Student Engagement and Web 2.0
in Blended Learning
Norm Vaughan, Ph.D.
Mount Royal University
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Overview





Student engagement
Web 2.0
Blended learning
Engagement through the use of Web 2.0
applications in a blended learning
environment
Case study
Student Engagement
Student Engagement
What does this term or
concept mean to you?
The 3 R’s of Engagement
1.
2.
3.
Relevance
Rigour
Relationships
Dennis Littky, 2004
http://bigpicture.org/
Optimal Flow
. . . the mental state of
operation in which the person
is fully immersed in what he
or she is doing by a feeling
of energized focus, full
involvement, and success
in the process of the activity.
Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, 1990
National Survey of Student Engagement
Student engagement
1.
Amount of time and effort that students put
into their classroom studies that lead to
experiences and outcomes that constitute
student success
2.
Ways the institution allocates resources
and organizes learning opportunities and
services to induce students to participate in
and benefit from such activities
National Survey of Student Engagement
Five clusters of effective educational
practice (benchmarks)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Active and collaborative learning
Student interactions with faculty members
Level of academic challenge
Enriching educational experiences
Supportive campus environment
Web 2.0
Web 2.0
A term used to describe the trend in the use
of World Wide Web technology and web
design that aims to enhance creativity,
information sharing, and, most notably,
collaboration among users.
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
Britannica
--> Wikipedia
Online
personal
--> blogging
websites
publishing --> participation
content
management --> wikis
systems
directories
tagging
-->
(taxonomy)
("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication
O’Reilly, 2005
Web 2.0 - Categories
1. Social bookmarking
2. Blogs
3. Wikis
4. Social networking
5. Social media sharing
6. Mash-ups
7. Synchronous tools
8. Virtual worlds
How are you currently using
Web 2.0 tools to engage your
students??
Blended Learning
Audience Poll
I am …
a)
b)
c)
d)
Currently teaching in a blended format
Redesigning my course for a blended format
Responsible for course redesign and/or
administration issues
Not doing anything –
just want more information
Blended Learning Described

. . . organic integration of thoughtfully selected
and complementary face-to-face and online
approaches and technologies.

. . . an opportunity to fundamentally redesign
how we approach teaching and learning in ways
that higher education institutions may benefit
from increased effectiveness, convenience and
efficiency.
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2008)
Blended Learning
A
S
Y
N
C
H
R
O
N
O
U
S
S
Y
N
C
H
R
O
N
O
U
S
ON-CAMPUS
ONLINE
Online Learning
Blended
Learning
Traditional Higher Education
ONLINE Blended
Learning
© Michael Power, 2008
Approaches to BL

Strong sense
 a transformative process directed toward improving
the quality of the educational experience
 capitalize on the potential of BL for engagement

Weak sense
 simply adding on to deficient approaches and
ending up with a course and a half
 for example, continuing to lecture but adding an
optional discussion board
Designing for Blended Learning

Synchronous






spontaneous
ephemeral
peer influence
passion
preferred
Asynchronous





integrate
complement
reflective
permanent
< intimidating
reason
> rigor
Engagement
through the use of
Web 2.0 applications
in a
Blended Environment
Community

… community means meaningful
association, association based on
common interest and endeavor. The
essence of community is communication
John Dewey, 1916
Inquiry

Is problem or question driven

Typically has a small-group feature

Includes critical discourse

Is frequently multi-disciplinary

Incorporates research methods such as
information gathering and synthesis of ideas”
Practical Inquiry Model – Phases
Sphere
Inquiry
Process
(Cognitive
Presence)
Description
The extent to which
learners are able to
construct and
confirm meaning
through sustained
reflection,
discourse, and
application within a
critical community
of inquiry.
Category/Phase
Indicators
1. Triggering
Event
1.
2. Exploration
2.
3. Integration
3.
4.Resolution/
Application
4.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000)
Inciting curiosity and
defining key questions
and/or issues for
investigation
Exchanging and
exploring perspectives
and information
resources with other
learners
Connecting ideas
through reflection
Applying new ideas
and/or defending
solutions
Inquiry through Blended Learning
(ITBL)

Design considerations




Before a synchronous session
Synchronous session
After a synchronous session
Preparation for the next synchronous
session
1. Before a Synchronous
Session
Questions

How are you using Web 2.0 tools to help
students prepare to participate in
synchronous sessions?

Triggering event ideas?
Community Web Space
Pre-readings
Social Book Marking
Adobe Presenter (formerly Macromedia
Breeze)
Podcasting
Self-assessment Quizzes (knowledge probes)
Design Considerations Before Synchronous
Session
Nature of Inquiry
Learner
• Create a triggering
event
• Advanced organizer
• Stimulate connections
Teacher
• Determine learner prior
knowledge or
experience with the
topic or issue
Learning
Activities
Technology Tools
a) Reading/Writing
i) Communication
b) Listening/Writing
ii) Posting or linking to pre-reading
assignments
iii) Digital learning objects
iv) Self assessment quizzes
v) Anonymous surveys
vi) Discussion Forum
2. Synchronous Session
Questions

What types of Web 2.0 applications are
utilizing to support synchronous learning
activities?

Challenges or issues with these activities?
Quiz & Survey Feedback
Virtual Classroom
Classroom Response Systems
Digital Learning Objects/Resources
Displaying Assignments/Student work
Design Considerations During Synchronous
Session
Nature of Inquiry
• Defining the triggering
events (key questions)
• Beginning to explore
the questions
Learning Activities
a) Talking/Listening
Technology Tools
i) Displaying quiz or survey
results
ii) Conducting in-class
quizzes
iii) Displaying digital learning
objects
iv) Displaying assignments
and creating/discussing
assessment rubrics
3. After Synchronous Session
Questions

Examples of Web 2.0 “follow-up” activities
that you are using with your students?

Challenges or issues with “out of class”
activities?
Anonymous end of week survey
Announcements
Student- led Online Discussion Forums
Group Project Areas
Weblog – Reflective Journaling &
Peer Review Tool
Wikis – Collaborative Writing Tool
Design Considerations After Synchronous
Session
Nature of Inquiry
• Further
exploration and
a start towards
tentative
integration
through the
ability to
connect theory
to practice/
application
Learning Activities
Technology Tools
a) Reading/Writing
i) Anonymous surveys
b) Talking/Listening +
Reading/Writing
ii) Communication
Preparation for next
synchronous
session
a) Reading/Writing
iii) Individual and group project
work
4. Next Synchronous Session
Design Considerations Next Synchronous
Session
Nature of Inquiry
Resolution/
Application
Learning Activities
a) Talking/Listening/Writing
Technology Tools
i) Display quiz or survey
results
ii) Display of online
discussion forum
iii)Display assignments
and student work
Anonymous survey feedback
Archive survey feedback
Questions

Questions about using Web 2.0 tools to
support an inquiry through blended
learning (ITBL) cycle?
CASE STUDY
Mount Royal University
Calgary, Alberta
National Survey of Student
Engagement
Five clusters of effective educational
practice (benchmarks)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Active and collaborative learning
Student interactions with faculty members
Level of academic challenge
Enriching educational experiences
Supportive campus environment
First Year Undergraduate Courses
1.
BIOL1202 – Introduction to Cell
Biology
5.
GNED1102 – Controversies in
Science
2.
COMM1610 – Tools for Information
Designers
6.
MGMT2262 – Business Statistics I
7.
MGMT2275 – Creativity in the
Workplace
3.
CYCC1110 – Fundamental Skills in
Interviewing
4.
ECON1101 – Principles of
Microeconomics
Data Collection – Fall 2008, Winter 2009, Fall 2009
Online surveys
 CLASSE (NSSE) + EDUCAUSE Center for
Applied Research (ECAR)
 Administered to both students and faculty
 Student focus group lunches
 Blackboard usage, final course grades and
withdrawal/retention rates
 Instructor interviews
 Instructor focus group lunch
Final Marks vs Active & Collaborative Learning Indicators
Blackboard as the Course “Base Camp”
Final Marks vs Blackboard Use
Correlations between Engagement, Blackboard
Use and Intensity of Technology Use
Engagement Indicators
Blackboard Use
Intensity of Courserelated Technology Use
Active and collaborative
learning
r=0.177**
r=0.482**
Student-faculty interaction
r=0.189**
r=0.413**
Level of academic
challenge
r=0.187**
r=0.339**
**p<0.01
The Engagement “Gap”
BIOL1202 – Introduction to Cell Biology
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
Traditional
Blended
10.0%
5.0%
F
D
D+
C-
C
C+
B-
B
B+
A-
A
A+
0.0%
The “Nudge” Factor
CONCLUSION
FUTURE




BL has become an educational epidemic.
Three forces have converged – technology,
financial constraints, and quality concerns.
The result is three major non-contradictory
affordances – effectiveness, efficiency, and
convenience.
The result is the era of engagement (sustainable
communities).

“… the impact of blended learning is
potentially monumental – permanently
changing how students interact with higher
education …”
Laumakis, Graham & Dziuban, 2009
Questions?
Contact Information
Dr. Norman Vaughan, Assistant Professor
nvaughan@mtroyal.ca
Mount Royal University
Department of Education & Schooling
Faculty of Teaching and Learning
4825 Mount Royal Gate SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T3E 6K6