential of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294–304.
(pp. 45–76). Springer.
Hodgson, P. (2010). Enhancing student learning through
Hermans, C. M., Haytko, D.L., & Mott-Stenerson, B. blending varied learning and assessment experiences. In
(2009, September). Student satisfaction in web-enhanced E. Ng (Ed.), Comparative blended learning practices and
learning environments. Journal of Instructional Pedago- environments (pp. 50–69). Academic Press.
gies,1-19.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2006). Learning style
Herreid, C. F. (2005). Using case studies to teach sci- characteristics of adult learners. Delta Kappa Gamma
ence. Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Bulletin, 72(2), 14–31.
Sciences.
Hou, H. T. (2012). Analyzing the learning process of an
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies online role-playing discussion activity. Journal of Edu-
and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science cational Technology & Society, 15(1), 211–222.
Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007). An analysis
Hilgart, M. M., Ritterband, L. M., Thorndike, F. P., & of peer assessment online discussions within a course that
Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Using instructional design process uses project-based learning. Interactive Learning Environ-
to improve design and development of Internet interven- ments, 15(3), 237–251. doi:10.1080/10494820701206974
tions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(3), e89.
Hovancsek, M. T. (2007). Using simulations in nursing
doi:10.2196/jmir.1890 PMID:22743534
education. In P. R. Jeffries (Ed.), Simulation in nursing
Hill, C. (2010). Peer editing: A comprehensive pedagogical education: From conceptualization to evaluation (pp. 1–9).
approach to maximize assessment opportunities, integrate New York, NY: National League for Nursing.
collaborative learning, and achieve desired outcomes.
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003).
Nevada Law Journal, 11(3), 667-717. Retrieved from
Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol11/iss3/4/
informed Foundation for strategic planning. Online
Hillman, S. L., Bottomley, D. M., Raisner, J. C., & Malin, Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved
B. (2000). Learning To Practice What We Teach: Inte- from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/
grating Elementary Education Methods Courses. Action howell63.html
in Teacher Education, 22, 91–100. doi:10.1080/016266
Howell, S. L., Laws, R. D., & Lindsay, N. K. (2004).
20.2000.10463043
Reevaluating course completion in distance education:
Hills, P. J. (1976). The Self-Teaching Person in Higher Avoiding the Comparison between Apples and Oranges.
Educational. London, UK: Croom Helm Ltd. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 243–252.
Hiltz, S. (1990). Evaluating the Virtual Classroom. In L. Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003).
Harasim (Ed.), Online Education (pp. 134–184). New Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An in-
York, NY: Praeger. formed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).
323
Hricko, M. (2003). Retention resources. Message posted Huss, J. A., & Eastep, S. (2013). The perceptions of stu-
to The Distance Education Online Symposium electronic dents toward online learning at a Midwestern university:
mailing list (April 10), archived at http://lists.psu.edu/ What are students telling us and what are we doing about
cgi bin/wa?A2=ind0304&L=deos-l&F=&S=&P=4114 it. i.e.: inquiry in education, 4(2), Article 5. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5
Hsu, Y. C., & Shiue, Y. M. (2005). The effect of self-
directed learning readiness on achievement comparing Hutchison, C. B. (2006). Cultural constructivism: The
face-to-face and two-way distance learning instruction. confluence of cognition, knowledge creation, multicul-
International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(2), turalism, and teaching. Intercultural Education, 17(3),
143–156. 301–310. doi:10.1080/14675980600841694
Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2008). Con-
learners in online learning environments. British Journal of structivism and education: Misunderstandings and
Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37. doi:10.1111/1467- pedagogical implications. Teacher Educator, 43, 72–86.
8535.00236 doi:10.1080/08878730701728945
Hubbard, R. S. (2003). Managing team projects to fulfill IBIS Capital. (2014, January 19). Global e-Learning
learning objectives. In Proceedings of the 2003 Associa- investment review. Retrieved from http://www.ibiscapital.
tion for Business Communication Annual Convention. co.uk/
Association for Business Communication.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). The Teacher Shortage: Myth or
Hubbard, R. S. (2013). How to improve global virtual Reality? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 146–152.
teams. Global Business & International Management
International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Conference Journal, 6(3), 49-58.
(2011). National standards for quality online teaching.
Hubbard, D. (2013). Personal Interview. Pasadena, CA: Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/resources/publica-
Interserv Associates. tions/national-quality-standards/
Hubbard, R. S. (2011). The Importance of Process Skills in Irvine, J. J. (2003). When difference makes a difference.
the Professions. Pasadena, CA: Interserv Associates LLP. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Hughes, J. (2009). An Instructional Model for Preparing
Teachers for Fieldwork. International Journal of Teach- Jacobsen, M. J., & Kapur, M. (2011). Learning environ-
ing and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 252–257. ments as emergent phenomena: Theoretical and meth-
odological implications of complexity. In Theoretical
Hungerford-Kresser, H., Wiggins, J., & Amaro, C. (2011).
foundations of learning environments (2nd Ed.). New
Learning from our mistakes: what matters when incor-
York: Routledge.
porating blogging in the content area literacy classroom.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 326–335. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Definition. In
doi:10.1002/JAAL.00039 Educational technology: A definition with commentary
(pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hunsaker, P., Pavett, C., & Hunsaker, J. (2011). Increasing
student-learning team effectiveness with team charters. Jeffries, P. R., & Rogers, K. J. (2007). Evaluating simula-
Journal of Education for Business, 86, 127–139. doi:10 tions. In P. R. Jeffries (Ed.), Simulation in nursing educa-
.1080/08832323.2010.489588 tion: From conceptualization to evaluation (pp. 87–103).
New York, NY: National League for Nursing.
Hurst, D., Tan, A., Meek, A., & Sellers, J. (2003). Over-
view and inventory of state education reforms: 1990 to Jinkens, R. C. (2009). Nontraditional students: Who are
2000 (NCES publication No. 2003-020). Washington, they? College Student Journal Part A, 43(4), 979–987.
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education National Center for
Educational Statistics.
324
Jinks, S. E. (2009). An examination of teaching presence Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell,
and the sense of community on perceived student learn- J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and com-
ing. University of Florida, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations puter mediated communication in distance education.
Publishing, 3367434. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–25.
doi:10.1080/08923649509526885
Johnson, C. J. (2013). Evaluation of a hybrid mathematics
methods course for novice teachers. International Journal Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with
of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 3(1), 33–52. technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.
doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2013010103 Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology (pp. 693–710). New
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation
York, NY: Macmillan.
and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: In-
teraction Book Company. Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact
of constructivism on education: Language, discourse,
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J., & Roy, P.
and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3).
(1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom.
Retrieved from http://ac-journal.org/journal/vol5/iss3/
Alexandria, VA: Assoc for Supervision and Curriculum
special/jones.pdf
Development.
Joyes, G., Fisher, T., & Coyle, D. (2002). Developments
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998).
in Generative Learning using a Collaborative Learning
Active learning: Cooperative learning in the college
Environment. Paper presented at the Networked Learning
classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Conference. Sheffield, UK.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Freeman,
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect
A., Ifenthaler, D., & Vardaxis, N. (2013). Technology
of Twitter on college student engagement and grades.
Outlook for Australian Tertiary Education 2013-2018:
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132.
An NMC Horizon Project Regional Analysis. Austin, TX:
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
The New Media Consortium.
Jungle, D. (2013). Best retention rates for online colleges.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The
Retrieved from http://www.degreejungle.com/rankings/
NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition.
best-retention-rates
Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2007).
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood,
Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal
K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The
of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 237–274.
New Media Consortium.
doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222230309
Jonassen, D. H., & Easter, M. A. (2012). Conceptual
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating construc-
change and student centered learning environments. In
tivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations.
Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.
95-113). Academic Press.
Karp, H., Fuller, C., & Sirias, D. (2002). Bridging the
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism:
boomer Xer gap: Creating authentic teams for high perfor-
Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational
mance at work. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
doi:10.1007/BF02296434 Kaye, A. (1992). Learning together apart. In A. R. Kaye
(Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Confer-
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems. A
encing (pp. 117–136). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
handbook for designing problem-solving learning envi-
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77684-7_1
ronments. New York, NY: Routledge.
325
Kearsley, G., & Moore, M. G. (2011). Distance Educa- Kim, K.-J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA
tion: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, chal-
Wadsworth. lenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Edu-
cation, 8, 335–344. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.005
Keaton, S. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2011). Explaining social
constructivism. Communication Teacher, 25(4), 192–196. Kirk, Y. (2013, October). Evaluating a first Year Faculty-
doi:10.1080/17404622.2011.601725 to-Faculty Mentoring Program. Paper presented at the
Mentoring Institute Conference at the University of New
Kember, D. (1987). A longitudinal process model of
Mexico. Albuquerque, NM.
drop out from distance education. The Journal of Higher
Education, 60(3), 278–301. doi:10.2307/1982251 Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal
guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2011). The Current State
of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
of Field Experiences in K-12 Online Learning Programs
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psy-
in the U.S. Technology and Teacher Education Annual,
chologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
7, 3454–3461.
Kitts, S. A., & Hancock, J. T. (1999). Putting theory into
Kersten, D. (2002, November 15). Today’s generations
practice: The creation of REALs in the context of today’s
face new communication gaps. USA Today. Retrieved
universities. The Journal of the Association for Learning
from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/
Technology, 7(2), 4–14. doi:10.1080/0968776990070202
workplace/communication/2002-11-15-communication-
gap_x.htm Kleinman, S. (2003). Women in science and engineer-
ing building community online. Journal of Women and
Keys, J., & Biggs, W. (1990). A review of business
Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(1), 73–88.
games. In J. W. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business gaming
doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v9.i1.50
and experiential learning (pp. 48–73). East Brunswick,
NJ: Nichols/GP. Kleinman, S. (2005). Strategies for encouraging ac-
tive learning, interaction, and academic integrity in
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential role of
online course. Communication Teacher, 19(1), 13–18.
relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynam-
doi:10.1080/1740462042000339212
ics, 13(1), 14–30. doi:10.1037/a0013495
Klenk, N. L., & Hickey, G. M. (2010). Communication
Khan, S. (2012, October 2). Why Long Lectures are Inef-
and management challenges in large, cross-sector research
fective. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.
networks: A Canadian case study. Canadian Journal of
com/2012/10/02/why-lectures-are-ineffective/
Communication, 35(2), 239–263.
Kim, H. K. (2011). Developmentally Appropriate Practice
Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching complex
(DAP) as Defined and Interpreted by Early Childhood
dynamic systems to young student with StarLogo. Jour-
Preservice Teachers: Beliefs about DAP and Influences of
nal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
Teacher Education and Field Experience. Srate Journal,
24(2), 157–178. Retrieved from http://dl.aace.org/16982
20(2), 12–22.
Knowles, M. S. (1989). Everything you wanted to know
Kim, K. A., Sax, L. J., Lee, J. J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2010).
from Malcolm Knowles. Training (New York, N.Y.),
Redefining nontraditional students: Exploring the self-
26(8), 45–50.
perceptions of community college students. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 34, 402–422. Knowles, M., Holton, E. F. III, & Swanson, R. A. (2005).
doi:10.1080/10668920701382633 The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education
and human resource development (6th ed.). Burlington,
MA: Elsevier.
326
Koerner, M. E., & Abdul-Tawwab, N. (2006). Using Lancaster, L. C. (2014, January 12). When generations
Community as a Resource for Teacher Education: A Case collide: How to solve the generational puzzle at work.
Study. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(1), 37–46. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonandco.com/pdf/
doi:10.1080/10665680500478767 when_generations_collide.pdf
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations
course of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, collide: Who they are, why they clash, How to solve the
NJ: Prentice Hall. generational puzzle at work. London, U.K.: HarperCol-
lins Publishers Inc.
Kopriva, R., Gabel, D., & Bauman, J. (2009). Building
comparable computer-based science items for English Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-centered
Learners: Results and insights from the ONPAR project. learning environments. In Theoretical foundations of
Paper presented at the National Conference on Student learning environments (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Assessment (NCSA). Los Angeles, CA. Erlbaum Associates.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012).
technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Student-centered learning environments: Foundations,
CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm assumptions and design. In Theoretical foundations of
(pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. learning environments (pp. 3-25). Academic Press.
Krain, M., & Shadle, C. J. (2006). Starving for knowledge: Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2010, September).
An active learning approach to teaching about world Seven essentials for project-based learning. Educational
hunger. International Studies Perspectives, 7(1), 51–66. Leadership, 68(1), 34-37. Retrieved from http://ascd.
doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2006.00230.x org/publications/educational-leadership/sept10/vol68/
num01/toc.aspx
Krathwhol, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxanomy:
An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(3), 212 218. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science:
Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technol-
Kubala, T. (1998). Addressing student needs: Teaching
ogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
on the Internet. T.H.E. Journal, 25(8), 71-74. Retrieved
August 30, 2013 from http://www.editlib.org/p/84770 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legiti-
mate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge
Kuchinke, P., Aragon, S. R., & Bartlett, K. (2001). On-
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
line instructional delivery: Lessons from the instructor’s
perspective. Performance Improvement, 40(1), 19–27. Laves, E. (2010). The impact of teaching presence in
doi:10.1002/pfi.4140400107 intensive online courses on perceived learning and sense
of community: A mixed methods study. The University
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions
of Nebraska – Lincoln, ProQuest. UMI Dissertations
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Publishing, 2010, 3398322.
Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J. (1998).
Law, E., & Havannberg, E. (2007). Quality models of on-
A computer-mediated support system for project-based
line learning community systems: Exploration, evaluation,
learning. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
and exploitation. In N. Lambropoulos, & P. Zaphiris (Eds.),
ment, 46(1), 73–86. doi:10.1007/BF02299830
User-centered design of online learning communities (pp.
Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). Introduction: 71–100). Hershey, PA: IDEA Group, Inc.
Learner-centered schools and classrooms as a direction
Lawrence, M. N., & Butler, M. B. (2011). Becoming
for school reform. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs
Aware of the Challenges of Helping Students Learn: An
(Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through
Examination of the Nature of Learning during a Service
learner-centered education (pp. 1–22). Academic Press.
learning Experience. Teacher Education Quarterly,
doi:10.1037/10258-017
37(1), 155–175.
327
Lazarevic, B. K. (2011). Examining the role of the intro- LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Akar, H., Gutierrez,
ductory video in the development of teaching presence in C., Jenkins-Gunn, E., & Rosebrock, K. (2005). Classroom
online instruction. The University of Nebraska - Lincoln, management. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford
ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 3449905. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 327 357).
Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M., & Abbey, C. (2006).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Simulations and games: Use and barriers in higher educa-
tion. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(3), 227–242. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D.
doi:10.1177/1469787406069056 W. (2005). Toward a theory of.new literacies emerging
from the Internet and other information and communica-
Learning Preference Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved from
tion technologies. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.),
http://www.lpasdlrs.com
Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.,
Lederman, D. (2013). Growth for online learning. Inside pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading
Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered. Association.
com/news/2013/01/08/survey-finds-online-enrollments-
Liakopoulou, M. (2012). The role of field experience in
slow-continue-grow
the preparation of reflective teachers. Australian Jour-
Lee, I. (2000). Learner perceptions, learning styles, and nal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 41–54. doi:10.14221/
learning strategies: In an asynchronous, open text-based, ajte.2012v37n6.4
task-oriented, and gender-mixed web environment. In
Liegle, J. O., & Janicki, T. N. (2006). The effect of
Proceedings from the World Conference on Educational
learning styles on the navigation needs of Web-based
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp.
learners. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 885–898.
1415-1416). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.024
Lee, E. (2011). Facilitating student-generated content
Lin, Q. (2009). Student views of hybrid learning: A one
using Web 2.0 technologies. Educational Technology,
year exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Teacher
51(4), 36–40.
Education, 2, 57–66.
Lee, J. F. K. (2011). International Field Experience--What
Liu, S., Joy, M., & Griffiths, N. 2010. Students’ perceptions
Do Student Teachers Learn? Australian Journal of Teacher
of the factors leading to unsuccessful group collabora-
Education, 36(10), 1–22. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n10.4
tion. In Proceedings of Advanced Learning Technologies
Lefoe, G., Olney, I., Wright, R., & Herrington, A. (2009). (ICALT), (pp. 565–569). IEEE.
Faculty development for new technologies: Putting mobile
Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007).
learning in the hands of the teachers. In J. Herrington, A.
Does sense of community matter? An examination of
Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New
participants’ perceptions of building learning communi-
technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher
ties in online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance
education (pp. 15–27). Wollongong: UOW.
Education, 8(1), 9–24.
Lehman, J. D., Richardson, J., & Association for Edu-
Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or in-
cational Communications and Technology, Washington,
novating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of
DC. (2004). Making Connections in TeacherEducation:
Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education,
Electronic Portfolios, Videoconferencing, and Distance
53(3), 686–694. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008
Field Experiences. Author.
Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study
Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educational
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
research. Linguistics and Education, 4(3-4), 257–268.
doi:10.1016/0898-5898(92)90003-F
328
Lu, J., Yu, C., & Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, learning Mannix, E. A., Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2002).
patterns, and learning performance in a web CT-based The phenomenology of conflict in distributed work teams.
course. Information & Management, 40(6), 497–507. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp.
doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00064-2 213–233). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press.
Lum, L. L. Q. (2009). Accommodating learning styles
in bridging education programs for internationally edu- Manochehri, N., & Young, J. (2006). The Impact of
cated professionals (IEPs). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Student Learning Styles with Web-based Learning or
Council on Learning. Retrieved from http://0-site.ebrary. Instructor-based Learning on Student Knowledge and
com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/lib/athabasca/docDetail. Satisfaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Educa-
action?docID=10385405 tion, 7(3), 313–317.
Luna, G., & Cullen, D. (1995). Empowering the fac- Mantyla, K. (2001). Blended e-learning: The power is in
ulty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. ASHE-ERIC the mix. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training
Higher Education Report, V3, 9888. Retrieved from http:// & Development.
ww.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/
Marchel, C. A., Shields, C., & Winter, L. (2011). Preser-
ERICServlet?accno=ED39
vice Teachers as Change Agents: Going the Extra Mile
Lunce, L. (2004). Computer simulations in distance edu- in Service learning Experiences. Teaching Educational
cation. International Journal of Instructional Technology Psychology, 7(2), 3-16.
and Distance Learning, 1(10), 29–40. Retrieved from
Martins, L. L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model
http://www.itdl.org/journal/oct_04/index.htm
of business school students ‘acceptance of a web-based
Mahdavi, M., & Khoobkar, M. H. (2010). Effective design course management system. Academy of Manage-
and delivery of learning materials in learning management ment Learning & Education, 3, 7–26. doi:10.5465/
systems. In D. Russell & A. Haghi (Eds.), Web-based AMLE.2004.12436815
engineering education: Critical design and effective
Mason, R. (1998). Models of online courses. ALN Maga-
tools (pp. 175–185). Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-
zine, 15(7), 1–14.
1-61520-659-9.ch013
Mason, D., Abernathy, K., Abshire, S., Cummings, C.,
Mahfouz, S. M., & Ihmeideh, F. M. (2009). Attitudes of
& Liu, X. (2012). Evaluation of an online technology
Jordanian university students towards using online chat dis-
leadership master’s program. In J. Tareilo, & B. Bizzell
course with native speakers of English for improving their
(Eds.), NCPEA handbook of virtual/online instruction
language proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learn-
and programs in educational leadership (pp. 183–207).
ing, 22(3), 207–227. doi:10.1080/09588220902920151
Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Press.
Mai, M. N. (n.d.). Technology-based learning: Using web
Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for com-
authoring tools to enhance instruction in the classroom.
puter conferencing applications. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.),
Academic Press.
Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferenc-
Mandemach, B.J. (2009, March). Three ways to improve ing (pp. 105–116). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
student engagement in the online classroom. Online doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77684-7_7
Classroom, 1-2.
Mathews, D. (1999). The Origins of Distance Education
Mandemach, B. J., Gonzales, R. M., & Garrett, A. L. and Its Use in the United States. T.H.E. Journal, 27(2),
(2006). An examination of online instructor presence 54–66.
via threaded discussion participation. Journal of Online
Mattar, J. A. (2010). Constructivism and connectivism
Learning and Teaching, 2(4), 248–260.
in education technology: Active, situated, authentic, ex-
periential, and anchored learning. Retrieved from http://
www.joaomattar.com/Constructivism
329
Matthews, W. (2003). Constructivism in the classroom: McIntyre, D. J., & the Foundation for Excellence in
Epistemology, history, and empirical evidence. Teacher Teacher Education. (American Association of Colleges
Education Quarterly, 30(3), 51–64. for Teacher Education), ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher
Education & National Institute of Education (U.S.). (1983).
Mattiske, C. (2012). Fast-track Instructional Design. Syd-
Field experiences in teacher education from student to
ney, Australia: The Performance Company Pty Limited.
teacher. Washington, DC: Foundation for Excellence in
Ma, Y., Williams, D., Prejean, L., Lai, G., & Ford, M. J. Teacher Education
(2008). A Model for Facilitating Field Experience in a
McKeachie, W. (1986). Teaching tips. Lexington, MA:
Technology-Enhanced Model Pedagogical Laboratory.
Health & Co.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(3),
105–110. McKenna, L., & French, J. (2010). A step ahead: Teaching
undergraduate students to be peer teachers. Nurse Edu-
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Learning multimedia. New
cation in Practice. doi: doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2010.10.003
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
PMID:21051284
CBO9781139164603
McKenney, S. (2005). Technology for curriculum and
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes
teacher development: Software to help educators learn
rule against pure discovery learning? The American
while designing teacher guides. Journal of Research on
Psychologist, 59(1), 14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Technology in Education, 38(2), 167.
PMID:14736316
McKenney, S. (2001). Computer Based Support for Sci-
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock ’s enduring con-
ence Education Materials Developers in Africa: Exploring
tributions to the science of learning. Educational Psycholo-
Potentials. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.
gist, 45(1), 46–50. doi:10.1080/00461520903433547
McKinnon, N. C. (1995). Distance education and the
May, R. (1975). The Courage to Create. New York, NY:
transformation of elementary/secondary education. In
W.W. Norton & Company.
J. Roberts, & E. Keough (Eds.), Why the information
Mazur, E. (2013). Peer Instruction website. Retrieved highway?Lessons from open and distance learning.
from http://www.peerinstruction.net Toronto, Canada: Trifolium Books Inc.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A users manual. Upper McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (2010).
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Supporting collaborative learning and e-Discussions using
artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of
McCraw, M. A., & Martindale, T. (n.d.). Growth of the Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20(1), 1–46.
multi-generational student population. Academic Press.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P’s
McDermott, L. C., Brawley, N., & Waite, W. W. (1998). of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization,
World class teams. New York, NY: Wiley. participation, and productivity. International Journal of
McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Carlsen, R., Willis, D. A., Gutke, Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10–27.
H. J., & Albion, P. (2008). Exploring the worth of online Melkin, C. H. (2012). Nontraditional students online:
communities and e-mentoring programs for beginning Composition, collaboration, and community. The Journal
teachers. AACE. of Continuing Higher Education, 60(1), 33–39. doi:10.1
McGlinn, J. (2003). The impact of experiential learning 080/07377363.2012.649128
on student teachers. Clearing House (Menasha, Wis.),
76(3), 143–148. doi:10.1080/00098650309601991
330
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. Miller, A. (2012). Five best practices for the flipped class-
(2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruc- room. Edutopia. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.
tion: A comparative study of instructional methods and org/blog/flipped-classroom-best-practices-andrew-miller
student characteristics. The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Mills, B. (2007). The next wave now: Web 2.0. Education
Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49–69. doi:10.7771/1541-
Digest, 73(4), 4–5.
5015.1026
Merseth, K. K. (1991). The early history of case-
simulation-based assessment (CRESST Research Report
based instruction: Insights for teacher education to-
No. 800). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research
day. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 243–249.
on Evaluation, Standards, Student Testing (CRESST),
doi:10.1177/002248719104200402
Center for Studies in Education, UCLA. Retrieved from
Metcalf, K. K., & Kahlich, P. A. (1999). Nontraditional http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R800.pdf
Preservice Teacher Development: The Value of Clinical
Experience. Journal of Research and Development in
simulation-based assessment.[Supplemental Material].
Education, 31(2), 69–82.
Military Medicine, 178(10), 107–114. doi:10.7205/
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Quality in distance education: Focus MILMED-D-13-00213 PMID:24084311
on on-line education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Mitchell, T. (1997). Machine Learning. McGraw Hill.
Report, 29(4).
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discus-
and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultane-
sions. The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal
ous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185–199.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006
Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom. San
Mohammed, A. (2004). Theory and practice in online
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
learning. Athabasca University.
Meyers, S. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when
Moizer, J., Lean, J., Towler, M., & Abbey, C. (2009).
teaching online. College Teaching, 56(4), 219–224.
Simulations and games: Overcoming the barriers to their
doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.4.219-224
use in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Educa-
Michel, N., Cater, J., & Várela, J. (2009). Active versus tion, 10(3), 207–224. doi:10.1177/1469787409343188
passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student
Molenda, M. (2008). Using. In Educational technology:
learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quar-
A definition with commentary (pp. 141-173). New York,
terly, 20(4), 397–418. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20025
NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Michelson, J., & Manning, L. (2008). Competency assess-
Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for
ment in simulation-based procedural education. American
asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology
Journal of Surgery, 196(4), 609–615. doi:10.1016/j.
Research and Development, 46(4), 115–122. doi:10.1007/
amjsurg.2007.09.050 PMID:18614142
BF02299678
Mihailidis, P., & Cohen, J. (2013). Exploring Curation as
Moodle - Open-source learning platform | Moodle.org.
a core competency in digital and media literacy education.
(n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2013, from http://moodle.org/
Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 0(0).
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011).
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative
e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environ-
data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks,
ments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Educa-
CA: Sage Publications.
tion, 14(2), 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
331
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance educa- Murray, T. (1999). Authoring intelligent tutoring systems:
tion: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: An analysis of the state of the art. International Journal
Wadsworth. of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 98–129.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the Field Experience of MySQL: The world’s most popular open source database.
Preservice Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2013, from http://www.mysql.com
31–42. doi:10.1177/0022487102238656
Nasser, R., Cherif, M., & Romanowski, M. (2011). Factors
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H.K. & Kemp, that impact student usage of the learning management
J.E. (2010). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). system in qatari schools. International Review of Research
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 39–62.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
J. E. (2012). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). (2008). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Teacher Preparation Institutions. National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education.
Morrison, T., & Conaway, W. A. (2006). Kiss, Bow, or
Shake Hands. Avon, MA: Adams Media. National Research Council. (2011). Learning science
through computer games and simulations. Washington,
Morse, C. J. (2012). Debriefing after simulated patient
DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://
experiences. In L. Wilson, & L. Rockstraw (Eds.), Hu-
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13078
man simulation for nursing and health professions (pp.
58–68). New York, NY: Springer. Neuman, L. H., Pardue, K. T., Grady, J. L., Grady, M.
T., Hobbins, B., Edelstein, J., & Herrman, J. W. (2009).
Moss, B. (2000). The use of large-group role-play tech-
What is an innovative teaching assignment strategy need
niques in social work education. Social Work Education,
to nursing students? Nursing Education Research, 30(3),
19(5), 471–483. doi:10.1080/026154700435995
159–163.
Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). De-
New Media Consortium & EDUCAUSE. (2007). The
velopment and validation of the computer self-efficacy
horizon report. Stanford, CA: The New Media Consortium.
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49,
893–899. doi:10.1177/001316448904900412 New Media Consortium. (2009). Challenge-based learn-
ing: An approach for our time. Stanford, CA: The New
Murphy, E. (2004). Identifying and measuring ill-
Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/
structured problem formulation and resolution in online
pdf/Challenge-Based-Learning.pdf
asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology, 30(1), 5–20. Newman, D. (1998). Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Project Links: Mathematics and Its Applications across
Murphy, J. (2012). LMS teaching versus com-
the Curriculum. Evaluation Consortium, University at
munity learning: A call for the latter. Asia Pacific
Albany/SUNY.
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 826–841.
doi:10.1108/13555851211278529 Newman, D. L., & Clure, G. (2007). Reaching beyond
the invisible barriers: Serving a community of users with
Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012).
multiple needs. Paper presented at the Human Comput-
Student interaction with online course content: Build it
ers Interaction (HCI) International Conference. Beijing,
and they might come. Journal of Information Technology
China.
Education: Research, 11(1), 125–140.
332
Newman, D., & Clure, G. (2012). The importance of Nuthall, G. (2002), Social constructivist teaching and
learner characteristics for nontraditional users. Paper the shaping of students’ knowledge and thinking. In J.
presented at the 2011 Annual Society for Information Tech- Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances
nology and Teacher Education Conference. Austin, TX. and constraints. Emerald Group.
Newman, D., & Gullie, K. (2009).Using constructivist Nycz, M., & Cohen, E. B. (2007). The basics for under-
methods in technology-supported learning: Evidence of standing e-learning. In Principles of effective online teach-
student impact. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ing (pp. 1-17). Santa Rosa, CA: Information Science Press.
of the American Educational Research Association. San
O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004).
Diego, CA.
Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a tech-
Newman, D., & Murphy, K. (2011). Technology supported nological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychol-
instruction: Best practices for at-risk and underserved ogy, 23(4), 464–490. doi:10.1177/0261927X04269588
learners. Paper presented at the 2011 Annual American
Oblinger, D. G., & Maruyama, M. K. (1996). Distributed
Evaluation Association Conference. Anaheim, CA.
learning. Boulder, CO: Cause Professional Paper Series.
Newman, D., Clure, G., Rodd, J., & Morris, M. (2010).
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First
Moving the lab to the classroom: The impact of an in-
steps toward understanding the net generation. Educating
novative technological teaching tool on K-14 learning
the Net Generation, 1-20.
and cognition. Paper presented at the 2010 conference of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Educa- O’Connell, B. (2002). A poor grade of e-learning. Work-
tion. New York, NY. force, 81(7), 15.
Newman, D., Reinhard, D. E., & Clure, G. (2007). Using O’Hair, D., Friedrich, G. W., & Dixon, L. D. (2010).
constructivist methods in technology-supported learn- Strategic Communication in Business and the Professions
ing: Evidence of student impact. Paper presented at the (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation
Newman, D. L., & Passa, K. (2007). The role of user of high- and low-level production processes in written
characteristics in the development and evaluation of composition. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 594–600.
E-learning systems. In W. K. Law (Ed.), Information doi:10.3758/BF03194960 PMID:12184560
resources management: Global challenges. Hershey,
PA: Idea Group Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904- O’Neal, C. (2007, January 11). How online simulations
102-5.ch015 work in the classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://
www.edutopia.org/online-simulations-classroom
Northern Arizona University. (2010). The Student Experi-
ence in Brief: NAU. Northern Arizona University. Oriogun, P. K., Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2005). Validat-
ing an approach to examining cognitive engagement within
Northern Arizona University. (2012). Academic Chairs online groups. American Journal of Distance Education,
Council Committee Report on Faculty Evaluation & 19(4), 197–214. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1904_2
Student Success (CFESS). Northern Arizona University.
Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended Learning
Northern Arizona University. (2013, November 22). Environments: Definitions and Directions. The Quarterly
FYLI: First Year Learning Initiative. Retrieved from Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233.
Northern Arizona University: http://www2.nau.edu/
fyli-p/wordpress/ O’Shea, P., & Kidd, J. (2011). Crowdsourced grading:
Exploring the validity and effects of student-authored and
Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for student-evaluated textbooks. In S. Barton et al. (Eds.), Pro-
interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, ceedings of Global Learn 2011 (pp. 1266–1271). AACE.
3(2), 219–226.
333
Ostashewski, N. (2013). Networked Teacher Professional Parietti, I. S. C., & Turi, D. M. (2011). Assessment of
Development: Assessing K-12 Teacher Professional Devel- the online instructor. Academy of Educational Leadership
opment within a social networking framework. Dissertation Journal, 15, 63–78.
available at http://hdl.handle.net/10791/26
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching
Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2011). An Instructional tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learn-
Design Model utilizing Social Networking Groups; Articu- ing Objectives, 3, 57-72. Retrieved from http://ijklo.org/
lating the Networked Learning Framework. In Proceed- Volume3/IJKLOv3p057-072Parker284.pdf
ings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,
Parker, W., Mosberg, S., Bransford, J., Vye, N., Wilder-
Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011
son, J., & Abbott, R. (2011). Rethinking advanced high
(pp. 2057-2065). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
school coursework: Tackling the depth/breadth tension
Paily, M. U. (2013). Creating constructivist learning en- in the AP U.S. Government and Politics course. Journal
vironment: Role of “Web 2.0” technology. International of Curriculum Studies, 43(4), 533–559. doi:10.1080/00
Forum for Teaching Studies, 9(1), 39–51. 220272.2011.584561
Palincsar, A. S. (1990). Providing the context for inten- Park, S. (2013). The potential of Web 2.0 tools to pro-
tional learning. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6). mote reading engagement in a general education course.
doi:10.1177/074193259001100608 Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve
Learning, 57(2), 46–53. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0645-1
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives
on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychol- Parry, M. (2014, January 6). How the Humanities Com-
ogy, 49, 345–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345 pute in the Classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education.
PMID:15012472 Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/How-the-
Humanities-Compute-in/143809/
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering
literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathematics.
of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211–225, 229. (2005). Georgia students rank parents as primary in-
doi:10.1177/002221949202500402 PMID:1573331 fluencers in student success. Available at http://www.
gaprism.org/media/news/112905.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the
cyberspace classroom. In Proceedings of 17th Annual Pate, A., Smaldino, S., Mayall, H. J., & Luetkehans, L.
Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. (2009). Questioning the necessity of nonacademic social
1–5). Academic Press. discussion forums within online courses. The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 1–8.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning com-
munities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paterson, D. G., Schneidler, G. G., & Williamson, E. G.
(1938). Introduction. In Student guidance techniques: A
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning
handbook for counselors in high schools and colleges (pp.
Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for
1–5). Academic Press. doi:10.1037/11227-001
the Online Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paulsen, M. F. (2003). Experiences with learning man-
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online:
agement systems in 113 European institutions. Journal
learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-
of Educational Technology & Society, 6(4), 134–148.
Bass.
Retrieved from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/6_4/13.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the online
Penningroth, S., Despain, L., & Gray, M. (2007). A
learner: Resources and strategies for faculty. San Fran-
course designed to improve psychological critical
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 153–157.
doi:10.1080/00986280701498509
334
Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2000). Designing a perfor- Piña, A. A. (2013). Learning management systems: A look
mance assessment to measure students’ communication at the big picture. In Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning management
skills in multi-media-supported, project-based learning. systems and instructional design: Best practices in online
Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American education (pp. 1–19). Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-
Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. 1-4666-3930-0.ch001
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a Piotrowski, M. (2010). What is an e-learning platform? In
generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning management system technologies
70(4), 514–522. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.514 and software solutions for online teaching: Tools and ap-
plications (pp. 20–36). Academic Press. doi:10.4018/978-
Petersen, D., & Hillkirk, J. (1991). Teamwork: New man-
1-61520-853-1.ch002
agement ideas for the 90s. London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd.
Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago, IL:
Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by Design: The Rhetoric and
University of Chicago Press.
Technology of Authenticity in Education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Poling, D. A., & Hupp, J. M. (2009). Active learning
through role playing. College Teaching, 57(4), 221–226.
Petska, D., & Berge, Z. (2005). Leadership competency
in virtual teams. In C. Howard, J. V. Boettcher, & L. Pollard, J. S. (2005). Measuring implementation in
Justice (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (Vol. schools: Innovation configurations. Austin, TX: Sedl
3, pp. 1195–1202). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. publications.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-555-9.ch178
Popovich, C. (2012). Techtrekers website. Retrieved from
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? http://www.techtrekers.com
A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of
POPP Committee. (2010). Overview of the peer observa-
distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC:
tion process. Los Angeles, California: Center for Man-
The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
agement Communication, Marshall School of Business,
Piaget, J. (1972). To understand is to invent. New York, University of Southern California.
NY: Viking Press.
Posner, G. J. (2005). Field experience: A guide to reflective
Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues teaching. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
of interaction, presence, and performance in an online
Power, T. M. (2014). John Falkin: Designing an online
course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
graduate seminar. In The ID case book: Case studies in
6(1), 21–40.
instructional design (pp. 105-112). Academic Press.
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The
Powers, S. M., & Mitchell, J. (1997). Student perceptions
multi-modal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
and performance in a virtual classroom environment.
Networks, 13(1), 1–9.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending With Purpose: The Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Multimodal Model. Journal of the Research Center for
Prensky, M. (2007, March 9). Simulation nation: The
Educational Technology, 5(1), 4–14.
promise of virtual learning activities. Edutopia. Retrieved
Picciano, A., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010). Educa- from http://www.edutopia.org/computer-simulations-
tion transformation through online learning: To be or virtual-learning
not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part
14(4), 17–35.
1. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
335
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering Reigeluth, C. M., & Keller, J. B. (2009). Understanding
for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. instruction. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.),
Instructional-design theories and models (vol. 3, pp.
President’s Technology Initiative, Northern Arizona
27–39). New York: Routledge.
University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nau.edu/Blended-
Learning/What-is-the-Presidents-Technology-Initiative/ Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999). Preface. In In-
structional design theories and models: A new paradigm
Priluck, R. (2004). Web-assisted courses for business
of instructional theory (vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
education: an examination of two sections of principles
Erlbaum Associates.
of marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(22),
161–173. doi:10.1177/0273475304265635 Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009).
Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Build-
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work: A review
ing a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.
of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3),
223–231. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x Reinbold, S., & Cuddy, C. (2012). Using the ADDIE
model in designing bibliographic instruction. Retrieved
Project Tomorrow and PASCO Scientific. (2008). Inspir-
from http://hdl.handle.net/1813/28717
ing the next generation of innovators: Students, parents,
and teachers speak up about science education. Irvine, CA: Restad, P. (2013). ‘I don’t like this one little bit.’ Tales
Author. Available at http://www.tomorrow.org/SpeakUp/ from a Flipped Classroom. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from
pdfs/Inspiring_the_next_generation_of_innovators.pdf http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-with-
technology-articles/i-dont-like-this-one-little-bit-tales-
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of
from-a-flipped-classroom/
knowledge say and thinking have to say about research on
teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. Retallick, M. S., & Miller, G. (2007). Early Field Expe-
doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004 rience Documents in Agricultural Education. Journal
of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 20–31. doi:10.5032/
Quellmalz, E., & Pellegrino, J. (2009). Technol-
jae.2007.04020
ogy and testing. Science, 323, 75–79. Retrieved from
www.sciencemag.org doi:10.1126/science.1168046 Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced
PMID:19119222 online learning environments: An exploration of learner
preferences. International Review of Research in Open
Ractham, P., Kaewkitipong, L., & Firpo, D. (2012).
and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1–23.
The use of Facebook in an introductory MIS course:
Social constructivist learning environment. Decision Sci- Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social
ences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(2), 165–188. presence in online courses in relation to students’ per-
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00337.x ceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Ravitch, D. (2001). Left back: A century of battles over
school reform. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining Social
Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students Per-
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the priva-
ceived Learning and Satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
tization movement and the danger to America’s public
schools. New York, NY: Random House.
Richey, R. C., & Morrison, G. R. (2011). Instructional
Ravitz, J., & Hoadley, C. (2005). Supporting change
design theory construction. In Instructional technology:
and scholarship through review of online resources in
Past, present, and future (pp. 253-280). Santa Barbara,
professional development settings. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 36(6), 957–974. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8535.2005.00567.x
336
Ridley, R. (2007). Interactive teaching: A concept analy- Rovai, A. P. (2001). Classroom community at a distance:
sis. The Journal of Nursing Education, 46(5), 203–209. a comparative analysis of two ALN- based university pro-
PMID:17547343 grams. The Internet and Higher Education, 4, 105–118.
doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00053-7
Rigou, M., Sirmakessis, S., Stavrinoudis, D., & Xenos, M.
(2007). Tools and methods for supportiing online learning Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a
communities and their evaluation. In N. Lambropoulos & distance: a case study. Educational Technology Research
P. Zaphiris (Eds.), User-centered design of online learning and Development Journal, 49(4), 35–50.
communities (pp. 215–237). Academic Press.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a
Rinaldo, S. B., Tapp, S., & Laverie, D. A. (2011). distance. International Review of Research in Open and
Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical Distance Learning, 3(1).
tool. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 193–203.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to mea-
doi:10.1177/0273475311410852
sure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Edu-
Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of two cation, 5, 197–211. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1
generative learning strategies in the science classroom.
Rovai, A. P., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Sense of community:
School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 83–89.
A comparison of students attending Christian and secular
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17240.x
universities in traditional and distance education programs.
Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven Christian Scholar’s Review, 33(4), 471–489.
problems of online group learning (and their solutions).
Rovai, A., Wighting, M. J., & Liu, J. (2005). School
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10, 257.
climate. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
Roblyer, M. D., & Ekhaml, L. (2000). How interactive are 6(4), 361–374.
YOUR distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction
Ruben, B. (1999). Simulations, games, and experience
in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning
based learning: The quest for a new paradigm for teach-
Administration, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.
ing and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498–505.
edu/~distance/roblyer32.html
doi:10.1177/104687819903000409
Rodd, J., & Newman, D. (2009). The impact of multi-media
Ruddick, K. W. (2012). Improving chemical education
on learning specific to user characteristics. University at
form high school to college using a more hands-on ap-
Albany/SUNY. Paper presented at the Annual Conference
proach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of the American Evaluation Association. Orlando, FL.
of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.).
Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Raemer, D. B., & Eppich, W.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
J. (2008). Debriefing as a formative assessment: Closing
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive performance gaps in medical education. Academic Emer-
development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford gency Medicine, 15(11), 1010–1016. doi:10.1111/j.1553-
University Press. 2712.2008.00248.x PMID:18945231
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of Russell, C., & Shepherd, J. (2010). Online role-play
shared knowledge in collaborative problem-solving. In for higher education. British Journal of Educational
C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative Technology, 41(6), 992–1002. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. 8535.2009.01048.x
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5
Russell, T. A. (1999). The no significant difference phe-
Ross, S., Hughes, T., & Hill, R. (2001). Field experiences nomenon. Office of Telecommunications. Chapel Hills,
as meaningful contexts for learning about learning. The NC: North Carolina State University Press.
Journal of Educational Research, 75(2), 103–107.
337
Rydzewski, D. N., Eastman, J. K., & Bocchi, J. (2010). Schoenfeld, J., & Berge, Z. (2005). Bringing out the best
Important characteristics in an MBA program: The perin virtual teams. In C. Howard, J. V. Boettcher, & L.
ceptions of online MBA students. American Journal of Justice (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (Vol.
Business Education, 3(4), 33–41. 1, pp. 180–186). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-555-9.ch025
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psycho-
logical and educational considerations. New York, NY: Schunk, D. (2012). Learning theories: An educational
Cambridge University Press. perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Sampson, P., Leonard, J., Ballenger, J., & Coleman, J. Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning
(2010). Student Satisfaction of Online Courses for Edu- acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. International
cational Leadership. Online Journal of Distance Learning Journal of Technology Marketing, 2(2), 157–182.
Administration, 13(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga. doi:10.1504/IJTMKT.2007.014791
edu/~distance/ojdla/Fall133/sampson_ballenger133.html
Severance, C., & Teasley, S. D. (2010). Preparing for the
Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of long tail of teaching and learning tools. In K. Gomez, L.
students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines:
Sciences, 12(1), 5–51. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the
Learning Sciences (vol. 1, pp. 758–764). Academic Press.
Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven
inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds Shams, M., & Jackson, P. (2006). Developments in work
for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372. and organizational psychology: Implications for inter-
doi:10.1002/sce.10130 national business. London: Elsevier.
Sands, P. (2010). Blended Classrooms: Hybridity, Social Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory
Capital, and Online Learning. In S. J. Hoffman (Ed.), of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews, & C.
Teaching the Humanities Online: A Practical Guide to the Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of elearning
Virtual Classroom. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based Shea, P., & Bidjeramo, T. (2008). Community of inquiry
learning: An instructional model and its constructivist as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engage-
framework. Constructivist learning environments: Case ment” and “cognitive presence” in online education.
studies in instructional design, 135, 14. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. New York, NY.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning:
Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching
of Problem-based Learning, 1(1). doi:10.7771/1541- presence and student sense of learning community in fully
5015.1002 online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet
and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. doi:10.1016/j.
Schaie, K. W. (1995). Cohort-sequential longitudinal
iheduc.2006.06.005
studies of personality and intelligence. In A. Krusel,
& R. Schmidt-Scherzer (Eds.), Psychologie der leben- Shedletsky, L. (2010). Critical thinking in discussion:
salter (pp. 201–208). Darmstadt, Germany: Steinkopf. Online versus face-to-face. In D. Russell (Ed.), Cases on
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-87993-7_19 collaboration in virtual learning environments: Processes
and interactions (pp. 249–262). Academic Press.
Schaverien, L. (2003). Teacher education in the generative
virtual classroom: Developing learning theories through Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2008). Applying the ADDIE
a web-delivered, technology-and-science education con- model to online instruction. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Adapting
text. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), information and communication technologies for effective
1451–1469. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070234 education (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
338
Shelton, K., Cummings, C., & Mason, D. (2014). Strate- Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2007). Computer support
gies for online course development to promote student of effective peer assessment in an undergraduate pro-
success. In V. Wang (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education and gramming class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
technology in a changing society. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 24(3), 217–231. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00255.x
Shelton, K., Saltsman, G., & Bikis, J. (2006, Fall). Can a Sitzmann, T. (2010). Self-regulating online course en-
true faith-based education be offered online. Journal of gagement. T + D, 64(3), 26. Retrieved on 13 December
Biblical Integration in Business, 11, 186–202. 2013 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2270244
67?accountid=1474
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(4), Smith, D. T. (2004). Implementing online training. Fran-
337–265. chising World, 36(8), 125-126. Retrieved on 15 December
2013 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2089342
Siemens, G. (2002). Interaction: E-learning course.
55?accountid=14749
Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/Interac-
tion.htm Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Borreson Caruso, J. B.
(2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and
Siemens, G. (2004, December). Connectivism: A theory for
information technology, 2009 (Research Study, Vol. 6).
the digital age. Retrieved from, http://www.elearnspace.
Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Simkins, S., Maier, M., & Rhem, J. (2009). Just-in-time
Smith, T.W. (2013). Hybrid and sustainable: An Appala-
teaching: Across the disciplines, and across the academy.
chian model for developing online teaching and learning.
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
North Carolina Middle School Journal, 27(1).
Simonson, M. (2011). Distance education yesterday,
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson,
today, and tomorrow. In Instructional technology: Past,
R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-
present, and future (pp. 79-104). Santa Barbara, CA:
based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1),
Libraries Unlimited.
87–101. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x
Simpson, T. L. (2002). Dare I oppose constructiv-
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design
ist theory? The Educational Forum, 66, 347–354.
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
doi:10.1080/00131720208984854
Smith, W. (1994). Computer-mediated communication:
Sims, R., & Koszalka, T. (2008). Competencies for the
An experimental study. Journalism Educator, 48(2),
new-age instructional designer. In Handbook of research
27–33.
on educational communications and technology (pp. 569-
575). Academic Press. Snarski, R. D. (2008). Teaching self-directed learning
theory to enhance online course satisfaction: Preparing
Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in e-learning:
graduate level information technology students. (Order No.
Making the invisible visible. International Journal of
AAI3320541, Dissertation Abstracts International Section
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2),
A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 3067). Retrieved on
197–209.
2 December 2013 from http://search.proquest.com/docv
Singh, H. K. D. (2005). Learner satisfaction in a col- iew/622041333?accountid=14749
laborative online learning environment. Retrieved from
Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (2005). Knowledge
http://asiapacific-odl.oum.edu.my/C33/F239.pdf
to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers
Sinha, H., Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J., & Du, H. (2010). for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Toward a Professional Development Community for
Soares, L. (2013). Creating an environment for learning
Teachers. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings
technologies: Toward a generative model of state policy
of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Edu-
and institutional practice. EDUCAUSE.
cation International Conference 2010 (pp. 2390-2397).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
339
So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of Stein, D. S., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2013). e-Coaching suc-
collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction cess strategies for synchronous discussions. Distance
in a blended learning environment: Relationships and Learning, 10(2), 19–24.
critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.
Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. L. (2012). Universal design:
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
Creating inclusive environments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Soles, C., & Moller, L. (2001). Myers Briggs type prefer-
Stone, J. (1996). Developmentalism: An obscure but per-
ences in distance learning education. International Journal
vasive restriction on educational improvement. Education
of Educational Technology, 2 (2). Retrieved from http://
Policy Analysis Archives, 4(8), 1–32.
education.illinois.edu/ijet/v2n2/soles/index.html
Straka, G. A., & Hinz, I. M. (1996, March). The original
Soller, A., Martínez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock,
self-directed learning readiness scale reconsidered. In
M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state
Proceedings 10th International Self-directed Learning
of the art technology for supporting collaborative learn-
Symposium. West Palm Beach, FL: Academic Press.
ing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 15, 261–290. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory, procedures, and techniques.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2010). Web 2.0 how to for
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
educators. Eugene, OR: International Society for Tech-
nology in Education. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom
influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation.
Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A Conceptual model for un-
Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.
derstanding self-directed learning in online environments.
doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 27–42.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., &
Song, L., Singleton, E., Hill, J., & Koh, M. (2004). Improv-
Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on
ing online learning: Student perceptions and challenging
group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content
characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7,
analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration
59–70. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229.
Sprague, D., Maddux, C., Ferdig, R., & Albion, P. (2007). doi:10.1177/1046496403260843
Online education: Issues and research questions. Journal
Surry, D. W. & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for motivat-
of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 157–167.
ing higher education faculty to use technology. Innovations
Staker, H., & Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K-12 Blended in Education & Training International, 37(2), 145-153.
Learning. Retrieved from Clayton Christensen Institute
Svinicki, M. (2004). Learning and Motivation in the
for Disruptive Innovation: http://www.innosightinstitute.
Postsecondary Classroom. Boston: Anker.
org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-
K-12-blended-learning2.pdf Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online
discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and Teaching
Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Sacco, V., & Giardina, M. (2012)
with Technology: Principles and Practices (pp. 147–164).
Content Curation: a new form of Gatewatching for social
London: Kogan Page.
media? In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Online Journalism. Austin, TX: Academic Press. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A
constructivist approach to online learning: The Commu-
Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective online teaching: Founda-
nity of Inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Informa-
tions and strategies for student success. San Francisco,
tion Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education:
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Progressive Learning Frameworks (pp. 43–57). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004
340
Switky, B. (2004). The importance of voting in interna- Taylor, V. (2004). Online group projects: Preparing the
tional organizations: Simulating the case of the European instructors to prepare the students. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.),
Union. International Studies Perspectives, 5(1), 40–49. Computer supported collaborative learning in higher
doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2004.00153.x education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group. doi:10.4018/978-
1-59140-408-8.ch002
Syh-Jong, J. (2007). A study of students’ construction of
science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative Tessmer, M. (1998). Meeeting with the SME to design
group. Educational Research, 49(1), 65–81. doi:10.1080/ multimedia exploration systems. ETR & D, 46(2), 79–95.
00131880701200781 doi:10.1007/BF02299790
Szabo, M., & Flesher, K. (2002). CMI theory and prac- The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990,
tice: Historical roots of learning management systems. August-September). Anchored instruction and its relation-
In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in ship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 2–10.
Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Educa-
Thomas, M., & Harrison, R. (2009). Identity in online
tion 2002. Montreal, Canada: Academic Press.
communities: Social networking sites and language learn-
Takahashi, K. (2013). Differentiation according to ing. International Journal of Emerging Technology &
readiness, interest & learning preference. Retrieved Society, 7(2), 109–124.
from http://www.tvdsb.ca/webpages/takahashid/techdia.
Thompson, P. (2003). Radical constructivism: Reflec-
cfm?subpage=128209
tions and directions. In L. P. Steffe, & P. W. Thompson
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the
and technology: Implications for transforming distance pioneering work of Ernst von Glaserfelt (pp. 291–315).
learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
3(2), 50–60.
Tinker, R. (2004). Learning through online collaboration.
Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., Fuselier, J. F., & Totaro, M. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online learning: Personal reflections
(2004). The online classroom: Differences in perception on the transformation of education (pp. 398–408). Engle-
between business students and non-business students. wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 1(3), 37–44.
Tobias, S. (2010). Generative learning theory, paradigm
Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., & Langford, H. (2003). Percep- shifts, and constructivism in educational psychology: A
tions of undergraduate business students toward online tribute to Merl Wittrock. Educational Psychologist, 45(1),
courses in higher education expanded and revisited: Do 51–54. doi:10.1080/00461520903433612
gender, age, and/or past experiences make a difference?
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the
Journal of Business and Economics Research, 1(2), 13–20.
workplace. Research and Training Center on Community
Tanner, J. R., Noser, T. C., & Totaro, M. W. (2009). Busi- Living, 1-21.
ness faculty and undergraduate students’ perceptions of
Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Differentiated school: Making
online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Informa-
revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Retrieved
tion Systems Education, 20(1), 29–40.
from http://0-site.ebrary.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/lib/
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: athabasca/docDetail.action?docID=10234674
How mass collaboration change everything. New York,
Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation
NY: Penguin Group.
in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curricu-
Tarman, B. (2012). Prospective Teachers’ Beliefs and lum, grades K-5. Retrieved from http://0-ehis.ebscohost.
Perceptions about Teaching as a Profession. Educational com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/
Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 1964–1973. nlebk_87518_AN?sid=1e30596a-e708-44b0-b2f9-
3eee3a275285@sessionmgr10&vid=1&format=EB&l
pid=lp_1&rid=0
341
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sci-
managing a differentiated classroom. Retrieved from ences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010).
http://0-site.ebrary.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/lib/ Digest of Education Statistics 2010. Author.
athabasca/docDetail.action?docID=10436140
Ulanoff, S., Fingon, J., & Beltran, D. (2009). Using case
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? studies to assess candidates’ knowledge and skills in a
Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational graduate reading program. Teacher Education Quarterly,
Leadership, 58, 6–11. 36(2), 125–142.
Top, E. (2011). Blogging as a social medium in under- United States. (2000). EPA Student Center.
graduate courses: Sense of community best predictor of
Valesky, T. (2012). Interactive case study simulations in
perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education.
educational leadership In J. Tareilo & B. Bizzell (Eds.),
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.02.001
NCPEA handbook of virtual/online instruction and
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into programs in educational leadership. Retrieved from the
Practice, 48(1), 20–27. doi:10.1080/00405840802577569 Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org/content/m41596/1.3/
Totaro, M. W., Tanner, J. R, Noser, T. C., Fuselier, J.F., & Valetts, L. M., Navarro, S. B., & Gesa, R. F. (2008).
Birch, R. (2005). Faculty perceptions of distance educa- Modelling collaborative competence level using machine
tion courses: A survey. Journal of College Teaching & learning techniques. In Proceedings of IADIS International
Learning, 2(7). Conference on E-Learning. Amsterdam: IADIS.
Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowl-
presence and interaction in online classes. American Jour- edge sharing in context: the influence of organizational
nal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. doi:10.1207/ commitment, communication climate and CMC use on
S15389286AJDE1603_2 knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management,
8(6), 117–130. doi:10.1108/13673270410567675
Tucker, B. (2012, Winter). The flipped classroom: Online
instruction at home frees class time for learning. Educa- Van Ments, M. (1983). The effective use of role play:
tion Next. Retrieved from http://www.edcationnext.org A handbook for teachers and trainers. London, UK:
Kogan Page.
Tucker, J. T. (2006). The ESL logjam: Waiting times for
adult ESL classes and the impact on English learners. Van Patten, J. (1989). What is instructional design? In
Washington, DC: National Association of Latino Elected K. A. Johnson, & L. K. Foa (Eds.), Instructional design:
and Appointed Officials Educational Fund. New alternatives for effective education and training.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, The ZPD, and Peer Collabo-
ration: Implications for Classroom Practice. In L. Moll Varner, I., & Beamer, L. (2011). Intercultural Communica-
(Ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implica- tion in the Global Workplace. McGraw-Hill Publishers.
tions and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology
Vaughn, N. (2007). Perspectives on Blended Learning in
(pp. 155–174). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Higher Education. International Journal on E-Learning,
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173674.008
6(1), 81–94.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Evaluation of
Velez, J., Cano, J., Whittington, M., & Wolf, K. (2014).
Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-
Cultivating change through peer teaching. Journal of
analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Wash-
Agriculture Education, 52(1), 40–49. doi:10.5032/
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
jae.2011.01040
342
Verhaart, M. (2012). Curating digital content in teaching Wasburn-Moses, L., Kopp, T., & Hettersimer, J. E. (2012).
and learning using wiki technology. In Proceedings of Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of the Value of an
Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2012 IEEE Early Field Experience in a Laboratory Setting. Issues
12th International Conference (pp. 191-193). IEEE. in Teacher Education, 21, 2, 7–22.
Virvou, M., & Alepis, E. (2003). Creative tutoring char- Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp,
acters through a web-based authoring tool for educational C., & the Evergreen Education Group. (2011). Keeping
software. Systems. Man and Cybernetics, 5, 4884–4889. Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of
Policy and Practice, 2011. Evergreen Education Group.
Volchok, D., Caines, M., & Graf, D. (2006). Continuous
assessment for improved student outcomes: Examples Watters, M. P., & Robertson, P. J. (2009). Online delivery
from WebCT’s exemplary course project. In M. Hricko of accounting courses: Student perceptions. Academy of
& S. Howell (Eds.), Online assessment and measurement: Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3), 51–57.
Case studies from higher education, K-12 and corporate
Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Nair, C. S. (2008). Academic
(pp. 1–14). Academic Press.
and student use of a learning management system: Impli-
Von Wright, J. (1992). Reflections on reflection. Learn- cations for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational
ing and Instruction, 2(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/0959- Technology, 24(1), 30–41. Retrieved from http://www.
4752(92)90005-7 ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/weaver.html
Vonderwell, S., & Turner, S. (2005). Active learning and Weaver, P. (2002). Preventing learning failure. Training
pre-service teachers’ experience in an online course: A & Development, 56(8), 5–51.
case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Educa-
Weaver, R., & Jackson, D. (2011). Evaluating an academic
tion, 13, 65–84.
writing program for nursing students who have English as a
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, second language. Contemporary Nurse, 38(1-2), 130–138.
MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1037/11193-000 doi:10.5172/conu.2011.38.1-2.130 PMID:21854244
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Weller, M. (2002). Delivering learning on the Net: The
Harvard University Press. why, what and how of online education. London, UK:
Kogan Page. doi:10.4324/9780203416969
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Develop-
ment of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: an intro-
UK: Harvard University Press. duction to networks in the global village. In B. Wellman
(Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 1–48). Boulder,
Wade, S. E., Fauske, J. R., & Thompson, A. (2008).
CO: Westview Press.
Prospective teachers’ problem solving in online peer-led
dialogues. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding:
398–442. doi:10.3102/0002831207308224 The key role of collaborative knowledge building. In J.
Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances
Wakefield, J. S., Warren, S. J., Rankin, M. A., Mills,
and constraints. Emerald Group.
L. A., & Gratch, J. S. (2012). Learning and teaching as
communicative actions: Improving knowledge and cog- Wells, G. (2009). The meaning makers (2nd ed.). Bristol,
nition through Second Life avatar role play. Knowledge UK: Multilingual Matters.
Management & E-Learning: An International Journal,
4(3), 258–278.
343
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promot- Witten, I. H., Frank, E., & Hall, M. A. (2011). Data Min-
ing and assessing value creation in communities and ing: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques
networks: A conceptual framework. The Netherlands: (3rd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
Ruud de Moor Centrum.
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). A generative model of math-
West, M. A. (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of work group ematics learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics
psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Education, 5(4), 181–196. doi:10.2307/748845
Whitaker, K. S., King, R., & Vogel, L. R. (2004). School Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes
district-university partnerships: Graduate student per- of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531–541.
ceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of a reformed doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2704_8
leadership development program. Planning and Changing,
Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a generative
35(3-4), 209–222.
process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–45.
Whitmire, E. (1998). Development of critical thinking doi:10.1080/00461520903433554
skills: An analysis of academic library experiences and
Wolcott, H. F. (2007). The Middlemen of MACOS.
other measures. College & Research Libraries, 59(3),
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(2), 195–206.
266–273. doi:10.5860/crl.59.3.266
doi:10.1525/aeq.2007.38.2.195
Willcoxson, L. E. (2006). It’s not fair! Assessing the dynam-
Wolfe, J., & Crookall, D. (1998). Developing a scientific
ics and resourcing of teamwork. Journal of Management
knowledge of simulation and gaming. Simulation & Gam-
Education, 30, 798–808. doi:10.1177/1052562906287964
ing, 29(1), 7–19. doi:10.1177/1046878198291002
Wills, S. (2010). Learning design for online role pay versus
Wolff, A., & Mulholland, P. (2013, May). Curation, cura-
simulation. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbie, & S.
tion, curation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Narrative and
Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transforma-
Hypertext Workshop (p. 1). ACM.
tion for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Syndney
2010 (pp. 1088-1090). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of
au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Wills-poster.pdf tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.
Wills, S., Rosser, E., Devonshire, E., Leigh, E., Russell,
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x PMID:932126
C., & Shepherd, J. (2009). Encouraging role based online
learning environments by building, linking, understand- WSU - Washington State University. (2013). Faculty
ing, extending: The BLUE Report 2009. Surrey Hills, Mentoring. Retrieved 10 July 2013 from http://provost.
Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. wsu.edu/faculty_mentoring/index.html
Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and Yakel, E., Conway, P., Hedstrom, M., & Wallace, D.
instructional design. In C. R. Dills, & A. A. Romiszowski (2011). Digital Curation for Digital Natives. Journal of
(Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms (pp. Education for Library and Information Science, 52(1), 23.
63–80). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications. Yeh, Y. C. (2010). Analyzing online behaviors, roles, and
learning communities via online discussions. Journal
Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 140–151.
K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its
effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), Young, S. (2003). Integrating ICT into second language
1157–1186. doi:10.3102/0002831211419491 education in a vocational high school. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 19, 447–461. doi:10.1046/j.0266-
Wishart, J. M., Oades, C. E., & Morris, M. (2007). Us- 4909.2003.00049.x
ing online role play to each Internet safety awareness.
Computers & Education, 48(3), 460–473. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2005.03.003
344
Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teach- Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Genera-
ing in higher education. American Journal of Distance Ed- tions at Work: Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers,
ucation, 20(2), 65–77. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_2 Xers and Nexters in your workplace. Washington, DC:
American Management Association.
Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom community
and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What
Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219–230. Makes the Difference: A Practical Analysis of Research
on Effectiveness of Distance Education. Teachers Col-
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open edu-
lege Record, 107(8), 1836–1834. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
cation: Implications for higher education. The Univer-
9620.2005.00544.x
sity of Bolton. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.
ac.uk/2013/667 Zierer, K., & Seel, N. M. (2012). General Didactics and
Instructional Design: Eyes like twins A transatlantic
Yuen, A. H. (2003). Fostering learning communi-
dialogue about similarities and differences, about the
ties in classrooms: A survey research of Hong Kong
past and the future of two sciences of learning and teach-
schools. Educational Media International, 40, 153–162.
ing. SpringerPlus., 1(15). doi:10.1186/2193-1801-1-15
doi:10.1080/0952398032000092198
PMID:23961346
Zarrabian, M. (2010). CMS vs. LCMS. Training (New
York, N.Y.), 47(5), 10–11.
345
346
About the Contributors
Jared Keengwe is an Associate Professor at the University of North Dakota (UND), USA. Dr.
Keengwe is the editor-in-chief of two IGI Global Book Series: Advances in Higher Education and Pro-
fessional Development (AHEPD) and Advances in Early Childhood and K-12 Education (AECKE). He
serves on the editorial review board of several international journals and is also the co-editor-in-chief of
the Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn). Dr. Keengwe’s primary research interests focus on
technology integration and constructivist pedagogy in teacher education. He has co-authored more than
65 journal articles and edited more than 10 scholarly textbooks with a focus on instructional technologies
both in K-12 and in higher education. Dr. Keengwe’s work in the classroom was honored with the 2011
McDermott Faculty Award for Excellence in Academic Advising. He was also a recipient of the 2010
North Dakota Spirit Faculty Achievement Award, and the 13th (2010) Annual Martin Luther King Jr.
Award in recognition of significant contribution in scholarship and service respectively. At the national
level, Dr. Keengwe was one of the 10 recipients selected to receive the 2010 American Educational
Research Association (AERA) Division K – Teacher Education –Travel Award.
Joachim Jack Agamba is an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the College of Education at Idaho State
University (ISU), USA. He currently teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in research and writ-
ing, technology and foundational studies. He earned his PhD in Instructional Design from Idaho State
University and his MA (African Studies) and BA (Film and Television Production) from the University
of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). His current research is focused on examining how best to assist
teachers integrate technology appropriately in their instructional practice.
***
Katie Baur is currently a clinical instructor in the Educational Leadership and Technology department
at Lamar University. She is involved with both the Masters and Doctoral program. Dr. Baur’s professional
background includes over 10 years of educational experience with a commitment to English language
learners. Her research interests include online learning, second language acquisition, global leadership,
and intercultural responsiveness.
Andrew John Brennan is a Lecturer at Curtin University in the School of Economics and Finance.
He has a strong innate desire to teach in and research on economics. He has a PhD in economics and
finance, and his research has focused on critically evaluating measures of environmental and social
welfare. He is an early-career researcher with a special interest in political economy, particularly eco-
logical economics where he has published several papers. His chief responsibility at Curtin is teaching
and examining intermediate undergraduate/postgraduate coursework students in economics as well as
coordinating the Honours program in economics. He enjoys communicating knowledge in creative and
innovate ways so his students can attain the necessary skills to apply economic concepts to everyday
events and be able to use diagrams and models to explain real-world phenomena.
Cynthia Cummings is employed as an assistant professor and director of principal programs at

Lamar University in Beaumont, TX. She has taught elementary, middle school, and high school Eng-
lish Language Arts, reading, writing, and social studies. Dr. Cummings has extensive experience with
providing professional development for school leaders. She worked with Texas principals and super-
intendents in a Technology Leadership project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She
was instrumental in establishing the Brazos-Sabine Connection Principal Academy whose goal was to
provide school leaders with the skills needed to support effective teaching, learning, and technology.
She is a co-author of a newly released book, NCPEA Handbook of Online Instruction and Programs in
Education Leadership. She has also developed the American Education Reaches Out (AERO) English
Language Arts framework for the US State Department’s Office of Overseas Schools. She continues her
work with the international schools with the AERO project.
Flower Darby is an Instructional Technologist in Northern Arizona University’s e-Learning Center.

She holds an MA in English Literature and has taught literature and composition classes at NAU since
1996, specializing in online and blended courses. In her role with e-Learning, she works with NAU
faculty to effectively design online, blended, and web-enhanced classes. She also teaches fitness and
dance classes, demonstrating her interest in a holistic approach to teaching and learning as well as the
balance between the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains.
John J. Doherty is an Instructional Designer, Lead, in the e-Learning Center at Northern Arizona
University (NAU). He also serves as a University College Faculty Fellow at NAU and an instructor in
the First Year Seminar, Honors, and Humanities programs. Dr. Doherty has written on and presented
research for local, national, and international organizations on blended learning, student engagement, and
the place of educational technology in higher learning. Most recently, he presented at the EDUCAUSE
Learning Initiative Annual Meeting and the inaugural Teaching Professor Technology conference. He
has also been a founding faculty member of the Colorado State University Global Campus, where he
taught courses in online technologies and instructional design.
Danielle Hedegard is a sociologist and Analytical Studies Officer at the University of California
San Diego. She conducts research on student and faculty equity for UCSD, as well as research on racial
inequality and culture in the United States and Brazil. Her published research can be found in academic
journals including Sociological Inquiry, Poetics, and Ethnic and Racial Studies. She also teaches courses
on popular culture and has conducted numerous analyses on academic outcomes among college students.
RS Hubbard is an Assistant Professor in Management Communication at Marshall School of Busi-

ness (University of Southern California) and Senior Consultant in Organizational Behaviour at Interserv
Associates (Pasadena, California). He works with faculty committees and businesses, advises student
347
organizations, and conducts research that examines organizational structures and the contribution of
technology to communication and development. He has given lectures and paper presentations throughout
the world, and written articles and books on various topics, including “Using Web-Conferencing Technol-
ogy to Enhance Business Simulations,” Going Beyond Technical Expertise: Completing the Education
of Engineers and Business Professionals in the United States and Hungary, “Project Management Tools
That Facilitate Team Projects,” and “The Academic and Organisational Benefits of Student-Generated
Case Studies.”
Astrid Klocke is an Associate Professor of Humanities in the Department of Comparative Cultural

Studies at Northern Arizona University, USA. Dr. Klocke coordinates the Cinema Studies program and
teaches courses on European and American literature, culture, and film. Her scholarly focus has been
on language and literature pedagogy, learning technology, and literary translation. She has co-authored
a German literature textbook, Deutsche Literatur im Kontext, 1750-2000 (2008), published articles on
the German-Jewish author Edgar Hilsenrath and on Holocaust literature and film, and translated a novel
from German into English. Her current research examines blended design principles in humanities and
social science courses. She also currently serves as Faculty Senate President and engages in discussions
about technology, change, and the future of higher education on a regular basis.
Tony Lee is a doctoral student in the Adult and Higher Education Program at the University of Okla-
homa, USA. His focus area is in Workforce Learning and Development. His research interests include
online education, leadership, mentoring, and job satisfaction at the workplace.
Doo Hun Lim is an Associate Professor in the Adult and Higher Education Program at the University
of Oklahoma, USA. Dr. Lim received his PhD in Human Resource Education from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He teaches OD, T&D, and evaluation courses at the graduate level. His
primary research interests include cross cultural comparison of HRD curriculum, integration of learn-
ing and knowledge management, generational studies focusing on knowledge management, and cross
cultural organizational issues impacting workplace performance.
Emory Maiden III serves as an Instructional Developer in the Learning Technology Services De-
partment at Appalachian State University. In this role, he provides professional development and training
for faculty in Moodle and other learning technologies, as well as consultation in instructional design
and practices. His interests include teaching and learning in online environments, experiential faculty
development, learning management systems, and open educational resources.
Elizaphan M. Maina is a Lecturer in the Department of Computing and Information Technology at

Kenyatta University, Kenya. He has taught computer Science for ten years in Universities and Tertiary
colleges. Currently, He has published journals in the field of artificial intelligence and collaborative
learning. He lecturers in the field of artificial intelligence, programming, database systems, and use
of ICT in Education. His primary research focus is on integration of artificial intelligence techniques
in e-learning in order to create new e-pedagogies which can support personalized e-learning and also
provide computer supported collaborative learning. His current research examines improving of online
collaborative learning using machine learning techniques.
348
Romana Martin is a Senior Lecturer in the Curtin Learning Institute at Curtin University in Western
Australia. Her qualifications include an MEd from Edith Cowan University and a PhD from Murdoch
University in Western Australia. Her background is in the field of educational design, academic develop-
ment, and educational technology, and she has multidisciplinary qualifications in education, informa-
tion technology, and educational multimedia. In her current role, she provides academic leadership and
expertise in online and blended learning, teaching in collaborative learning spaces and the application of
new technologies to support student learning. She has led a wide range of teaching and learning initia-
tives, and her research interests are in the field of online learning, mobile learning, student engagement,
student-centered learning, and new generation learning spaces.
Diane Mason is currently an Assistant Professor in the Educational Leadership and Technology
department at Lamar University. Prior to becoming a full time faculty member at Lamar University in
Beaumont, TX in 2010, Dr. Mason was the Technology Training Center Coordinator for the Calcasieu
Parish School System in Lake Charles, LA. Dr. Mason is currently the president of the ISTE affiliate,
Louisiana Computer Using Educators (LACUE) state organization and is active in the Consortium for
School Networking (CoSN) organization. Dr. Mason is a former K-8 teacher, middle school assistant
principal, elementary principal, and central office coordinator. Her research interests include online
learning, technology integration, professional development, and school improvement. Most recently,
she has been involved in an e-portfolio international research project with twelve other universities in
the United States and Australia. The focus of the study is using project-based learning strategies and
alternative assessments to support K-12 instruction.
Michelle Moore, a former middle school math teacher, has been an advocate for Moodle since find-
ing it more than ten years ago during a review of learning management systems while completing her
Master’s Degree in Instructional Design and Technology. Enamored with Moodle’s capabilities and its
foundation in social constructionism, it wasn’t long before Michelle’s passion led her to a full-time po-
sition training and providing support for educators and trainers in schools, universities, and businesses
across North America. Michelle is pursuing a doctorate in Learning Technologies at the University of
North Texas where she is actively researching online education and constructivist teaching methods.
Meghan Morris Deyoe is a senior evaluator at the Evaluation Consortium at the University at Albany/
SUNY. She has assisted in the evaluation of both federally and state-funded grants and her major areas
of study include evaluation practices in K-14 settings, the incorporation of technology in K-14 educa-
tion, innovative instructional approaches, and emerging practices/trends in childhood development and
in education for students with disabilities. She has a Masters of Science in Literacy, B-6, is certified in
Childhood Education (B-6) and Literacy Education (B-6), and has a Certificate of Advanced Study in
Educational Research.
Ishmael I. Munene is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at North-

ern Arizona University teaching courses in Comparative Education, Higher Education, and Educational
Research. As an experienced scholar in higher education, he has written widely on African higher educa-
tion, higher education governance, and education for the marginalized and educational technology. He
has edited two volumes on Africa and authored two books. He has published numerous journal articles,
349
book reviews, and newspaper commentaries on education and governance. He has also guest edited a
journal. He is on the editorial advisory board of Africa Education Review and serves as an article reviewer
for a number of Journals. He has held visiting academic fellowships at Kassel University (Germany),
Osmania University (India), and the Catholic University of East Africa (Kenya). In 2008, he was honored
with the Excellence in Research Award by the African Studies and Research Forum.
Dianna L. Newman is a Professor in Educational Psychology and Methodology and Director of the
Evaluation Consortium at the University at Albany/SUNY. Dr. Newman has served as principal evaluator
for multiple federal and state-funded technology-based curriculum integration grants and is currently
developing and piloting an innovative model of evaluation that will document systems changes resulting
from technology-based curriculum integration into instructional settings. Dr. Newman is widely published
in the area of technology innovation, K-12 curriculum and instructional practices, and higher education
STEM technology support for learning. Her more recent publications include qualitative meta-analyses
of evaluations documenting technology integration that supports hands-on and student-centered learning
in K-12 and higher education classrooms.
Robert Oboko is a member of the faculty at the University of Nairobi’s School of Computing and
Informatics. His research interests are mainly in issues around use of ICT for Development. These include
issues around application of ICT in Education, Monitoring and Evaluation, health, enhancement of Social
Capital, and ICT4D policy research, among others. He is also keen on the use of machine learning and
mobile devices for development. He regularly publishes international refereed journal papers, refereed
international conferences papers and book chapters.
Nathaniel M. Ostashewski is a Senior Lecturer and Academic Engagement Projects Developer for
Curtin University, Western Australia. He holds a Canadian teaching license and has taught a complete
range of K20 subjects. Nathaniel has been engaged in providing professional development related to
technology use since 1996. In the past, he has worked as a teacher, media producer, academic consul-
tant, instructional designer, social media researcher, and a dance choreographer. In Curtin University,
Nathaniel has been supporting faculty in their use of learning technologies focusing on authentic student
engagement through discussion and collaboration. Nathaniel also manages the Curtin MOOC portfo-
lio as part of a strategic initiative in Curtin’s Centre for Teaching and Learning. Over the past several
years, Nathaniel has been designing networked learning and professional development courselets. His
Networked Learning Framework (http://www.editlib.org/p/39029/) is an instructional design model that
utilizes media to support learner engagement, an approach common in MOOC design.
Sophia Palahicky is a doctoral candidate in the EdD program at Athabasca University with a Masters
of Distance Education (MDE). She has over sixteen years of experience in the field of education and
twelve years of experience in the field of distance education. Mrs. Palahicky is a certified member of
the Canadian Association of Instructional Designers (CAID), and her work in the field of instructional
design commenced at the University of Manitoba in the Department of Distance and Online Education.
She moderates professional development sessions for teachers across the Province of Manitoba in online
pedagogy and trains teachers to use the provincial learning management system (LMS). Her primary
350
research focus is the use of LMSs to enhance student learning and to maximize the potential of every
student. She is also the author of Kid’s Reading Craze and My Last Story.
Alana S. Phillips works as a student support specialist in Learning Technologies at the University
of North Texas and is completing her PhD there, also in Learning Technologies. Her current research
interests involve various facets of online instruction. Prior to attending the University of North Texas,
she taught middle school for four years and served in the U.S. Army for twenty-one years.
Heather Robinson works as an adjunct instructor at Casper College and Western Governors Uni-
versity. She teaches courses in the areas of computer science, operating systems, software and security.
She is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of North Texas, Department of Learning Technologies.
Heather has presented and is published on her research on technology proficiency in online learning,
constructivist online learning, and faculty experiences with online technology adoption.
Shani Salifu is an Instructional Technologist at Concord University, USA. Dr. Salifu is a Learning
Management System administrator. He also consults with faculty and students on distance/online educa-
tion. His primary research focus is on using modern communication technologies to improve end-user
or student achievement. His current research examines the challenges faced by faculty in creating online
student communities using the tools available for such in their learning management systems. Dr. Salifu
currently has a book chapter “Technology and Empowerment: Social Impact Analysis” in print as part of
an edited scholarly book Perspectives on Empowering Education. He has also submitted a paper “Using
Mayer’s SOI approach to help ADHD learners construct knowledge” for review for an academic journal.
David Seelow is Founding Director of Excelsior College’s Center for Game and Simulation-Based
Learning. Dr. Seelow received his PhD in English and Comparative Literature from the State University
of New York at Stony Brook and his Masters degree in English from Columbia University. He has ex-
pertise in classroom instruction, curriculum design, online education, literature, graphic fiction, critical
theory, and educational theory. He is founder of the Excelsior College Online Writing Lab (http://owl.
excelsior.edu). Dr. Seelow has extensive experience in both synchronous online training, and asynchro-
nous design and instruction. He holds an advanced certificate in educational computing and four New
York State education licensees (School District Administrator, School Building Supervisor, English 7-12
and Social Studies 7-12). Finally, Dr. Seelow is author of the book Radical Modernism and Sexuality:
Freud/Reich/DH Lawrence & Beyond and the author of numerous articles and presentations on literary
and cultural studies, education, and game based learning.
Peggy Semingson is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at The University of Texas
at Arlington where she teaches courses in Literacy Studies. Dr. Semingson has experience as a classroom
teacher and reading specialist in both Southern California and Texas. She received her MEd in Reading
Education from Texas State University, San Marcos in 2004 and her PhD in Curriculum and Instruction
with a specialization in Language and Literacy Studies from The University of Texas at Austin in 2008.
Her research interests include social contexts of literacy learning, digital pedagogies, and students who
face challenges in reading. She has published in Teachers College Record and other peer-reviewed jour-
nals. She was awarded the Jeanne S. Chall Research Grant from Harvard University during 2009-2010
351
and received the Platinum level--Best Practices Award for Excellence in Distance Learning Teaching
from the United States Distance Learning Association in 2013.
Neal Shambaugh is Interim Associate Dean of Academic Affairs in the College of Education and
Human Services at West Virginia University. A graduate of Virginia Tech, he is a professor of Learning
Sciences and Human Development at WVU and former program coordinator of Graduate Programs for
Instructional Design and Technology. He is the author of two textbooks on Instructional Design, one
for teacher education, Instructional Design, A Systematic Approach to Reflective Practice, and one for
graduate programs, Mastering the Possibilities: A Process Approach to Instructional Design. He has
taught courses in instructional design, teaching methods, visual literacy, IDT professional practice, design
and development research, and educational psychology.
Anneliese Sheffield is a PhD student in the Department of Learning Technologies, College of

Information, University of North Texas. Her research interests include online learning and the impact
of technology use on relationships. Anneliese is a former K-12 teacher and university instructor. Her
interests in online learning stem from personal experience as an online student living around the world.
Anneliese has presented and published on constructivist online learning, international online learning,
digital storytelling, and parent-child co-gaming.
Kaye Shelton is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership in the Center for Doctoral Studies
in the College of Education at Lamar University. Her education includes an MS in Education emphasiz-
ing Online Teaching and Learning from California State University-East Bay and a PhD in Educational
Leadership (Higher Education) from the University of Nebraska. She has published numerous articles
and chapters in the field of online education, including a book entitled An Administrator’s Guide to On-
line Education. She is the winner of two exemplary online course awards, a Sloan-C Effective Practice
award for her research on the Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education Programs,
the John R Bourne award for Outstanding Achievement in Online Education and the NCPEA Morphet
Dissertation award. She has spoken at numerous conferences and workshops regarding the creation of
an online education program and the best practices for teaching online and faculty support.
Tracy W. Smith is Professor and Faculty Development Consultant at Appalachian State Univer-
sity (ASU). Her research interests include community development in online teaching and learning,
performance-based middle level teacher preparation, the history of the middle school movement, the
relationship between teaching expertise and student learning, and evaluating depth of student understand-
ing. She has had articles published in journals such as the Middle School Journal, Journal of Teacher
Education, Clearing House, and Teacher Education and Practice. In 2011, she and Dr. C. Kenneth
McEwin published The Legacy of Middle School Leaders: In Their Own Words. In 2013, the Associa-
tion for Middle Level Education released her video series based on this book.
Ursula Thomas currently serves as the Director of Field Experience and Assessment at Georgia
Perimeter College. Her extensive research with teacher knowledge gives her the insight needed to help
teachers adopt age appropriate strategies that are culturally relevant. She has presented and consulted
on program evaluation and assessment at national conferences such as the National Association for the
352
Education of Young Children, and the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators. Dr.
Thomas has carved out a professional development niche as well. She has more than 20 publications in
the fields of early childhood teacher education, social justice, and cultural mediation.
Peter Waiganjo Wagacha is a faculty member at the School of Computing and Informatics, Univer-
sity of Nairobi. He enjoys teaching, research, and working with students to develop innovative ideas and
solutions. His research and extension work in ICT4D is in the areas of (1) enhancing ICT in education,
such as e-learning using Artificial Intelligence, (2) mobility and urban transportation, (3) human language
technology for local languages, (4) health informatics, and (5) mobile technology. He has published in
refereed journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings.
353
354
Index
A Constructivism 36-39, 41, 43, 49-50, 57-58, 60, 72,

110, 132, 199, 208, 222
Active Learning 35, 37-38, 40, 45, 49, 58-61, 63-64, Contemporary Professional Experiences 256
66, 70-73, 83, 136, 141, 143-144, 148, 208, Course Coordination 190
225, 227, 261-262, 266 Course Management System (CMS) 11, 107, 222
Adoption 2, 4-5, 11, 19, 94, 154, 165, 243 Cultural Background 256
Assessment Data 176-177, 185, 255 Curriculum 1, 3, 7, 12-14, 16, 18-20, 28, 37-39, 71,
Assessment System 250, 255 88, 91, 111, 113, 125, 138, 153, 241-242, 256
Asynchronous Interaction 33, 95
Asynchronous Learning 134-135, 234-235 D
Auditory Learners 129
Authentic Assessment 24, 45, 50, 57, 61, 268 Differentiated Instruction 12-24, 26-30, 33, 114
Authentic Learning 40, 44-45, 50, 57, 61 Digital Curation 259-268, 270
Digital Humanities 176, 188, 191
B Discourse 17, 38, 44, 87, 91-94, 97-98, 106-107,
132, 157, 224, 230, 232, 242, 246
Blended Instruction 6, 11, 57, 109 Discussion Forum 8, 19, 21, 23, 93, 97, 101, 107,
Blog 26, 49, 223-237 214, 222, 278
Distance Learning 9, 18, 20, 129, 131, 135, 208,
C 251, 256
Distance Learning Program 256
Candidate Performance Data 255
Diversity 63, 67, 153, 158, 178, 240, 244-245, 251,
Candidates 38, 46, 224-226, 238-239, 241-246, 250-
256
251, 255-258
Case-Based Learning 15, 60, 66-67, 73, 83
Certification 142, 178, 223, 225-226, 249, 256
E
Classroom Design 193, 196, 205 Educational Design 265, 270
Clinical Faculty 256 Educational Technologies 264, 270
Clinical Practice 256 Engagement 42, 59-60, 63-64, 67, 70-72, 83, 86-89,
Clustering Algorithm 214-215, 221 95, 97, 100, 103, 131, 133-134, 138, 140, 143-
Cognitive Presence 85, 87, 91-93, 95-98, 102, 106, 145, 148, 176, 181, 191, 223-225, 245, 259
224, 226-228, 232, 234, 236 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
Collaboration Competence Level 211-213, 216, 221 129
Collaborative Learning 26, 38, 41, 45-46, 57, 60, 63, English Language Learner (ELL) 129
73, 91, 132, 134, 142, 207-210, 215-217, 221 Ethnicity 245, 256-257
Communal Blog 224-225, 230, 236 Exceptionalities 256-257
Community of Inquiry 87-88, 92, 97-98, 102, 106,
223-224, 226, 232, 234, 236 F
Community of Practice 224, 226-227, 229, 232-233,
236 Faculty Mentoring 174
Conceptual Framework 5, 210, 215, 256 Field Experiences 61, 238-245, 247-248, 250-251,
256-257
Index
Flipped Classroom 66, 70-71, 83, 189, 259, 262, N

267, 271
Formative Assessment 14, 17-18, 22-23, 25, 33, 61- Non-Traditional Learners 280
62, 91, 113, 115, 120, 122, 124 Not-for-Profit Institutions 280
For-Profit Institutions 280
Full-Time faculty 189, 257 O
Online Instruction 11, 18, 35, 39-40, 49, 58, 100,
G 225, 251
Generative Learning 40, 42-44, 50, 57
Global Learners 118-119, 125, 129 P
Grade Performance Status (GPS) 180, 191
P–12 School Personnel 256-257
Group or Team Identification 174-175
Part-Time Faculty 257
Pedagogical Knowledge 257
H Peer Observation 164, 174
HyperText Markup Language (HTML) 274, 280 Peer Teaching 68-69, 83
Performance Assessment 24, 257
I Problem-Based Learning 38, 46, 64-65, 83
Product Design 194, 201, 205
Initial Teacher Preparation Programs 257 Professional Development 1-5, 8, 11, 19, 36, 85, 88,
Institutional Support 19, 142, 145, 148 90, 99, 102-103, 107, 137, 152-153, 242, 246,
Instructional Design 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 44, 46, 58, 107, 256-257, 264-265, 274, 276
113-114, 148, 192-195, 197-205 Professional Development Schools (PDS) 257
Instructional Designer 19, 49, 88, 137, 193, 196, Proficiencies 255-257
199, 202, 205 Project-Based Learning 64-65, 83
Instructional Design Model 46, 58, 192-193, 198-
199, 202-204 R
Instructional Situation 204-205
Instructional Technology 11, 92-93 Recursive Course Structure 148
Intercultural Communication 174 Reflective Learners 46, 129
Intertextuality 236 Resource Sharing 227-229, 260, 271
Intuitive Learners 129 Retention 26, 43, 60, 69, 87, 116, 131, 148, 150-
Inverted or Reversed Learning 83 154, 156, 163-165, 174
Retention Rate 151, 156, 174
L Role Playing 60, 63-64, 66, 73, 83
Learning Community 21, 69-70, 86, 96, 101-102, S

107, 137, 143, 236, 256
Learning Environment 2-3, 9, 11, 15, 18-19, 42, 44, Scaffolding 24, 26, 38, 48, 61, 70, 133, 135, 139,
46, 50, 57, 63, 67-68, 70, 72, 86-87, 100, 133, 148, 178, 184, 223, 239, 241
199, 207-210, 216, 222, 226, 252, 278 Self-Directed Learning 154-157, 174
Learning Management System (LMS) 11-12, 14, 88, Sensory Learners 129
107, 164, 263 Sequential Learners 119-120, 125, 129
Learning Style 14-15, 109-110, 115, 118-119, 121, Simulations 40, 48, 60-62, 70, 73, 83
124, 129, 275 Social Constructivism 37-38, 50, 58, 132
Learning Technology Services (LTS) 100, 107 Social Presence 86-87, 89-98, 102, 106-107, 160-
161, 174, 223-226, 232, 234, 236
M Student Engagement 59-60, 67, 70-71, 86, 103, 131,
138, 143-145, 148, 181
Machine Learning 207-208, 212-213, 217, 222 Student Readiness 13-15, 33
Master Syllabus 181, 191 Student Responsibility 40, 42, 50, 58, 142-143, 148
Multicultural Perspective 257 Subject-Matter Expert 196, 206
355
Index
Summative Assessment 17, 22-24, 33 V

Synchronous 14, 33, 40, 42, 45-47, 89, 96-97, 107,
134, 153, 160, 165, 174, 208, 256, 280 Visual Learners 15, 125, 129
Synchronous Interaction 33
Systems Design 194, 196, 203, 206 W
Web-Based Authoring Tools 272-275, 277-278, 280
T Web-Conferencing 89-90, 107, 158, 161
Teacher Presence 223-224, 226, 228, 234, 236 What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get (WYSIWYG) 280
Team Charters 162, 175
Technology Enhancement 265, 271 Z
Technology Tools 2, 6, 8, 11, 59, 72-73, 88, 118
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 129, 209
Templates 274-275, 278, 280
Type A Student 129
U
Universal Serial Bus (USB) 275, 280
356

Jared Keengwe Keengwe Jared Keengwe Models forBook4You PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Jared Keengwe Keengwe Jared Keengwe Models forBook4You PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Models for Improving

and Optimizing Online

Joachim Jack Agamba

A volume in the Advances in Higher Education

Published in the United States of America by

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Coverage IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts

Advancing Knowledge in Higher Education Universities in Turbulent Times

Cases on Teacher Identity, Diversity, and Cognition in Higher Education

Handbook of Research on Trends in European Higher Education Convergence

Multicultural Awareness and Technology in Higher Education Global Perspectives

Cutting-Edge Technologies and Social Media Use in Higher Education

Building Online Communities in Higher Education Institutions Creating Collaborative Experience

701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033

Related References............................................................................................................................. 279

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 307

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 346

Related References............................................................................................................................. 279

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 307

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 346

Joachim Jack Agamba

INTRODUCTION positive claims on learning gains associated with

• Communication Tools: Discussion forum, 1. Discussion Forum

Figure 1. Example of course content in an LMS

Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Differentiated school: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Heather Robinson Anneliese Sheffield

Alana S. Phillips Michelle Moore

INTRODUCTION 2013). Academic leaders are aware that it requires

evolution, indexed knowledge acquisition, and higher-order thinking processes to help

that the majority (95%) of LMS activity is in lower DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION We would like to thank Scott J. Warren, Jonathan

Schaverien, L. (2003). Teacher education in the Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional

Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for under- ADDITIONAL READING

Diane Mason Katie Baur

INTRODUCTION more readily than monotonous lectures (Neuman

derstanding of concepts and process skills that are Simulation Examples

best-practices-new-tech-video) This video in the flipped classroom with students watching a

application of learning concepts (Berrett 2012; Flipped Learning Examples

Ruddick, K. W. (2012). Improving chemical edu- Siemens, G. (2002). Interaction: E-learning

Emory Maiden III

INTRODUCTION development related to effective online teaching

REFERENCES Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (rev.ed.). Boston:

Meghan Morris Deyoe

INTRODUCTION and performance. Progress in learning domains

was conducted online. Students did receive Study 1: Affective Impact of

Construct Getting Editing and

Table 2. Summary of learning style as a predictor of writing outcomes

Predictor* Plagiarism** Plagiarism Transfer Improve Improve My

Table 3. Summary of writing efficacy/affect as predictors of writing outcomes

Predictor Plagiarism Plagiarism Transfer Improve Improve My

Overall Outcomes Examination of specific outcome variables, as

Table 4. Participant responses to key outcome constructs*

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Figure 1. Attainment of key outcomes by pilot site

Table 5. Plagiarism module comparison of pre-post content scores*

methods they know work. Typically sensory ENDNOTES

INTRODUCTION which determine whether a blended course will

also to undertake a class presentation critically Total Points 100

Figure 1. The recursive structure of cinema 101

Revitalizing a Course through

Redesigning HS 200: Healthy Lifestyles for

I wanted the in class time spent applying knowl-

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.