Best teaching patterns in multi-participant online courses
Tami Seifert, Miki Kritz, Orna Feliks, Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
This study examines online learning as an opportunity to implement the constructivist approach as a practice, emphasizing the characteristics of the online course. The increasing use of online teaching at higher education institutions requires students to master online learning skills in order to succeed in online courses. Advanced technologies enable online learning, without classroom meetings, and with a large number of participants. In order to make the most of this teaching model, it is proposed to examine the changing role of teachers and students in the online environment. The challenge of a multiplayer online course is intensified by trying to replace face-to-face meetings with online sessions and offer a variety of digital activities and experiences for students, while still allowing a large number of learners in the course. The study findings indicate that, there is a preference for learning in small groups. It also appears that students in the large group prefer face-to-face instruction more than those who studied in the small group, and the latter prefer online learning. Accordingly, the sense of belonging to the course and the sense of visibility in the course are higher among the students who studied in the smaller group than those who studied in the large group, as well as the sense of visibility by the lecturer and by colleagues.
Seifert, T., Kritz, M. & Feliks, O. (2019). Best teaching patterns in multi-participant online courses. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 562-565). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/207696/.
© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
ReferencesView References & Citations Map
- Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
- Brindley, J., Blaschke, L.M., & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–18.
- Downes, S. (2010). The role of the educator. Huffington Post Education. URL: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/the-role-of-the-educator_b_790937.html
- Fedynich, L., Bradley, K.S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate students' perceptions of online learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056187.pdf
- Finegold, A., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the attitudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in online groups. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 201-215.
- Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132.
- Hillyard, C., Gillespie D., & Littig, P. (2010). University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education 11(1): 9–20.
- Johnson, B.R., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
- Keeves, J.P. (1988). Educational research, methodology and measurement: An International Handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press. SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019
- Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J.S.F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 74-93.
- Lee, S.J., Ngampornchai, A., Trail-Constant, T., Abril, A., & Srinivasan, S. (2016). Does a case-based online group project increase students’ satisfaction with interaction in online courses? Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 249-260.
- Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University students' perceptions of cooperative learning: Implications for administrators and instructors. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 14-22.
- Portolese Dias, L., & Trumpy, R. (2014). Online instructor's use of audio feedback to increase social presence and student satisfaction. Journal of Educators Online, 11(2). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1033260.pdf.
- Puentedura, R. (2011). Thinking about change in learning and technology. Presentation given September 25, 2012 at the 1st Global Mobile Learning Conference, AlAin, UAE. Retrieved from: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/04/10/iPad_Intro.pdf.
- Roberts, T.S., & McInnerney, J.M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology& Society, 10 (4), 257-268.
- Seifert, T. (2017, March). What students really think about online lessons? In Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1786-1794). Association for the Advancement of
- Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITFORUM for Discussion, 27, 1-26.
- Slavin, R.E. (1981). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 38(8), 655-60.
- Song, Y. (2016). “We found the ‘black spots’ on campus on our own”: Development of inquiry skills in primary science learning with BYOD (Bring Your Own Device). Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 1-15.
- Sparks, J.R., Song, Y., Brantley, W. & Liu, O.L. (2014). Assessing written communication in higher education: Review and recommendations for next-generation assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 2014: 1–52.
- Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., & Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.Suggest Corrections to References