CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Toward a web-enhanced model of interaction in freshman general education history courses
Tác giả
Olt P.
Năm xuất bản
2018
Source title
Journal of Classroom Interaction
Số trích dẫn
0
DOI
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
While American students increasingly choose to study online, most professors remain skeptical of its quality. This paper explores the perspectives of history professors at a liberal arts institution regarding their general education classes taught face-to-face (F2F) and online, focusing on interactive communication with students between the two delivery methods. While faculty expectations varied between the methods, social interaction was a greater factor in F2F classes, and content interaction occurred more consistently and in more depth online. The study indicates that a webenhanced approach to instruction may provide the strengths of both methods for large lecture classes taught F2F. © 2018, University of Houston.
Từ khóa
Case study; Engagement; Interactive communication; Web-enhanced
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abu S., Adera B., Kamsani S., Ametepee L., Addressing the increasing college student attrition rate by creating effective classroom interaction, Higher Education and Self-Learning, 5, 16, pp. 16-25, (2012); AlKandari N., Students' communication and positive outcomes in college classrooms, Education, 133, 1, pp. 19-30, (2012); Allais S., A critical perspective on large class teaching: The political economy of massification and the sociology of knowledge, Higher Education, 67, 6, pp. 721-734, (2014); Allen I.E., Seaman J., Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States., (2013); Allen I.E., Seaman J., Garrett R., Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States., (2007); Allen I.E., Seaman J., Lederman D., Jaschik S., Conflicted: Faculty and online education., (2012); Allen I.E., Seaman J., Poulin R., Straut T.T., Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States., (2016); Anderson T., Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4, 3, (2003); Beattie I.R., Thiele M., Connecting in class? College class size and inequality in academic social capital, The Journal of Higher Education, 87, 3, pp. 332-362, (2016); Birnbaum R., How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership., (1988); Bright D., Turesky E., Putzel R., Professor as facilitator: Shaping an emerging, living system of shared leadership in the classroom, Journal of Leadership Education, 11, 1, pp. 157-176, (2012); Bowen W.G., Chingos M.M., Lack K.A., Nygren T.I., Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from randomized trials., (2012); Back to school in higher ed: Who needs faculty?, (2015); Cavanaugh J., Jacquemin S., A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses, Online Learning Journal, 19, 2, pp. 25-32, (2015); Engagement rising: A decade of CCSSE data shows improvements., (2015); Creswell J.W., Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, (2011); Croxton R., The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 2, pp. 314-324, (2014); Cuseo J., The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students, Journal of Faculty Development, 21, 1, pp. 5-21, (2007); Estepp C., Shelnutt K., Roberts T., A comparison of student and professor perceptions of teacher immediacy behaviors in large agricultural classrooms, NACTA Journal, 58, 1-4, pp. 157-164, (2014); Straumsheim C., Jaschik S., Lederman D., The 2015 Inside Higher Ed survey of faculty attitudes on technology, (2015); Johnson S., Aragon S., Shaik N., Palma-Rivas N., Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 1, pp. 29-49, (2000); Johnson Z., Cascio R., Massiah C., Explaining student interaction and satisfaction: An empirical investigation of delivery mode influence, Marketing Education Review, 24, 3, pp. 227-237, (2014); Kang M., Im T., Factors of learner-instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, pp. 292-301, (2013); Kay D., Summers J., Svinicki M., Conceptualizations of classroom community in higher education: Insights from award winning professors, Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 5, pp. 230-245, (2011); Lawes C., Talking less but saying more: Teaching U.S. history online, The Journal of American History, 101, 4, pp. 1204-1214, (2015); Li F., Qi J., Wang G., Wang X., Traditional classroom vs e-learning in higher education: Difference between students' behavioral engagement, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9, 2, pp. 48-51, (2014); Mandernach B., Hudson S., Wise S., Where has the time gone? Faculty activities and time commitments in the online classroom, Journal of Educators Online, 10, 2, pp. 1-15, (2013); McClenney K., Marti C., Adkins C., Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE validation research, (2006); McCormack S., Teaching history online to today's community college students, The Journal of American History, 101, 4, pp. 1215-1221, (2015); Means B., Toyama Y., Murphy R., Bakia M., Jones K., Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, (2010); Nguyen T., The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11, 2, pp. 309-319, (2015); Platt C., Raile A., Yu N., Virtually the same?: Student perceptions of the equivalence of online classes to face-to-face classes, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 3, pp. 489-503, (2014); Paul J., Cochran J., Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and educational institutions: A holistic framework, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14, 1, pp. 49-62, (2013); Prince M., Does active learning work? A review of the research, Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 3, pp. 223-231, (2004); Thormann J., Fidalgo P., Guidelines for online course moderation and community building from a student's perspective, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 3, pp. 374-388, (2014); Twigg C.A., Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning, EDUCAUSE Review, 38, 5, pp. 28-38, (2003); Walker C.E., Kelly E., Online instruction: Student satisfaction, kudos, and pet peeves, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8, 4, pp. 309-319, (2007); Wilcox K.E., Sarma S., Lippel P.H., Online education: A catalyst for higher education reforms., (2016); Yin R.K., Case study research: Design and methods, (2014)
Nơi xuất bản
University of Houston
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus