Examining Interactive and Metacognitive Processes in Student Learning: Findings from a Hybrid Instructional Environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i3.968Keywords:
hybrid, metacognition, synchronous communication, asynchronous communicationAbstract
This study examines the interaction behaviors and metacognitive behaviors of graduate students in the online portion of a flipped classroom. For their time outside the face to face classroom, students were given the choice of two online methods for their interactions -- synchronous verbal discussions and asynchronous written discussions. Students were provided a detailed outline for their discussions. Discussions were analyzed and interactive and metacognitive behaviors were categorized and counted. Interaction behaviors and metacognitive behaviors were present in both environments. Synchronous verbal discussions were found to include significantly more interaction behaviors in five of six categories. There was no significant difference in the number of metacognitive behaviors. Students demonstrated the same level of learning behaviors in both environments.References
Balaji, M.S. & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interaction in online discussion forum: Empirical research from ‘media richness theory’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1-22.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. (2009). Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills among In-service Science Teachers via Embedded Assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459-474. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z.
Bas, G. (2012). Investigating the correlation between students’ perceptions on the constructivist learning environment and their academic success in science course with path analysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(4), 367-377.
Breneiser, J. E., Monetti, D.M., & Adams, K.S. (2012). The nexus between above average effect and cooperative learning in the classroom. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(2), 42-61.
Del Moral, M.E., Cernea, A. & Villalustre, L. (2013). Connectivist learning objects and learning styles. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 9, 105-124.
Dunlap, E. S., Dudak, B. & Konty, M. (2012). A synthesized model of integrating principles of adult learning in the higher education classroom. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning, 19(10), 1019-1035.
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model of Instruction on Undergraduate Multimedia Students at CSUN. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(6), 14-27. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0698-1
Feeney, L. (1999). Participant Observation: An Examination of the Virtual Culture Observed in an Asynchronous Electronic Conferencing System. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Higher Education Leadership. Widener University, Chester, PA.
Francl, T.J. (2014). Is flipped learning appropriate? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 7(1), 119-128.
Harper, L. & Ross, J. (2011). An application of Knowles’ theories of adult education to an undergraduate interdisciplinary studies degree program. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59:161-166. doi: 10:1080/07377363.2011.614887
Hmelo-Silver, C., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5/6), 409-430. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9063-8
Herreid, C., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.
Hutchings, M. & Quinney, A. (2015). The flipped classroom, disruptive pedagogies, enabling technologies and wicked problems: Responding to the “bomb in the basementâ€. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(2), 105-118.
Jong, M.S.Y., Chen, W., Tse, A.W.C., Lee, F. & Lee, J.H.M.(2010). Using posting templates for enhancing students’ argumentative elaborations in computer supported collaborative inquiry learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(3), 275-294. doi: 10.1142/S1793206810000906.
Kasworm, C.E. (2012). US adult higher education: One context of lifelong learning. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 5(1), 1-19.
Keene, K. (2013). Blending and Flipping Distance Education. Distance Learning, 10(4), 63-69.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405
Lo, C., & Monge, A. N. (2013). Inclusive, Interactive Classroom as Student- Learning Facilitator. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 7(2), 1-20.
McDougal, J. (2015). The quest for authenticity: A study of an online discussion forum and the needs of adult learning, 55(1), 94-113.
Mishra, S. (2014). Assessment of learners in a constructivist learning environment. GYANODAYA:The Journal of Progressive Education, 7(1), 35-43.
Park, S.H., Kim, M. & Yu, D. (2011). The effects of learning authenticity on the learning achievements in the online corporate training programme. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), E37-E41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01163.x
Pecore, J.L. (2013). Beyond beliefs: Teaching adapting problem-based learning to preexisting systems of practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 6-33. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1359
Putman, S., Ford, K., & Tancock, S. (2012). Redefining Online Discussions: Using Participant Stances to Promote Collaboration and Cognitive Engagement. International Journal Of Teaching & Learning In Higher Education, 24(2), 151-167.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S., & Shannon, G. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: An Opportunity to Engage Millennial Students Through Active Learning Strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.
Sengul, S. & Katranci, Y. (2012). Teaching the subject “sets†with the dissociation and re-association (jigsaw). International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1). 1-18.
Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.
Swaray, R. (2012). An evaluation of a group project designed to reduce free-riding and promote active learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(3), 285-292. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.531246
Suh, S. 2006. The effect of using guided questions and collaborative groups for complex problem solving on performance and attitude in a Web-enhanced learning environment. PhD diss., Florida State University, Tallahassee.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/ tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.doc
Wadley, D. (2010). Towards a best practice electronic course profile. Teaching In Higher Education, 15(1), 29-43. doi:10.1080/13562510903488121
Wang, L.C., & Morgan, W. R. (2008). Student Perceptions of Using Instant Messaging Software to Facilitate Synchronous Online Class Interaction in a Graduate Teacher Education Course. Journal of Computing In Teacher Education, 25(1), 15-21.
Wetzel, K., Foulger, T.S. & Williams, M.K. (2008). The evolution of the required educational technology course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 67-71.
Yoo, S.J. & Huang, W.D. (2013). Engaging online adult learners in higher education: Motivational factors impacted by gender, age and prior experiences. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(3), 151-164. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.836823
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
