All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Transforming a Course to Blended Learning for Student Engagement

DOI: 10.1155/2014/430732

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


The rising costs of higher education, along with the learning styles and needs of modern students, are changing the instructional landscape. Students of today do less and less well in the “lecture only” format, and staffing this format with live faculty is extremely expensive. MOOCs and other technology-heavy options are low cost but quite impersonal. Blended instruction has promise, with the ultimate goal of cost-efficient student engagement. This paper reports on a major course transformation to achieve student engagement in a large, formerly lecture-only course. The resulting blended-learning course features clickers, web-based operationalization of students helping students, media-rich interactive online materials, event credit, and newly added student-produced video tutorials. Results show that the addition of the student-produced video tutorials increased the student engagement in the course. 1. Introduction A teenaged-daughter enjoyed watching old Saturday Night Live episodes on Netflix, so her father took her to The Second City comedy club in Chicago to see some budding SNL prospects. The evening cost over $150, compared to an average of less than $1 per SNL episode on Netflix. Why the difference? The cost of live performers, of course. Instructional faculty is live performers in the classroom, and the rising costs of higher education are threatening their existence. One key to their survival is student engagement. The real time, multimodal digitally connected students of today do less and less well in the “lecture only” format [1], a format which has shown an upper limit of about 30% content retention regardless of lecturer [2]. If this format continues to be chosen Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and other technology-assisted options could permanently remove the live performers. This paper reports on a major course transformation, following the guidelines of University of North Texas’ NextGen program. The resulting blended-learning course features clickers, web-based operationalization of students helping students, media-rich interactive online materials, event credit, and newly added student-produced video tutorials. 2. Theoretical Grounding: The Goal of Student Engagement With the shifting landscape of higher education, many colleges and universities have turned to student engagement activities as a way to ensure deep learning occurs among students [3, 4]. Universities want graduates equipped with skills and knowledge necessary for the 21st century career. Through campus-wide strategic planning initiatives that seek to adjust


[1]  P. Turner and R. Carriveau, Next Generation Course Redesign, Peter Lang, 2010.
[2]  C. Wieman, “Why not try a scientific approach to science education?” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 9–15, 2007.
[3]  E. F. Barkley, Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[4]  D. W. Harward and A. P. Finley, Eds., Transforming Undergraduate Education: Theory That Compels and Practices That Succeed, Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.
[5]  Hart Research Associates, “It takes more than a major: employer priorities for college learning and student success,” AAC&U, 2013.
[6]  Association of American Colleges and Universities, The LEAP Vision for Learning: Outcomes, Practices, Impact and Employer’s Views, Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2011.
[7]  S. L. Newstok, “A plea for ‘Close Learning’,” Liberal Education, vol. 99, no. 4, 2013.
[8]  F. G. Martin, “Education will massive open online courses change how we teach,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 26–28, 2012.
[9]  Y. Hill, L. Lomas, and J. MacGregor, “Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education,” Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 15–20, 2003.
[10]  J. E. Zull, The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning, Stylus Publishing, 2002.
[11]  S. A. Ambrose, M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett, and M. K. Norman, How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[12]  K. Taylor and D. Rohrer, “The effects of interleaved practice,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 837–848, 2010.
[13]  J. Metcalfe and N. Kornell, “A region of proximal Learning model of study time allocation,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 463–477, 2005.
[14]  M. K. Tallent-Runnels, J. A. Thomas, W. Y. Lan, et al., “Teaching courses online: a review of the research,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 93–135, 2006.
[15]  S. M. Smith and E. Vela, “Environmental context-dependent memory: a review and meta-analysis,” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 203–220, 2001.
[16]  F. Concannon, A. Flynn, and M. Campbell, “What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 501–512, 2005.
[17]  X. Yang, Y. Li, C.-H. Tan, and H.-H. Teo, “Students' participation intention in an online discussion forum: why is computer-mediated interaction attractive?” Information and Management, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 456–466, 2007.
[18]  R. D. Roscoe and M. T. H. Chi, “Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions,” Instructional Science, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 321–350, 2008.
[19]  T. D. Griffin, J. Wiley, and K. W. Thiede, “Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy,” Memory and Cognition, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 93–103, 2008.
[20]  C. Bereiter and M. Scardamalia, “Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert” knowledge,” in Thinking and Learning Skills: Current Research and Open Questions, vol. 2, pp. 65–80, 1985.
[21]  R. A. Bjork, Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge, 1998.
[22]  R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, “Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 2003.
[23]  J. Larreamendy-Joerns and G. Leinhardt, “Going the distance with online education,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 567–605, 2006.
[24]  J. Herrington, R. Oliver, and T. C. Reeves, “Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments,” Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 59–71, 2003.
[25]  S. D. Wurdinger and J. A. Carlson, Teaching for Experiential Learning: Five Approaches That Work, R&L Education, Lanham, Md, USA, 2009.
[26]  M. Miller and M. Y. Lu, “Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments: building successful communities in the virtual campus,” Educational Media International, vol. 40, no. 1-2, pp. 163–169, 2003.
[27]  G. D. Kuh, T. M. Cruce, R. Shoup, J. Kinzie, and R. M. Gonyea, “Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 540–563, 2008.
[28]  L. E. Swaner, “The theories, contexts, and multiple pedagogies of engaged learning: what succeeds and why,” in Transforming Undergraduate Education: Theories that Compel and Practices that Succeed, pp. 73–90, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md, USA, 2012.
[29]  A. R. Trees and M. H. Jackson, “The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 21–40, 2007.
[30]  S. A. Yourstone, H. S. Kraye, and G. Albaum, “Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: do clickers improve learning?” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 75–88, 2008.
[31]  C. Downing and C. Liu, “Getting students to teach each other: doing more with less in IS education,” Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 195–206, 2012.
[32]  J. Senese, “Teach to Learn,” Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 43–54, 2005.
[33]  S. S. Erzurumlu and K. Rollag, “Increasing student interest and engagement with business cases by turning them into consulting exercises,” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 359–381, 2013.
[34]  C. G. Cortese, “Learning through teaching,” Management Learning, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 87–115, 2005.


comments powered by Disqus