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

27
People Who Need People: Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate, Blended Delivery Environments. COHERE Conference October 27, 2014 Melanie Peacock, PhD, CHRP Mount Royal University

Upload: cohere2012

Post on 27-May-2015

295 views

Category:

Education


1 download

DESCRIPTION

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

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

People Who Need People: Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate, Blended Delivery Environments.

COHERE Conference

October 27, 2014

Melanie Peacock, PhD, CHRPMount Royal University

Page 2: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Dissertation

“An exploration of how interpersonal relationship development between undergraduate learners and instructors impacts student engagement within a post-secondary, blended delivery environment.”

Page 3: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Primary Research Question

How do interpersonal relationship elements and dynamics, between instructors and adult learners in a post-secondary, undergraduate learning environment, impact deep student engagement in blended delivery settings?

Page 4: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)
Page 5: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Objectives

Background and Context Literature Review Research Design Findings Future Opportunities for Exploration

Page 6: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Background and Context(Why This Research Matters)

Understanding the Interpersonal Relationship Paradigm

Instructor and Adult Learner Interpersonal Interaction

Criticality of Deep Student Engagement

Researcher’s Story

Page 7: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Understanding the Interpersonal Relationship Paradigm

Through interpersonal relationships we become our true selves and all that we can be (Cranton & Roy, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wertsch, 1985).

In lieu of categorization, based upon the processes within the interpersonal relationship (Clark & Reis, 1988).

Developing patterns of exchange and trust (Berscheid, 1994).

Page 8: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Instructor and Adult Learner Interpersonal Interaction

Critical competency for all instructors (Frisby & Martin, 2010; Senior, 2010).

Motivated learners who want to learn for the sake of learning 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).

Page 9: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Criticality of Deep Student Engagement

Relationship between student engagement and how learners acquire and keep knowledge (Martin & Furr, 2010).

Students need to be actively involved in their engagement 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 more about what forms of engagement work best under what circumstances” (Kuh, 2009. p. 15).

Page 10: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Researcher’s Story

Unanswered questions:

Blended delivery underrepresented in the literature and need to for better understanding (Chen & Jones, 2007; Lin, 2007; Rovai & Jordan, 2004).

Focus on graduate programs (Collopy & Arnold, 2009).

Pedagogical implications of technology integration are more critical than the actual technology and its capabilities (Lin, 2007).

“Blended learning inherently is about rethinking and redesigning the teaching and learning relationship” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004. p. 99).

Page 11: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)
Page 12: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)
Page 13: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Literature Review Theoretical Perspectives on IR:

Emotion

Logic

Benefit to interaction

Reliance on one another

Elements of IR:

Interaction

Communication

Connection

Community

Page 14: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

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).

Page 15: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Criticality of Interpersonal Relationships

Can overcome less desirable traits and keep learners motivated and engaged (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007).

Page 16: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Research Design

Social Constructivism

Social Interdependence Theory

Interpretive Phenomenology

“Social meaning and personal significance” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 104).

Lived Experience.

Participants

Explication

Page 17: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Social Interdependence Theory (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson &Johnson, 2005).

The manner in which interdependence among goals is structured determines how individuals interact, which in turn largely determines outcomes.

Positive Interdependence

Individual Accountability

Promotive Interaction

Appropriate Use of Social Skills

Group Processing

Page 18: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Model(Peacock, 2014)

Page 19: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Findings

Synergies Foundation: Clarity of Expectations

Goal Clarity (Foundation: Conversation & Mutuality)

Process Clarity (Foundation: Mutuality)

Communication

Accessibility

Role Clarity (Independence & Mutuality)

Page 20: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Findings

Synergies Mutuality: Influence

Affect Regulation (Mutuality: Foundation & Conversation. Lessens Mutuality to Independence Conflict)

Social Skills

Self-Disclosure

Feedback

Page 21: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Findings

Synergies Foundation: Through Continuity

Between Face to Face and Online

(Foundation to Conversation, Mutuality, and Independence)

Instructor and Adult Learner Exchanges

Continuity of Interpersonal Relationship

(Foundation to Mutuality)

Continuity of Post-Secondary Education

(Foundation to Independence)

Page 22: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

Balance

Synchronous and Asynchronous Work

Interdependence and Independence

Emotion and Logic

Shared Responsibilities and Power

Page 23: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

So….. Not Just What but HOW!

Use synergies from intersections of IRD themes and minimize conflict.

Adult Learners:

Enact IR skills, in addition to abilities to utilize technology.

Instructors:

Goodell and Avis (2010), “When one heart, mind, and spirit connects to another, both become teacher and learner, and both are changed” (p. 188).

Remain Engaged! Post-Secondary Institutions:

Encouraged to consider interpersonal capabilities of adult learners when offering undergraduate, blended delivery courses and the capabilities of instructors to develop and/or enact social interdependence, through interpersonal relationship competencies.

Page 24: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

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

Page 25: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

References

Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79-129. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.000455

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 of adult 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 student perceptions 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 in undergraduate 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 transformative learning. 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 graduate education. 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. Communication Education, 59(2), 146-164. doi: 10.1080/03634520903564362

Frymier , A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207-219. doi: 10.1080/03634520009379209

Page 26: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

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 computer conferencing 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 higher education. 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, The heart 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 in engineering. 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 of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406. doi:10.1080/02601370304837

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social and 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 exchange relationships 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., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). Being called awake: The role of transformative learning in the lies of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 5(2), 99-118. doi:

10.1177/0741713602238906

Kriesberg, S. (1992). Transforming power. Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kuh, G. D. (2004). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved from:

http://nsse.indiana.edu/2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_Conceptual_Framework.pdf

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-20. doi:10.1002/ir.283

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: University of Cambridge Press. 

Page 27: People Who Need People, Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate Blended Delivery Environments (Melanie Peacock)

References

Lin, H. (2007). Blending online components into traditional instruction: A case of using technologies to support good practices in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Instruction Delivery System. 21(1), 7-16.

Martin, M. B., & Furr, M. (2010). Promoting classroom engagement. Principal Leadership, 10(1), 18-21.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Myers, S. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college student in-class and out-of-class communication. Communication Reports, 17(2), 129-137. doi:10.1080/08934210409389382

Peacock, M. J. (2014).  An exploration of how interpersonal relationship development between undergraduate learners and instructors impacts student engagement within a post-secondary, blended delivery environment  (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/27

Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for understanding effective language teaching in face-to-face and online learning communities. RELC Journal, 41(2), 137-147. doi:10.1177/0033688210375775

Shor, I. (1996). When students have power. Negotiating authority within a critical pedagogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen/learning to teach: Training trainers in the principles and practices of popular education. Convergence, 27(1), 5-22.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.