You are here:

Creating a Climate of Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment
Article

, , , University of Tennessee, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 17, Number 3, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This article describes the conversational interactions of one online learning group whose task was to identify themes of human development from life histories of the group members. The data were analyzed by a research team using the hermeneutic circle, which involves continually looking at parts of the text in light of the meaning of the larger text, returning to the parts and then back again to the larger whole. A climate of engagement emerged from the data analysis as the overarching theme capturing the essence of the participants' online interactions. Four aspects were found to constitute this climate of engagement: engaging in the online environment; engaging in dialogue; engaging as a group; and engaging in the content. A dialogue pattern connected the four aspects. The authors propose a model of engagement that captures the dynamic nature of these participants' interactions and suggest implications for research and practice.

Citation

Ziegler, M., Paulus, T. & Woodside, M. (2006). Creating a Climate of Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 295-318. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  2. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge. Burdett, J.
  3. Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2002). Groups: Process and practice (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Corey/Thompson.
  4. Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  6. Ellinor, L. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Graham, C. R.
  7. Graham, C. R., & Misanchuk, M. (2004). Computer-mediated teamwork: Benefits and challenges
  8. Harrington, H. L. (1997). Technology's second-level effects: Fostering democratic communities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2/3), 203-222.
  9. Hupp, T. (1995). Designing work groups: Jobs and work flow. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., & Robins, J. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved February 26, 2005 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html.
  10. Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  11. Hian, L.B. Chuan, S.L., Trevor, T.M., & Detenber, B.H. (2004). Getting to know you: Exploring the development of relational intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Med ia ted Communication, 9(3). Retrieved February 26, 2005 from
  12. Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and decision-making performance. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 167-191).
  13. Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Fey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. McDonald, J., & Gibson, C. C. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group development in computer conferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 7-25.
  15. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
  16. Paulus, T.M. (2004). Collaboration or cooperation? Small group interactions in a synchronous educational environment. In T.S. Roberts (Ed.) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Higher Education (pp. 100-124). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.
  17. Pawan, F., Paulus, T., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among inservice teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119-140. Phillips, G. M. (1990). Teaching how to work in groups. Westport, CT: Ablex.
  18. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
  19. Ratner, C. (1989). A social constructionist critique of naturalistic theories of emotion. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 10(21), 1-230.
  20. Ratner, C. (1991). Vygotsky’s sociohistorical psychology and its contemporary applications. New York: Plenum.
  21. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Rice, R., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85-108.
  22. Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  23. Scribner, J. P., & Donaldson, J. F. (2001). The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to transformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 605-636. Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. B. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  24. Stahl, G. (2003a). Meaning and interpretation in collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of
  25. Stahl, G. (2003b). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of learning. In J. W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher education. Amsterdam: Kluwer Publishers. Retrieved January 23, 2005, from http://orgwis.gmd.de/~ Gerry/publications/journals/oun/oun_outline.pdf.
  26. Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2002) (pp. 62-71). Boulder, CO. Retrieved January 23, 2005, from http://orgwis.gmd.de/~gerry/publications/conferences/2002/cscl2002/cscl2002.pdf Tuckman, B. W. (1965). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
  27. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. Van Manen, M. (1990) Researching lived experience: Human science for action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  30. Westberg, J., & Jason, H. (1996). Fostering learning in small groups: A practical guide. New York, NY: Springer.
  31. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.
  32. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

  • Implementing Case-Based Instruction in Higher Education Through Technology: What Works Best?

    Gail Fitzgerald, University of Missouri-Columbia, United States; Kevin Koury & Katherine Mitchem, California University of Pennsylvania, United States; Candice Hollingsead, Bethel College, United States; Kevin Miller, Buffalo State College, United States; Meeaeng Ko Park, University of Missouri-Columbia, United States; Hui-Hsien Tsai, SUNY Empire State College, United States

    Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 17, No. 1 (January 2009) pp. 31–63

  • Multimedia Cases and Situated Learning: What Works?

    Gail Fitzgerald, University of Missouri-Columbia, United States; Kate Mitchem, California University of Pennsylvania, United States; Candice Hollingsead, Bethel College, United States; Kevin Miller, Buffalo State College, United States; Kevin Koury, California University of Pennsylvania, United States; Hui-Hsien Tsai, University of Missouri-Columbia, United States

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2007 (Jun 25, 2007) pp. 3884–3892

  • Encouraging ownership of online spaces: Support for pre-service English teachers through computer-mediated communication:

    Lisa Scherff, University of Alabama, United States; Trena Paulus, University of Tennessee, United States

    Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 6, No. 4 (December 2006) pp. 354–373

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.

Also Read

Related Collections