STUDENTS ONLINE INTERACTION IN A BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT – A CASE STUDY OF THE FIRST EXPERIENCE IN USING AN LMS

Ivana Mijatovic, Jelena Jovanovic, Sandra Jednak

Abstract

The main objectives of the research presented in this paper are to explore online interactions and engagement of students who are using a Learning Management System (LMS) for the first time in their studies, and the impact of different types of students’ online interactions on their learning outcomes. To answer our research questions, we have conducted a semester-long study with 88 undergraduate students enrolled in the Quality Engineering course taught in the blended learning mode. Our findings show that the students perceived interaction as a dominant aspect of the online part of the course (done using the Moodle LMS). Our findings also provide evidence that different types of interactions can influences different levels of learning outcomes. If the acquisition of factual knowledge is desired, then interaction with learning content is the most influential. However, if higher levels of learning outcomes are to be achieved, then more interactive online communication is needed. The need for interaction is rising with increasing levels of learning objectives (outcomes). Our findings also show that students’ involvement in more challenging activities, in order to fulfil more demanding learning objectives (like application of knowledge or analysis, synthesis and evaluation) increase their need for student-teacher and student-student interaction.

References

  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. 2001. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net-works, 5(2), 1-17
  2. Barnard, L., Lan, W.Y., To, Y.M., Paton, V.O., and Lai S.-L. 2009. Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education 12(1): 1-6
  3. Bloom, B. S. 1994. Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy in Anderson, Lorin W. & Lauren A. Sosniak, eds., Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty-Year Retrospective. Chicago National Society for the Study of Education
  4. Bollag, B. 1996. Reform efforts appear stalled at colleges in Eastern Europe. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(8), A-59.
  5. Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., and Blaschke, L. M. 2009. Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), Re-trieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ irrodl/article/view/675/1271
  6. Chen, P., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G., 2008. Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? Innovate, 4(3). Retrieved from: http://innovateonline.info/pdf/ vol4_issue3/Learning_at_a_Distance-__Engaged_ or_Not_.pdf
  7. Davis, F. D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318-339.
  8. Downes, S., 2007. Learning networks in practice. Emerging technologies for learning, vol. 2. Retrieved from: http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_ documents/research/emerging_technologies07_cha pter2.pdf
  9. Ellis, A. 2001. Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online communication: What's the difference? Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Melbourne, pp. 169-177.
  10. Finegold, A., & Cooke, L. 2006. Exploring the attitudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in on-line groups. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 201-215.
  11. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. 2001. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education, American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  12. Garrison, D. R. & Arbaugh, J. B. 2007. Researching the community of Inquiry Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
  13. Girgin, K. Z., Stevens, D. D. 2005. Bridging in-class participation with innovative instruction: use and implications in a Turkish university classroom. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1), 93-106.
  14. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, R. E. 2009. Multivariate data analysis - a global perspective. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
  15. Harlow, L. L. 2005.The Essence of Multivariate Thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London
  16. Johnson M. D., & Gusatafsson A. (2000). Improving Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty and Profit - An Integrated Measurement and Management Systems, The University of Michigan Business School management series, John Wiley & Sons.
  17. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company
  18. Kember, D., McNaught C., Chong, C. Y. F, Lam, P., and Cheng K. F. 2010. Understanding the ways in which design features of educational websites impact upon student learning outcomes in blended learning environments. Computers and Education 55(3): 1183-1192
  19. Mercer, N., & Fisher, E., 1997) The importance of talk, In P. Wegerif& P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 13-21). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  20. Mertova, P., Webster, L., 2009. The academic voice in English and Czech higher education quality. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2), 140-155
  21. Mijatovic, I., Jednak, S., 2011. Attitudes toward Active Participation as Predictors of Student Achievement - Exploratory Research from Serbia. The New Educational Review, Vol.24, No.2:258-270
  22. Moon, Y.-L. 2007. Education Reform and Competency-Based Education. Asia Pacific Education Review 8(2): 337-341
  23. Moore, M. G., 1989. Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
  24. Moran, L., Myringer, B., 1999. Flexible learning and university change. In: Harry, K. (ed.), Higher education through open and distance learning, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 57-71
  25. O'Connell, J. (2007). Creative Web 2.0 learning. A talk given at Christian Teacher Librarians Association conference, Sydney, 23 May 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/heyjudeonline/creativeweb-20-learning
  26. Pask, G., 1976. Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Amsterdam: Elsevier
  27. Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., and Leipzig, R. M., 2009. The Impact of E-Learning in Medical Education. Academic Medicine 81(3): 207-212
  28. Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: Learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), January 2005.
  29. Siemens, G., 2002. Interaction. E-Learning Course. October 8, 2002. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from ht tp://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Interaction.htm
  30. Wiecha, J. M., Gramling, R., Joachim, P., & Vanderschmidt, H., 2003. Collaborative e-learning using streaming video and asynchronous discussion boards to teach the cognitive foundation of medical interviewing: a case study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5(2), published online doi: http://dx.crossref.org/10.2196%2Fjmir.5.2.e13 Accessed 26th April 2011
  31. Yardi, S., 2006. The role of the backchannel in collaborative learning environments. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences (ICLS 7806). International Society of the Learning Sciences 852-85
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Mijatovic I., Jovanovic J. and Jednak S. (2012). STUDENTS ONLINE INTERACTION IN A BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT – A CASE STUDY OF THE FIRST EXPERIENCE IN USING AN LMS . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: ESEeL, (CSEDU 2012) ISBN 978-989-8565-07-5, pages 445-454. DOI: 10.5220/0003963804450454


in Bibtex Style

@conference{eseel12,
author={Ivana Mijatovic and Jelena Jovanovic and Sandra Jednak},
title={STUDENTS ONLINE INTERACTION IN A BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT – A CASE STUDY OF THE FIRST EXPERIENCE IN USING AN LMS},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: ESEeL, (CSEDU 2012)},
year={2012},
pages={445-454},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003963804450454},
isbn={978-989-8565-07-5},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: ESEeL, (CSEDU 2012)
TI - STUDENTS ONLINE INTERACTION IN A BLENDED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT – A CASE STUDY OF THE FIRST EXPERIENCE IN USING AN LMS
SN - 978-989-8565-07-5
AU - Mijatovic I.
AU - Jovanovic J.
AU - Jednak S.
PY - 2012
SP - 445
EP - 454
DO - 10.5220/0003963804450454