Student Perceptions of the Most Effective and Engaging Online Learning Activities in a Blended Graduate Seminar

Alicia Cundell, Emily Sheepy

Abstract


The principal concern of this research was to learn more about effective designs of learning activities in blended courses. A questionnaire was administered in three sections of a not-for-credit intensive blended graduate seminar in university teaching.  The online activities included readings, videos, discussion forum activities and other activities using a range of web-based technologies. Students rated each of the activities on four target criteria: alignment with the course learning outcomes, deep learning, engagement, and value. Students also were asked to identify the most useful activities for each of the five modules and evaluate the course as a whole in terms of navigation, expectations, instructions, availability of materials, instructor presence, and technical quality of media. The results suggest that students’ perceptions of the activities followed very similar patterns across the four target criteria. The most highly-rated activities had four distinct design, which are discussed.


Keywords


Online Engagement; student engagement; higher education; blended learning; hybrid learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ausburn, L. J. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337.

Boling, E. C.; Hough, M.; Krinsky, H.; Saleem, H.; Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the Distance in Distance Education: Perspectives on What Promotes Positive, Online Learning Experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2):118-126.

CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from: http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Crews, T., & Butterfield, J. B. (2014). Data for flipped classroom design: Using student feedback to identify the best components from online and face-to-face classes. Higher Education Studies, 4(3), 38.

Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Garrison, D. R. & Vaugh, N.D. (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education:Framework, Principles and Guidelines. Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B. R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The technology source, 30(5), 50.

Helms, S. A. (2014). Blended/hybrid courses: A review of the literature and recommendations for instructional designers and educators. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(6), 804-810.

Martin, F. & Bolliger, D.U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning 22(1), 205- 222. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended Course Design: A Synthesis of Best Practices. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22.

Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157-171.

Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 171-180.

Osgerby, J. (2013). Students' perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22(1), 85-99.

Paskey, J. (2001). A Survey Compares 2 Canadian MBA Programs, One Online and One Traditional. The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 26. Retrieved from: https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Survey-Compares-2-Canadian/108330

Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.

Wiggins, G, & McTighe, J. (2001). Understanding by Design. Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1467