people who need people, enhancing student engagement in undergraduate blended delivery environments...

Download People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

If you can't read please download the document

Post on 27-May-2015




1 download

Embed Size (px)


People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)


  • 1. People Who Need People:Enhancing Student Engagementin Undergraduate, BlendedDelivery Environments.COHERE ConferenceOctober 27, 2014Melanie Peacock, PhD, CHRPMount Royal University

2. DissertationAn exploration of howinterpersonal relationshipdevelopment betweenundergraduate learners andinstructors impacts studentengagement within a post-secondary,blended deliveryenvironment. 3. Primary Research Question How do interpersonal relationship elements anddynamics, between instructors and adult learnersin a post-secondary, undergraduate learningenvironment, impact deep student engagementin blended delivery settings? 4. Objectives Background and Context Literature Review Research Design Findings Future Opportunities for Exploration 5. Background and Context(Why This Research Matters) Understanding the Interpersonal RelationshipParadigm Instructor and Adult Learner Interpersonal Interaction Criticality of Deep Student Engagement Researchers Story 6. Understanding the InterpersonalRelationship Paradigm Through interpersonal relationships we become ourtrue selves and all that we can be (Cranton & Roy,2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wertsch, 1985). In lieu of categorization, based upon the processeswithin the interpersonal relationship (Clark & Reis,1988). Developing patterns of exchange and trust(Berscheid, 1994). 7. Instructor and Adult LearnerInterpersonal Interaction Critical competency for all instructors (Frisby & Martin,2010; Senior, 2010). Motivated learners who want to learn for the sake oflearning and apply this learning to future endeavors(Frymier & Houser, 2000; Garrison, 1997). Power differential (Brookfield, 1997, 2000, 2006;Kreisberg, 1992; Shor, 1996). Affective Domain (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1996; Illeris,2003, Kovan & Dirkx, 2003). 8. Criticality of Deep StudentEngagement Relationship between student engagement and howlearners acquire and keep knowledge (Martin & Furr,2010). Students need to be actively involved in theirengagement in order for learning to occur (Dixson,2010; Kuh, 2004; Vella, 1994). Retention and life-long endeavors (Heller, Beil, Dam, &Haerum, 2010). We must be ever vigilant and continue to learn moreabout what forms of engagement work best underwhat circumstances (Kuh, 2009. p. 15). 9. Researchers Story Unanswered questions: Blended delivery underrepresented in the literature andneed to for better understanding (Chen & Jones, 2007;Lin, 2007; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Focus on graduate programs (Collopy & Arnold, 2009). Pedagogical implications of technology integration aremore critical than the actual technology and itscapabilities (Lin, 2007). Blended learning inherently is about rethinking andredesigning the teaching and learning relationship(Garrison & Kanuka, 2004. p. 99). 10. Literature Review Theoretical Perspectives on IR: Emotion Logic Benefit to interaction Reliance on one another Elements of IR: Interaction Communication Connection Community 11. Literature Review The Adult Learner: Ability to learn. Desire to learn. Learning as a social enterprise (Fenwick, 2002; Knowles,1980; Mezirow, 2003). CoI (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2004). Student Engagement: The Blended Delivery Environment GAP (Eiss, 1969; Frisby & Martin, 2010; Frymier & Houser,2000; Myers, 2004). 12. Criticality of InterpersonalRelationships Can overcome less desirable traits and keep learnersmotivated and engaged (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). 13. Research Design Social Constructivism Social Interdependence Theory Interpretive Phenomenology Social meaning and personal significance (Moustakas,1994, p. 104). Lived Experience. Participants Explication 14. Social InterdependenceTheory (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson &Johnson, 2005). The manner in which interdependence among goals isstructured determines how individuals interact, whichin turn largely determines outcomes. Positive Interdependence Individual Accountability Promotive Interaction Appropriate Use of Social Skills Group Processing 15. Model (Peacock, 2014) 16. FindingsSynergies Foundation: Clarity of ExpectationsGoal Clarity (Foundation: Conversation &Mutuality)Process Clarity (Foundation: Mutuality)CommunicationAccessibilityRole Clarity (Independence & Mutuality) 17. FindingsSynergies Mutuality: InfluenceAffect Regulation (Mutuality: Foundation &Conversation. Lessens Mutuality toIndependence Conflict)Social SkillsSelf-DisclosureFeedback 18. FindingsSynergies Foundation: Through ContinuityBetween Face to Face and Online (Foundation to Conversation, Mutuality, andIndependence)Instructor and Adult Learner ExchangesContinuity of Interpersonal Relationship (Foundation to Mutuality)Continuity of Post-Secondary Education (Foundation to Independence) 19. Balance Synchronous and Asynchronous Work Interdependence and Independence Emotion and Logic Shared Responsibilities and Power 20. So.. Not Just What but HOW! Use synergies from intersections of IRD themes and minimizeconflict. Adult Learners: Enact IR skills, in addition to abilities to utilize technology. Instructors: Goodell and Avis (2010), When one heart, mind, andspirit connects to another, both become teacher andlearner, and both are changed (p. 188).Remain Engaged! Post-Secondary Institutions: Encouraged to consider interpersonal capabilities ofadult learners when offering undergraduate, blendeddelivery courses and the capabilities of instructors todevelop and/or enact social interdependence, throughinterpersonal relationship competencies. 21. Future Research Structuring of Face to Face Interactions Timing Methodology Composition of Adult Learner Groups Class Size Diversity of Backgrounds Cultural Gender Stage of Post-Secondary Assessment of Social Interdependence Capabilities 22. References Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79-129. doi:10.1146/ Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1996). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In R. Edwards, A. Hanson, & P. Raggatt(Eds.), Boundaries of adult learning (pp. 32-36). New York, NY: Routledge. Brookfield, S. D. (1997). Assessing critical thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 75, 17-29.doi:10.1002/ace.7502 Brookfield, S. D. (2000). The concept of critically reflective practice. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook ofadult and continuing education (pp. 33-49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D. (2006). Authenticity and power. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 5-16.doi:10.1002/ace.223 Chen, C. C., & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and studentperceptions in an MBA accounting course. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 31-45. Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672. Collopy, R. M. B., & Arnold, J. M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: Online and blended learning environments inundergraduate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 85-101. Cranton, P., & Roy, M. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket. Toward a holistic perspective on transformativelearning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(2), 86-98. doi:10.1177/1541344603001002002 Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13. Eiss, A. B. (1969). Behavior objectives in thee affective domain, Washington, DC: National Science Supervisors Association. Fenwick, T. J. (2002). Problem-based learning, group process and the mid-career professional: Implications for graduateeducation. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/07294360220124620 Frisby. B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. CommunicationEducation, 59(2), 146-164. doi: 10.1080/03634520903564362 Frymier , A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. CommunicationEducation, 49(3), 207-219. doi: 10.1080/03634520009379209 23. References Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly,48(18), 18-33. doi:10.1177/074171369704800103 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2004). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computerconferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in highereducation. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Goodell, J., & Avis, J. (2010). Under the Arcoiris: Making dreams come alive. In P. J. Palmer & A. Zajonc, Theheart of higher education (pp. 184-188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Heller, R. S., Beil, C., Dam, K., & Haerum, B. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of engagement inengineering. Journal of Engineering Education, July, 253-261. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01060.x Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal ofLifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406. doi:10.1080/02601370304837 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Socialand General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358. doi: 10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358 Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchangerelationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(5), 1286-1298. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286 Kovan, J. T., & Dir