Increased Engagement for Students through
Small Group & Individual Face to Face Time
Blended with Online Activities
Ben Bennett-Carpenter
Oakland University
Presentation to the 2013 e-Cornucopia conference, “Quality Learning
Through Technology” at Oakland University, May 31, 2013
Abstract
Of the many possible benefits that online activities may provide students, one that is
sometimes overlooked is the possibility for increased engagement for students through small
group and individual face to face time in a partially online course. Among the many
opportunities afforded by online learning spaces is the reorganization of the in-class face to
face time. By moving some course activities online that would normally be conducted in
class in a more traditional format, an instructor can create specialized, focused time periods
to work with small groups and individuals more directly on their projects. Examples provided
in this presentation will include a first year writing course, a senior year undergraduate
interdisciplinary capstone course, and an Honors College course. This more focused, direct
work with students on their projects may often prove to be a fast track to specific course
objectives and learning outcomes.
Similar to some ideas of a “flipped” classroom and
“increasing student engagement” in the context of new
technologies
(cf. Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012; Wankel, Blessinger,
2012; Wankel & Blessinger, 2013a; Wankel & Blessinger,
2013b)
Also in the context of “enhancing teaching” and
“improving student learning” in the context of a
small groups and individual meetings
(cf. Hartley, Woods, & Pill, 2005; Ferrer & O’Connor, 2013)
Examples
HC 204 -- Conceptions of Creativity (Honors College course in Western
Civilization and Writing Intensive) – Summer 2011 – 40% online
HS 402 – Field Experience in Integrative Studies (capstone course) –
Summer 2012 – 50-70% online
WRT 160 – Composition II -- If You Could Ask Any Question: Open,
Critical, & Investigative Projects -- Winter 2013 -- 30% online
Honors College course on Creativity – Summer 2011
Approx. 40% online
E.g., several in-class discussions regarding the class readings on creativity were shifted
to online discussion forums in Moodle.
Meanwhile, individual meeting times were set up in order to discuss the individual student
projects/papers.
Very simple adjustment to course, but this carves out individual meeting time that
otherwise may not have been possible.
Integrative Studies capstone course – Summer 2012
Approx. 50-70% online
Several in-class activities were shifted to online Moodle forums, while small group
and individual meetings were set up to discuss/workshop the students’ projects for
the semester.
E.g., “Presentation of a Discipline”; peer-review; “Common Ground discussion”
See Moodle screenshot of course
WRT 160 – Composition II research writing course – Winter 2013
Approx. 30% online
One of the great benefits of this 30% online helps facilitate the small group &
individual face to face time that is customized to the particular small groups
and to the particular individuals.
 Small groups to discuss/workshop individual projects AND group projects
 Individual meetings to discuss/workshop individual projects
See Moodle screenshot of course
I find most students (not all) more engaged in the course
through the small groups and the individual meetings with me.
In the small groups, they often end up more engaged
with each other as well. Sometimes “online” means
online for the student but continues as face to face for the instructor!
As an important aside: You may have noticed that all of
these course examples I’ve given are project-based
rather than directed toward multiple-choice exams, etc.
Among other strategies, one that lends itself to student
engagement through small groups and individual face to
face time in a blended online course is a course or
assignment set up as a project or as project-based.
By the way…
Rationale for an open, project-based approach:
-“open inquiry [as] fundamental starting point for all thought, research, and eventually
knowledge”
-“free speech [as] recognized as a basic ingredient for our free, democratic society and
a crucial part of [the] university”
-“recent studies in intelligence are in harmony with open-ended student-centered
projects that capitalize on an individual’s particular strengths”
[For this and more, see Bennett-Carpenter, B. (2012). If you could ask any question: Introducing open
inquiry-based, student-centered writing projects. In L. Ostergaard (Ed.), Grizz Writes: A guide to firstyear writing at Oakland University. Southlake, Texas: Fountainhead, pp. 43-51.]
Possible applications to other disciplines:
-social sciences: multiple-choice quiz/test  case study
-natural sciences: multiple-choice quiz/test  lab or field study
-humanities: pre-determined text & topic  selection from menu of
texts + open topic
What else?
Possible applications to other disciplines or fields:
-health sciences?
-education?
-business?
-law?
Q: What do you do or have you done like this
in your courses?
OR
What might you do?
Q: How do you see all this working
(or not working) for you?
Q: Questions for clarification? Other
comments/questions?
References
Bennett-Carpenter, B. (2012). If you could ask any question: Introducing open inquiry-based,
student-centered writing projects. In L. Ostergaard (Ed.), Grizz Writes: A guide to firstyear writing at Oakland University. Southlake, Texas: Fountainhead, pp. 43-51.
Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L.,& Wylie, C. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of research on
student engagement. New York : Springer.
Ferreri, S.P., & O’Connor, S.K. (2013). Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group
learning course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 77(1): Article 13.
Hartley, P., Woods, A., & Pill, M. (Eds.) (2005). Enhancing teaching in higher education:
new approaches for improving student learning. London: Routledge.
Wankel, C., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.) [in collaboration with J Stanaityte, N Washington].
(2012). Increasing student engagement and retention using immersive interfaces:
Virtual worlds, gaming, and simulation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Wankel, C., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.) (2013a). Increasing student engagement and retention
in e-learning environments: Web 2.0 and blended learning technologies. Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group.
Wankel, C., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.) (2013b). Increasing student engagement and retention
using classroom technologies: Classroom response systems and mediated discourse
technologies. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Contact info: Ben Bennett-Carpenter, bennettc@oakland.edu