Examining the Pedagogy of Online Education and Technology
Todd Shoepe, Health and Human Sciences, Faculty Associate 2012 - 2013
Online and technology mediated education are likely to become ever more important in higher education. What aspects of teaching and learning do online tools and technology lend themselves to? What are their advantages? What are the challenges? How different are online and technology-mediated instruction from traditional pedagogy? What kind of online instruction and technology can support the educational mission of LMU and its Strategic Plan?
We will facilitate the dialogue about the opportunities and state of online instruction through discussions and presentations. Programming will also focus on the role of technological pedagogy in different kinds of classrooms and learning contexts. Through panels, workshops, and mentorship, we plan to address the efficacy and concerns of online instruction and discuss currently available online tools and methods. We will supplement the programming through reviews of available tools and literature on online education and technology.
- Alexander, C.J., Crescini, W.M., Juskewitch, J.E., Lachman, N, Pawlina, W. (2009), "Assessing the Integration of Audience Response System Technology in Teaching of Anatomical Sciences", Anat SciEduc., 2/4, 160-166.
- DeBourgh, G.A. (2008), "Use of classroom 'clickers' to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills", Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 76-87.
- Levesque, A.A (2011), "Using clickers to facilitate development of problem-solving skills", Life Sciences Education, 10, 406-417.
Flipping the Classroom
Class flipping "means that the events that have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the classroom" (Lage et al.,2000). Also known as inverting the classroom, this technique promotes a move from a professor-centric lecture format to a student-centric working classroom. Students are expected to view, listen to, or read lecture material through pre-recorded video/audio segments or lecture notes in order to appear in class prepared for planned activities which might include problem solving, group work, project development, discussion, creative works, or homework. In contrast to traditional formats, flipping allows students more time in the presence of the professor during the times that they are most engaged in the application of the material.
- Grabe, M., Christopheron, K. (2008), "Optional student use of online lecture resources: resource preferences, performance and lecture attendance", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 1-10.
- Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J., Treglia, M. (2000), "Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment", Journal of Economic Education, 31/1.
- Mazur, E., Watkins, J. (2009), "Just-in-Time Teaching and Peer Instruction", in: Just in Time Teaching Across the Disciplines, eds. Scott Simkins and Mark Maier, Sterling (VA): Stylus, 39-62.
- McFarlin, B.K. (2008), "Hybrid lecture-online format increases student grades in an undergraduate exercise physiology course at a large urban university", Advances in Physiology Education, 32, 86-91.
- Prunuske (2012)
- Strayer, J.F. (2012), "How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation", Learning Environments Research, 15/2, 171–193.
- Vatovec, C., Basler, T. (2009), "Podcasts as Tools in Introductory Environmental Studies", Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 10, 19-24.
- Barseghian, T. (2011), "The Flipped Classroom Defined", KQED, Mind/Shift, How we will learn.
- The William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/project/fizz/.
- flipped learning network, http://flippedlearning.org/.
- EDUCAUSE, Learning Initiative (2012), "Things you Should Know Abou Flipped Classrooms".
Defining Student Engagement
- Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New directions for teaching and learning, 1999(80), 75-81.
- Chickering, A. W., Gamson, Z. F., Poulsen, S. J., & Foundation, J. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.
- Kuh, G. D. (2001a). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-66.
- Kuh, G. D. (2001b). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research & Planning, IN: Bloomington.
- Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32.
- LaNasa, S. M., Cabrera, A. F., & Trangsrud, H. (2009). The construct validity of student engagement: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Research in Higher Education, 50(4), 315-332.
- National Survey for Student Engagement. (2000). The NSSE Report: National benchmarks of effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
- National Survey for Student Engagement. (2011). Fostering student engagement campuswide - annual results 2011. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
- Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. The Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109.
Online Student Engagement
- Barrett, E., & Lally, V. (1999). Gender differences in an on-line learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(1), 48-60. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2729.1999.151075.x
- Batts, D. (2008). Comparison of student and instructor perceptions of best practices in online technology courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4, 477-489.
- Batts, D., Colaric, S., & McFadden, C. (2006). Online courses demonstrate use of seven principles. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(12), 15-25.
- Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232.
- Laird, T. F. N., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211-233.
- Tirrell, T., & Quick, D. (2012). Chickering's Seven Principles of Good Practice: Student Attrition in Community College Online Courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 580-590.
- Williams, L., & Lahman, M. (2011). Online Discussion, Student Engagement, and Critical Thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(2), 143-162.
- Burnett, C. (2003). Learning to chat: Tutor participation in synchronous online chat. Teaching in higher education, 8(2), 247-261.
- Chan, M. (2011). Shyness, sociability, and the role of media synchronicity in the use of computer-mediated communication for interpersonal communication. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14(1), 84-90.
- Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2002). Enhancing collaborative learning: Discussion boards and chat rooms as project communication tools. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 29-41.
- Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4), 2-4.
- Hoven, D. L. (2006). Communicating and interacting: An exploration of the changing roles of media in CALL/CMC. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 23(2), 233-256.
- Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the internet. Computers & Education, 35(1), 21-35.
- Johnson, G. M. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4), 46-53.
- Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177-192.
- Joinson, A. N., Reips, U. D., Buchanan, T., & Schofield, C. B. P. (2010). Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human‚ÄìComputer Interaction, 25(1), 1-24.
- Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., Williams, J., & Donelan, H. (2011). Web conferencing for synchronous online tutorials: Perspectives of tutors using a new medium. Computers & Education.
- Mcalister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194-204.
- Repman, J., Zinskie, C., & Carlson, R. D. (2005). Effective use of CMC tools in interactive online learning. Computers in the Schools, 22(1-2), 57-69.
- Savas, P. (2011). A case study of contextual and individual factors that shape linguistic variation in synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 298-313.
- Sheeks, M. S., & Birchmeier, Z. P. (2007). Shyness, sociability, and the use of computer-mediated communication in relationship development. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 64-70.
- Valaitis, R., Akhtar-Danesh, N., Eva, K., Levinson, A., & Wainman, B. (2007). Pragmatists, positive communicators, and shy enthusiasts: Three viewpoints on Web conferencing in health sciences education. Journal of Medical internet Research, 9(5).
10/3/12: Engaged Technology and Experiential Learning
12/4/12: Creative with Clickers: Enhancing Teaching and Learning
1/31/13: Measuring Student Engagement in Online Classes
2/21/13: Promoting Student Engagement in Online Classes Part I: Virtual Classes