a comparison of online face to face students and instructor s experiences examining blended synchronous learning effects

doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926 ScienceDirect 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013 A comparison of online/face-to-face students’ and instructor’s experiences: Exa

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 4250 – 4254

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.

doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926

ScienceDirect

5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013

A comparison of online/face-to-face students’ and instructor’s experiences: Examining blended synchronous learning effects

Department of Education Policy and Leadership,The Hong Kong Institute of Eduction, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong SAR, China

Abstract

The blended synchronous teaching and learning mode is gaining currency in higher education, while its effects on students’ and instructors’ experiences are yet to be fully explored Little research has been done to contextualize the teaching and learning effects of this teaching and learning mode This paper reports a qualitative study of the experiences of simultaneously teaching online and face-to-face students in an engineering course It aims to gain better understandings of the effects on the students’ learning and instructor’s teaching in terms of 3 dimensions: instructional, social and learning, in the advent of information and communication technology What teaching and learning effects were revealed in the blended mode? How did the effects impact

on attaining the intended learning outcomes? This paper focuses on the potential of blended synchronous teaching and learning effects for quality educational experiences The results reveal that (1) there were different teaching and learning effects on the blended synchronous instruction; (2) an unexpected pattern of interactions emerged in the blended synchronous communication; and (3) both the online and face-to-face students attained similar learning outcomes This paper concludes that universities adopting blended synchronous learning need to provide sufficient support for both the students and instructors in the instructional, social and learning dimensions

© 2013 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof Dr Servet Bayram

Keywords: blended synchronous instruction, interactions; learning effects, social dimension

1 Introduction

Blended synchronous approaches to learning and teaching are gaining currency in the changing higher education landscape Educators believe that this form of learning can engage online students at various locations in learning with those on university main campuses, thus widening knowledge exchange and participation Although studies (Chen, Ko, Kinshuk, & Lin, 2005; Hastie, Hung, Chen, & Kinshuk, 2010) of the approach have shown positive results, little research has been done to gain deeper understandings of its educational effects on both online and face-to-face students’ learning and instructors’ teaching

The aim of this study is thus to explore the effects on students’ and instructors’ experiences with the advance of information and communication technology (ICT) What were these effects in a blended synchronous learning situation? How did these effects impact on attaining the intended learning outcomes? The results are expected to inform educators’ learning and teaching practices involving ICT With respect to this aim, this study addressed two questions:

* Corresponding Author: Elson Szeto Tel.: +852-29488434

E-mail address: eszeto@ied.edu.hk

© 2013 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.

(1) What were the online/face-to-face students’ and instructor’s experiences in the blended synchronous learning situation?

(2) How did these learning and teaching experiences impact on attaining the intended learning outcomes?

2 Various comparative studies of online and face-to-face learning and teaching

A proliferation of ICT-supported learning and teaching has recently offered various educational opportunities for online and face-to-face students in higher education (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007; Szeto, 2011) Related studies have spread across a range of topics, for example, comparison of the effectiveness of online and face-to-face learning (Brown & Liedholm, 2002; Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2001), and students’ satisfaction and learning attainment (Brabazon, 2012; Dykman & Davis, 2008; Gragg, Dunning, & Ellis, 2008) However, there are no definitive findings with consistent evidence available to university senior management, educators or potential students

Indeed, online and face-to-face modes are not necessarily opposed in university learning and teaching By blending the two modes, students can benefit from enhanced instruction and timely interactions (Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003; Tu & McIsaac, 2002), while instructors can explore innovative pedagogy for the enrichment of educational experiences involving ICT (Chen et al., 2005) However, the effects of blended synchronous learning and teaching are still as pedagogically and technologically controversial as the results of the comparison of the full online and entire face-to-face modes The experiences that have emerged in the blended learning process have remained unattended What is missing is the learning and teaching effects which emerge in synchronously blending online and face-to-face modes in a course

Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) first proposed the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework for studies of educational experiences in asynchronous/synchronous online teaching and learning As a widely-adopted framework, quality education experiences emerge at the intersection of the teaching, social and cognitive presences This study adopted the CoI framework as a theoretical lens The notions of the three presences represent three dimensions: instructional, communicative and learning, through which the learning and teaching effects were analysed To realise the online learning experiences, Garrison et al (2000) developed a coding structure of the notions of the presences that this study adopted for the exploration Table 1 shows the coding template for the three dimensions

Table 1: The coding template for the 3 dimensions

Dimension Coding category

Instructional (1) Instructional management; (2) Building understanding; and (3) Direct instruction

Communicative (1) Emotional expression; (2) Open communication; and (3) Group cohesion

Learning (1) Triggering events; (2) Exploration; (3) Integration; and (4) Resolution

3 Research design

This paper reports the first phase of a larger study in a blended synchronous learning mode Twenty-eight first-year students enrolled in an intensive computer-aided engineering drawing course were randomly divided into an online group, Group 2 (GP2, n = 14), and a face-to-face group, Group 1 (GP1, n = 14) One of the two instructors was responsible for teaching 6 hours per day for 9 days, with a total of 54 hours Adapting Hastie et al.’s (2010) blended synchronous learning model, the course instructor taught the face-to-face group in an engineering laboratory, while the online group synchronously attended the same sessions at a remote location via Internet-based videoconferencing

This study adopted a grounded theory approach (Strass & Corbin, 1990) to collecting and analysing data The CoI coding structure (Garrison, et al, 2000) was used as a preconceived coding scheme for data analysis (see Table 1) Then, the reliability of the analysis was enhanced through a cross-checking, comparing and auditing process by another qualitative researcher involved in the study (Bush, 2002)

4 The results

Table 2: A comparison of the online/face-to-face students’ learning and the instructor’s teaching experiences

GP2’s experience GP1’s experience The instructor’s experience

Instructional dimension

A positive perception of the

blended synchronous online

instruction

Teaching was very

comprehensive

Demonstration was really good

because the skill processes were

enlarged on a big screen

Deliberately-repeated steps for

skills demonstration enhanced

clarity

The teaching strategy seemed

better than face-to-face

The presentation was very detailed and at a steady pace

Deliberately slowed down teaching

pace

This was extraordinary compared

with what they had experienced in normal class teaching

The topic was exceptionally clear

Overdone repetition might make

the teaching a bit unnatural

Different attention was paid to the GP2

students

GP1 seemed to be a ‘control group’ in

an experiment

Encouraged questions and detected the students’ understandings of the

content

GP2 could fully grasp the content while

GP1 did not feel bored

Teaching pace was adjusted for clarity

Repetition was more important to GP2

Experienced the pedagogical difference

and challenges

Teaching was enjoyable in this mode

Communicative dimension

Received too much attention as if

they were under the spotlight

Multi-screen projections of the

tutor’s teaching and Gp1 students

created a “real” sense of attending

‘face-to-face’ teaching

Experienced short transactional

interactions with GP1 for

cross-group activities

Collaborative activities with GP1

were indirect in the environment

Transmission was occasionally

interrupted and the system was

restarted

The tutor spent longer facilitating

GP2 in the Q & A sessions

Seemed to be neglected by the

tutor

Interested in meeting other

students located at the remote site

Interaction with GP2 was difficult because the students were not

physically present

Screen projection of GP2 students

enhanced a sense of connected

learning communities at large

Audio transmission was rough and unstable

Ensured that his “teaching

performance” was as real as possible

on the screen

Pushed so hard to facilitate inter-group

communication

Adjusted his language use

Facial expressions and other social cues were used directly and explicitly

Used hand gestures for the GP2

students to facilitate their responses

Learning dimension

Satisfactory learning together

with GP1 in groups was facilitated

in a virtual ‘face-to-face’ learning

environment

Engineering knowledge and

drawing skills were familiarized

more quickly

Assignments could be completed

more easily

Lacked live practice of the

knowledge learned together with

the tutor

Engineering knowledge and computer-aided drawing skills were gained in these activities

The technology should be reliable and there should be zero technical

problems to achieve the expected

learning outcomes

Responses to the tutor’s or GP2

students’ questions could encourage knowledge sharing

The students were spontaneous when engaging in group learning activities

They might be disengaged sometimes

The assignment and quiz results did not show remarkable difference between

the GP2 and GP1 students

Additional stimulation of group

communicative interactions was

required

The results reveal the differences in the learning and teaching effects on the experiences of the online/face-to-face students and the instructor Table 2 shows the comparative results with the key meanings highlighted in bold text The table reflects that the two groups of students had different experiences in relation to the instructor’s performance in the blended synchronous situation The instructor faced the teaching challenges of drawing the

online learning and face-to-face teaching as a whole, while the blended synchronous interactive pattern was characterized in the blended synchronous communication between the two groups of students

5 Discussion and conclusion

Referring to the above results, the teaching and learning effects differ from those of recent studies (Chen et al., 2005; Hastie et al., 2010; Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003) in the three dimensions Further discussion is needed

5.1 Instructional difference

The instructional performance was transformed from either online teaching or a blend of the two modes in separate sessions of a course to a blended synchronous learning situation The instructor tended to focus on the online students, while his instructional strategy emphasized a slow pace, clarity and repeated probing The GP2 students experienced clear explanations and ease of understanding of the topics In contrast, the GP1 students felt bored in some sessions because the instructor unintentionally paid too much attention to the remote GP2 students In fact, the instructor tried hard to synchronously bring his teaching across to the two groups in a virtual learning environment mediated by the videoconference This is the challenge he faced in the blended synchronous situation

5.2 Unexpected interaction pattern

Synchronous interactions between the two groups were expected to be conducted in the virtual environment However, a pattern of interactions emerged in the blended synchronous communication between the online/face-to-face students and the instructor (see the Social dimension in Table 2) Immediate online/face-to-face-to-online/face-to-face interactions were sought within the group first by the GP2 students, but immediate support from the teacher was more sought after by the GP1 students The GP2 students were more active in terms of interacting with the GP1 students than the GP1 students were in this blended mode However, the pattern reflects that the two groups did not learn in such cross-group interactions Rather, they looked for affective support from within their own cross-groups when they encountered frustration and confusion Tu and McIsaac (2002) argued that online interactions could provide peer support for better learning However, for the two groups, the instructor was still the primary source of learning

5.3 Similar learning attainment of the online and face-to-face students

Despite the challenging blended synchronous instruction and unexpected interaction pattern, the intended learning outcomes were attained The instructor’s overall assessment of the students’ learning indicates that the online and face-to-face groups achieved a similar level of attainment in the learning process The two groups still managed to acquire the engineering drawing knowledge and skills It seems that both the online and face-to-face students can benefit from stronger instruction as studies (e.g., Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003) have revealed Thus, these similar results are of interest for further research

Nonetheless, this study is significant in that it provides universities, educators and students with a better understanding of the blended synchronous learning and teaching effects In practice, stronger support for the blended synchronous learning and teaching in the instructional, communicative and learning dimensions is required Indeed, this study provides a small step forward in seeking a wider community of student participation and knowledge exchange involving ICT

6 References

Bianco, M B., & Carr-Chellman, A A (2007) Exploring qualitiative methologies in online learning environments In R Luppicini (Ed.), Online

Learning Community Charlotte: IAP

Brabazon, T (2012) The magic of face-to-face teaching Times Higher Education Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story

asp?storyCode=403280&section code=26

Brown, B W., & Liedholm, C E (2002) Can web courses replace the classroom in Principles of Microeconomics? The American Economic

Review, 92(2), 444-448

Bush, T (2002) Authenticity - reliability, validity and triangulation In M Coleman & A Briggs (Eds.), Research Methods in Educational

Leadership and Management (pp 58-72): Paul Chapman Publishing

Chen, N.-S., Ko, H.-C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T (2005) A model for synchronous learning using the Internet Innovations in Education and Teaching

International, 42(2), 181-194

Dykman, C A., & Davis, C K (2008) Online education forum: Part two - teaching online versus teaching conventionally Journal of

Information Systems Education, 19(2), 157-164

Garrison, D R., et al (2000) Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education The Internet and

Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105

Gragg, C E., Dunning, J., & Ellis, J (2008) Teacher and student behaviours in face-to-face and on-line courses: Dealing with complex concepts

Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 115-128

Hastie, M., Hung, I.-C., Chen, N.-S., & Kinshuk (2010) A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24

Nicol, D J., Minty, I., & Sinclair, C (2003) The social dimensions of online learning Innovations in Education and Teaching International,

40(3), 270-280

Smith, G G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M (2001) Teaching college courses online vs face-to-face T.H.E Journal, 28(9), 18- 16

Strauss, A L., & Corbin, J M (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques Newbury Park, CA: Sage Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F (2007) A Study of Face-to-Face and Online Teaching Philosophies in Canada and Australia Journal of Distance

Education, 22(1), 19-40

Szeto, E (2011) Transforming learning and teaching in higher education: The impact of ICT on pedagogy, peer interaction and support in a

networked virtual learning environment International Journal of Learning, 17(11), 205-214

Tu, C H., & McIsaac, M (2002) The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes The American Journal of Distance

Education, 16(3), 131-150