A Comparison of Three Assessment Types on Student Engagement and Content Knowledge in Online Instruction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i2.2720Keywords:
retention of learning, online instruction, video capture, online learning, engagementAbstract
The research described in this article focuses on determining the effectiveness of Bongo in promoting student retention of concepts in online learning. This study used both quantitative and qualitative measures to examine the effectiveness of student video presentation assignments on student retention of learning and perceptions of the assignment’s contributions to learning. The quantitative methods compared the effects of three treatment conditions (independent reading, Bongo video presentation, and Bongo video presentation with Auto Analysis) on retention of concepts (quizzes administered two weeks after the presentation recordings). Qualitative analysis of student perceptions of the perceived value of Bongo in general, and specifically the Auto Analysis tool, were accomplished through video surveys, transcription, and analysis. Analysis of the data provided strong support for the use of Bongo to increase student retention of concepts, and also revealed that students held favorable perceptions of the value and utility of the tool.
References
Bartlett, M. (2018). Using Flipgrid to increase students’ connectedness in an online class. ELearn Magazine, 2018(12). https://doi.org/10.1145/3302261.3236703
Ching, Y.H, & Hsu, Y.C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 5(3), 298-314. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2013.05.021
Clark, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video versus text based discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning, 19(3), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i3.668
Dabbagh, N., Marra, R. M., & Howland, J. L. (2018). Technologies to support meaningful online learning. In Meaningful online learning (pp. 49–75). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315528458-4
DeCarlo, L.T. (1997) On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2(3), American Psychological Association, 2, 292-307.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
Fox, O. H. (2017). Using VoiceThread to promote collaborative learning in on-line clinical nurse leader courses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 33(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.08.009
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. In The discovery of grounded theory (pp. 1–18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206-1
Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1981.12.1.05x1283i
Hesse-Biber, S., & Dupuis, P. (2000). Testing hypotheses on qualitative data. Social Science Computer Review, 18(3), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930001800307
Intentional Futures (2017). High-tech, high touch: Serving student needs at scale. https://intentionalfutures.com/static/high-tech-high-touch-report-1b0482e00ccce5da2ea0175454a1bdb0.pdf
Johnson, N., Seaman, J. and Veletsianos, G. (2021) Teaching during a pandemic: Spring Transition, Fall Continuation, Winter Evaluation. Oakland, CA: Bay View Analytics. https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/teachingduringapandemic.pdf
Jones, J. P. (2011). Enhancing student learning: An examination of the student us of textbooks in a financial accounting class. American Journal of Business Education, 4(1), 29–36.
Jung, J., & Gilson, T. A. (2014). Online threaded discussion: Benefits, issues, and strategies. Kinesiology Review, 3(4), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2014-0062
Kirby, E., & Hulan, N. (2016). Student perceptions of self and community within an online environment: The use of VoiceThread to foster community. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 5(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v5n1.19411
Legon, R., & Garrett, R. (2017). The Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE): Quality matters and eduventures survey of Chief Online Officers. https://doi.org/https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/CHLOE-First-Survey-Report.pdf
Lieberman, M. (2019). Discussion boards: Valuable? Overused? Discuss. Inside Higher Education, March 27, 2019. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/03/27/new-approaches-discussion-boards-aim-dynamic-online-learning
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Martono, F., & Salam, U. (2017). Students' learning in asynchronous discussion forums. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 13(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2017010105
McLain, T. (2018). Integration of the video response app Flipgrid in the business writing classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology and Learning, 4(2), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.20448/2003.42.68.75
Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school (1st ed.). Pear Press.
Phillips, B. J., & Phillips, F. (2007). Sink or skim: Textbook reading behaviors of introductory accounting students. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2007.22.1.21
Robinson, H. A., Kilgore, W., & Warren, S. J. (2017). Care, communication, support: Core for designing meaningful online collaborative learning. Online Learning, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1240
Saçak, B., & Kavun, N. (2020). Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the context of online collaborative learning theory. In Handbook of research on fostering student engagement with instructional technology in higher education (pp. 211–228). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0119-1.ch012
Seaman, J.E., & Seaman, J. (2021). Distance education state almanac: National. Oakland, CA: Bayview Analytics. https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/almanac/national_almanac2019.pdf
Sebach, A. M. (2020). Using Flipgrid as an alternative to journals during dnp practicum experiences. Nurse Educator, 45(5), 256–256. https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000812
St Clair-Thompson, H., Graham, A., & Marsham, S. (2017). Exploring the reading practices of undergraduate students. Education Inquiry, 9(3), 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1380487
Stoszkowski, J. (2018). Using Flipgrid to develop social learning. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.21100/compass.v11i2.786
Stoszkowski, J., Hodgkinson, A., & Collins, D. (2020). Using Flipgrid to improve reflection: A collaborative online approach to coach development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1789575
Swartzwelder, K., Murphy, J., & Murphy, G. (2019). The impact of text-based and video discussions on student engagement and interactivity in an online course. The Journal of Educators Online, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.13
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
