1 / 17

Increased Engagement for Students through Small Group & Individual Face to Face Time Blended with Online Activit

Increased Engagement for Students through Small Group & Individual Face to Face Time Blended with Online Activities. Ben Bennett- Carpenter Oakland University Presentation to the 2013 e -Cornucopia conference, “Quality Learning Through Technology” at Oakland University, May 31, 2013.

dyllis
Download Presentation

Increased Engagement for Students through Small Group & Individual Face to Face Time Blended with Online Activit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Increased Engagement for Students through Small Group & Individual Face to Face TimeBlended with Online Activities Ben Bennett-Carpenter Oakland University Presentation to the 2013 e-Cornucopia conference, “Quality Learning Through Technology” at Oakland University, May 31, 2013

  2. Abstract Of the many possible benefits that online activities may provide students, one that is sometimes overlooked is the possibility for increased engagement for students through small group and individual face to face time in a partially online course. Among the many opportunities afforded by online learning spaces is the reorganization of the in-class face to face time. By moving some course activities online that would normally be conducted in class in a more traditional format, an instructor can create specialized, focused time periods to work with small groups and individuals more directly on their projects. Examples provided in this presentation will include a first year writing course, a senior year undergraduate interdisciplinary capstone course, and an Honors College course. This more focused, direct work with students on their projects may often prove to be a fast track to specific course objectives and learning outcomes.

  3. Similar to some ideas of a “flipped” classroom and “increasing student engagement” in the context of new technologies (cf. Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012; Wankel, Blessinger, 2012; Wankel & Blessinger, 2013a; Wankel & Blessinger, 2013b)

  4. Also in the context of “enhancing teaching” and “improving student learning” in the context of a small groups and individual meetings (cf. Hartley, Woods, & Pill, 2005; Ferrer & O’Connor, 2013)

  5. Examples HC 204 -- Conceptions of Creativity (Honors College course in Western Civilization and Writing Intensive) – Summer 2011 – 40% online HS 402 – Field Experience in Integrative Studies (capstone course) – Summer 2012 – 50-70% online WRT 160 – Composition II -- If You Could Ask Any Question: Open, Critical, & Investigative Projects -- Winter 2013 -- 30% online

  6. Honors College course on Creativity – Summer 2011 Approx. 40% online E.g., several in-class discussions regarding the class readings on creativity were shifted to online discussion forums in Moodle. Meanwhile, individual meeting times were set up in order to discuss the individual student projects/papers. Very simple adjustment to course, but this carves out individual meeting time that otherwise may not have been possible.

  7. Integrative Studies capstone course – Summer 2012 Approx. 50-70% online Several in-class activities were shifted to online Moodle forums, while small group and individual meetings were set up to discuss/workshop the students’ projects for the semester. E.g., “Presentation of a Discipline”; peer-review; “Common Ground discussion” See Moodle screenshot of course

  8. WRT 160 – Composition II research writing course – Winter 2013 Approx. 30% online One of the great benefits of this 30% online helps facilitate the small group & individual face to face time that is customized to the particular small groups and to the particular individuals. Small groups to discuss/workshop individual projects AND group projects Individual meetings to discuss/workshop individual projects See Moodle screenshot of course

  9. I find most students (not all) more engaged in the course through the small groups and the individual meetings with me. In the small groups, they often end up more engaged with each other as well. Sometimes “online” means online for the student but continues as face to face for the instructor!

  10. As an important aside: You may have noticed that all of these course examples I’ve given are project-based rather than directed toward multiple-choice exams, etc. Among other strategies, one that lends itself to student engagement through small groups and individual face to face time in a blended online course is a course or assignment set up as a project or as project-based.

  11. By the way… • Rationale for an open, project-based approach: • “open inquiry [as] fundamental starting point for all thought, research, and eventually knowledge” • “free speech [as] recognized as a basic ingredient for our free, democratic society and a crucial part of [the] university” • “recent studies in intelligence are in harmony with open-ended student-centered projects that capitalize on an individual’s particular strengths” • [For this and more, see Bennett-Carpenter, B. (2012). If you could ask any question: Introducing open inquiry-based, student-centered writing projects. In L. Ostergaard (Ed.), Grizz Writes: A guide to first-year writing at Oakland University. Southlake, Texas: Fountainhead, pp. 43-51.]

  12. Possible applications to other disciplines: -social sciences: multiple-choice quiz/test  case study -natural sciences: multiple-choice quiz/test  lab or field study -humanities: pre-determined text & topic  selection from menu of texts + open topic What else?

  13. Possible applications to other disciplines or fields: -health sciences? -education? -business? -law?

  14. Q: What do you do or have you done like this in your courses? OR What might you do?

  15. Q: How do you see all this working (or not working) for you? Q: Questions for clarification? Other comments/questions?

  16. References Bennett-Carpenter, B. (2012). If you could ask any question: Introducing open inquiry-based, student-centered writing projects. In L. Ostergaard (Ed.), Grizz Writes: A guide to first- year writing at Oakland University. Southlake, Texas: Fountainhead, pp. 43-51. Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L.,& Wylie, C. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York : Springer. Ferreri, S.P., & O’Connor, S.K. (2013). Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group learning course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 77(1): Article 13. Hartley, P., Woods, A., & Pill, M. (Eds.) (2005). Enhancing teaching in higher education: new approaches for improving student learning. London: Routledge. Wankel, C., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.) [in collaboration with J Stanaityte, N Washington]. (2012). Increasing student engagement and retention using immersive interfaces: Virtual worlds, gaming, and simulation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Wankel, C., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.) (2013a). Increasing student engagement and retention in e-learning environments: Web 2.0 and blended learning technologies. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Wankel, C., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.) (2013b). Increasing student engagement and retention using classroom technologies: Classroom response systems and mediated discourse technologies. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

  17. Contact info: Ben Bennett-Carpenter, bennettc@oakland.edu

More Related