You are here:

Nontraditional Students’ Perception of a Blended Course: Integrating Synchronous Online Discussion and Face-to-Face Instruction
Article

, Carle Foundation Hospital, USA, United States ; , Illinois State University, USA, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 19, Number 3, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

Nontraditional students are rapidly becoming the majority group on campuses across America. These students are often hard pressed for time and in order to provide them with equal learning opportunities many universities and colleges are currently responding by offering classes using a variety of delivery methods and formats. In this study, synchronous online discussions were integrated with traditional face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate educational psychology course offered mostly to nontraditional students. The purpose of the study was to examine nontraditional students' perception of this “blended” course. Specifically, the study sought to find out the extent to which students' were satisfied with their learning experience. Students' perception was assessed by way of a survey that consisted of Likert-scale and open-ended items. Results generated from the surveys suggest that students were generally satisfied with the course format. For nontraditional students, synchronous online discussions may enhance interaction, collaboration, active learning as well as equal learning opportunities. Furthermore, combining online and face-to-face discussions could ensure more productive use of class time for higher education courses scheduled for short durations.

Citation

Blankson, J. & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2008). Nontraditional Students’ Perception of a Blended Course: Integrating Synchronous Online Discussion and Face-to-Face Instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 421-438. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer–mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158-174
  2. An, Y., & Frick, T. (2006). Student perception of asynchronous computer-mediated communication in face-to-face courses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 1-16. Retrieved June 23, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/an.html
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
  4. Bodzin, A. M., & Park, J. C. (2000). Dialogue patterns of pre-service science teachers using asynchronous computer-mediated communications on the world-wide web. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19, 2, 161-194.
  5. Barr, R. & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning. Change (June): 16
  6. Brown, D. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Research, 18, 32-42.
  7. Carr, T., Cox, G., Eden, A., & Hanslo, M. (2004). From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2) 197-211. Carr-Chellmann, A. & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229-241.
  8. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
  9. Chou, C. C. (2001). Formative evaluation f synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centered online course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 12(3/4), 173-192.
  10. Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  11. Coley, R. J (2000). The American community college. (3rd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Collins-Brown, E. (2001). Successful strategies for using asynchronous discussion boards. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from http://www.connectedcreativity.com/Treatise/types.html Dabbagh, N. & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill, Prentice Hall.
  12. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Tanner, E. J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 351-366.
  13. Ellis, R. A., Calvo, R., Levy, D., & Tan, K. (2004). Learning through discussions. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 73-93.
  14. Fetsco, T. & McClure, J. (2005). Educational Psychology: An integrated approach to classroom decisions. Boston, MA. Allyn and Bacon
  15. Flashlight Program (2006). Flashlight handbook and current student inventory. Retrieved June 22, 2006 from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/flashcsi.html
  16. Fleming, M. (1987). Dispale and communication. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional Technology Foundations (pp. 233-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  17. Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Towards a science of design. Review of Educational Research, 46(1), 1-24.
  18. Gorski, P., Heidlebach, R., Howe, B., Jackson, M., & Tell, S. (2000). Forging communities for educational change with e-mail discussion groups. Multicultural Perspectives, 2(4), 37-42. Harrington, H. L. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the professional development of teachers. Teaching and Learning Education, 11(3), 203-214.
  19. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). New York: Springer. Johnson, S., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
  20. Kaye, A. (1992). Learning together apart. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 1-24). New York: Springer.
  21. Klemm, W. R. (2000). What's wrong with online discussions and how to fix it. WebNet 2000 World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings. San Antonio, TX, October 30November 4th, 2000.
  22. Kozma, R. B. (2001). Roberts Kozma’s counterpoint theory of “learning with media”. In R. E. Clark Ed). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis and evidence (pp137-178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  23. Levine, A. (2001). Higher education as a mature industry. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.). In defense of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  24. Light, V. (2000). Let’s you and me have a little discussion: Computer-mediated commutation in support of campus-based course. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 85-97.
  25. Markel, S. L. (2001). Technology and education online forums: It’s in the response. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved June 22, 2006 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/markel42.html.
  26. McGraw-Hill Companies (2001). Need a course website? PageOut is the solution. Retrieved June 24, 2006 from http://www.pageout.net/page.dyn/intro/welcome
  27. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Los Angeles: Pyrczak.
  28. Miller, M. T., & Lu, M. (2003). Serving nontraditional students in e-learning environments: Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Educational Media International, 40(1), 163-169. Mikulecky, L.
  29. Moore, M. G. (1989, May). Effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature. (NTIS No. PB 90-125 238/XAB). University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
  30. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Murphy, K. L., & Collins, M. (1998). Development of communication conventions in instructional electronic chats. Journal of distance education, 142(1/2) 177-200.
  31. National Center for Educational Statistics (2003). Report of distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
  32. Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). In M. G. Moore & G. T. Cozine (Eds.), Web-based communications, The Internet and distance education (pp. 1-15). Univesity Park: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education: Pennsylvania State University. Neuharth-Pritichett, S., Payne, B. D. & Reiff, J. C. (2004). Perspectives on elementary education. A casebook of critically analyzing issues of diversity. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ornstein, A. C. & Lasley II, T. J (2004). Strategies for effective teaching. (4th Ed.). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
  33. Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing students’ interactions computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1) 41-68
  34. Phillippe, K. A., & Valliga, M. J. (2000). Aces of the future: A portrait of America’s community college counselors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19, 151-160. Sands, P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-toface instruction in hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved August 4, 2006 from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm
  35. Seemann, E. A., Buboltz, W. C., Wilkinson, L., & Beatty, S. (2001). Applying social learning
  36. Slavin, R. E. (2006). Educational Psychology. Theory and practice. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  37. Smith, S. J., & Boone, R. (2000). Increasing access to teacher preparation: The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 37-46.
  38. Taylor, J. C. (2002). Teaching and learning online. The workers, the lurkers and the shirkers. Paper presented at the 2002 Conference on Research in Distance & Adult Learning in Asia. Retrieved July 28, 2006 from http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/CRIDAL/cridala2002/speeches/taylor.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Digest of Educational Statistics 2001 (NCES 2002-130) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Press. Vonderwell, S.
  39. Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in education
  40. Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational Psychology (10th Ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
  41. Zhu, E. (1998). Learning and mentoring electronic discussion in a distance learning course. In C. J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse (pp.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Addressing the Challenges of Engagement and Access in Teacher Education: Hybrid Learning

    Qiuyun Lin, State University of New York--Plattsburgh, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (Mar 17, 2014) pp. 364–370

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.