Records: 322
APA Citation
Morrow, M. E., & Lee, D. (2019). Implementing Individualized Learning in a Legacy Learning Management System. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 10(1), 131-144.
Annotation
This paper discusses an institution’s experience with transitioning from a “legacy LMS” to a a more learner-centered approach to education. The authors “describe [their] efforts to prototype such a transitional approach and thereby demonstrate the technical feasability of implementing a personalized learning path model in a legacy LMS for an online statistics course” (p. 131). The study focuses on the use of SCORM for implementation of a personalized learning path in a LMS. This paper will be . . . helpful for instructional technologists or students of instructional technology who are interested in designing and implementing a learner-centered strategies for education via a course management system that is already in place at their institution. This paper may also be of interest to teachers who are interested in the “behind the scenes” of how personalized learning paths are developed and implemented for an institution.
Lisa Halverson Charles Graham
|
APA Citation
Halverson, L.R., & Graham, C.R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145-178. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481
Annotation
” A conceptual article reviewing literature on learner engagement and presenting a conceptual framework for engagement in blended learning environments. Study proposes that cognitive and emotional engagement are the key factors essential to understanding learner engagement and it’s contribution to desired learning outcomes. First order factors make up cognitive engagement attention, effort & persistence, and time on task indicate the quantity of cognitive engagement, while cognitive . . . strategy use, absorption, and curiosity indicate quality of cognitive engagement. Emotional engagement is broken down in to positive/negative constructs with enjoyment, happiness, and confidence/self efficacy as first order factors for emotional engagement and boredom, frustration and anxiety as first order factors contributing to emotional disaffection. Blended learning’s additional channels for interactivity, with online discussions increasing the opportunity for flexibility and reflections, and in-class interactions promoting spontaneity and human connection, may result in ‘absolutely richer interaction’. Improved personalization can increase interest and decrease boredom and immediate feedback from online tools can decrease confusion, frustration, and anxiety. Conclusion: The dynamic nature of blending online and f2f learning may allow instructors to better engage students cognitively and emotionally while decreasing commonly felt emotions such as confusion, frustration and anxiety that detract from students learning engagement and ultimately overall learning progress.
“
Virtual Learning Leadership Alliance and Quality Matters
|
APA Citation
Virtual Learning Leadership Alliance & Quality Matters. (2019). NSQ:National Standards for Quality Online Courses (3rd. ed). https://www.nsqol.org/the-standards/quality-online-courses/
Annotation
“The National Standards for Quality Online Courses focus on online K-12 education and consist of seven standards: (1) “”Course Overview and Support,”” (2) “”Content,”” (3) “”Instructional Design,”” (4) “”Learner Assessment,”” (5) “”Accessibility and Usability,”” (6) “”Technology,”” and (7) “”Course Evaluation.”” As with the National Standards for Quality Online Programs, the standards experience revisions based on expert teams reviewing the standards, based on new research and direct feedback on . . . the standards. This 2019 version of the standards is the third edition, having previously been updated in 2011. Additionally, this version of the standards notes that some supporting information on the standards comes from the Quality Matters K-12 Rubric (5th edition), with the NSQOL website offering more information on the relationship between the two.
“
Virtual Learning Leadership Alliance and Quality Matters
|
APA Citation
Virtual Learning Leadership Alliance & Quality Matters. (2019). NSQ:National Standards for Quality Online Programs (2nd. ed). https://www.nsqol.org/the-standards/quality-online-programs/
Annotation
The National Standards for Quality Online Programs includes 14 different standards that focus on K-12 online and blended learning. These standards are: (1) “Mission Statement,” (2) “Governance,” (3) “Leadership,” (4) “Planning,” (5) “Organizational Staff,” (6) “Financial and Material Resources”, (7) “Equity and Access,” (8) “Integrity and Accountability,” (9) “Curriculum and Course Design,” (10) “Instruction” (11), “Assessment and Learner Performance,” (12) “Faculty and Staff Support,” (13) . . . “Learning and Parent/Guardian Support,” and (14) “Program Evaluation.” The 2019 version reflects the second edition of the National Standards for Quality Online Programs. A review on the initial standards took place and was updated based on new research, as well as feedback received on the prior version of the standards.
Brittany Hunt Beth Oyarzun
|
APA Citation
Hunt, B. D., & Oyarzun, B. (2019). Online learning perspectives of native american students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(3), 321-334. doi:10.1177/0047239519867921
Annotation
“Qualitative ethnographic case study with data collected from one interview and three journal entries from two Native American students enrolled in an online course. Study conducted at a large 4-year, public, doctoral granting university in the southeast. Coded for themes based on the definitions of respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relevance. Students completed online journal entries every 4-5 weeks documenting their experiences in the course and participated in an interview at the end . . . of the semester after the course was completed. Students expressed wanting a more supportive online environment and interaction with the instructor and peers. Students were disappointed with the lack of Native focused curriculum or opportunities to express their identity. Students wished they’d had small group projects to collaborate with peers more throughout the course. Conclusion: Student perceptions were that they did not receive enough support or interaction from their instructor and felt they did not get to discuss and collaborate with their peers enough throughout the course. Students also felt they did not get an opportunity to express or explore their identities and wished for more Native inclusive materials.
“
Doo Lim Michael Morris Virginia Kupritz
|
APA Citation
Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2019). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Online Learning, 11(2), 27-42. doi:10.24059/olj.v11i2.1725
Annotation
“Study conducted at a 4-year, public, doctoral granting university over 8 semesters of an undergraduate program evaluation course where 80% of the participants had taken at least one distance learning course prior to this course. Data collected via pre- and posttest and a survey with both likert-type scale and open ended questions. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used as well as domain analyses employing content analysis procedures. The course was fully online for two years, moved to . . . a blended delivery format for another two using both classroom instruction and online delivery methods (half on the instruction was conducted in class and half was delivered online. Students were required to attend a weekly classroom session and after each week’s class, students were required to complete online learning modules consisting of learning activities, a review of related content, links to learning resources, group discussions and group/individual assignments to reinforce classroom learning. Delivery format (online or blended) did not reveal any differences in course outcomes. Learners in the online group had a significantly higher score for instructional difficulty and experiences a higher workload than those in the blended group, and felt significantly less learning support than their blended peers. Reasons cited for low perceived learning were a need for more examples, learning modules were too complex to understand, as well as lack of interest in content not related to their work. Positive influence on the learner’s perceived application were the opportunity to use what they learned in their work, personal interest in the content, with negative influences being a lack of opportunity to use during class and lack of motivation to apply. Learners in both groups perceived group/individual projects as the most important learning activity followed by discussion activities, class assignments, review/pre/post tests, case studies, multimedia cases and scenarios, lecture, and online learning modules. Conclusions: There was no significant difference between delivery formats as far as learner’s course outcomes, or perceived learning and application. Online groups reported more workload and less support than the blended group, suggesting the blended format provides clearer instructions and opportunities for clarification. Group projects and discussions were cited as most helpful regardless of delivery format implying these approaches impact learner satisfaction and learning.
“
Lyra Hilliard Mary Stewart
|
APA Citation
Hilliard, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: Creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 11-24. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.11.002
Annotation
This study examined whether blended first-year writing courses can function as Communities of Inquiry, and how the percentage of time spent online impacts students’ perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Data was collected from 17 sections of a semester-long blended first-year writing course at a large, public, 4-year institution. A modified Communities of Inquiry survey was given to students within the last two weeks of the course. Survey results were . . . compared based off of student engagement, and their participation in a medium (one-third online) or high blend (half or more online) blended course.  Students in a high blend course had significantly more positive perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence than their medium blend peers. The effect size for teaching presence was moderate, and the effect size for social and cognitive presence was small. Students in high blend courses spent much more time interacting with their peers than those in the medium blend courses, which is a possible factor for their positive outcomes. Conclusion: High blend (50% online or more) blended courses lead to students rating their experience on a Communities of Inquiry survey as more positive than students in a medium blend course
APA Citation
Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564-569. doi:10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Annotation
” Conceptual article comparing the definitions of blending learning and their associated implications. Article compares the two most cited blended learning definitions showing there is agreement that blended learning includes both face to face and online instruction, with current research assuming an interest in both instruction and learning. A third commonly cited article suggests blended learning must reduce f2f time with a substantial (30-79%) portion of content covered online. Blended . . . learning models such as the community of inquiry are briefly discussed along with the learning continuum between fully online and traditional courses, and the four models of blended learning (rotation, flex, self-blended, and enriched-virtual). 5 conceptualizations of blended learning are briefly covered: inclusive conceptualization (blended learning should be inclusive of all levels of blend, from solely using an LMS to split time between online and f2f), quality conceptualization (f2f and online components should be integrated in a thoughtful, complementary way), quantity conceptualization (30-79% of content must be delivered online), synchronous (students learn synchronously whether they are in the classroom or online via web conference or other web tools), digital classroom (using technology in the f2f classroom such as ipads/laptops to access multimedia lessons). Conclusion: There are various definitions and conceptualizations of what blended learning means so we should understand blended learning is an umbrella term and when trying to initiate blended learning in institutions we should make the definition of blended learning we are using clear from the start.
“
Hosam Al-Samarraie Noria Saeed
|
APA Citation
Al-Samarraie, H., & Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment. Computers & Education, 124, 77-91. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.016
Annotation
“Literature review of research from 2006-2017 examining the use of cloud based tools in blended learning along with key opportunities and challenges. Cloud computing tools were mostly used for different collaborative purposes and activities, this review categorized tools based on how it was used in the blended course: synchronized tools (google apps, dropbox, prezi, etc), LMS, and social networking tools (Facebook, Twitter, Skype) for communication, sharing and discussing views on topics). . . . Synchronized tools were mostly used to support group work in editing online docs, and exchanging insights related to the subject matter in the form of peer-review sessions or written comments. Google Docs was the main tool found to stimulate students to reflect on their own experiences while contributing to the learning processes. Google apps were also found to facilitate the development of critical attitudes towards knowledge by means of comments and feedback. LMS commonly used to allow students access courses materials and track their course progress from anywhere. Blackboard offered the greatest variety of tools to support students, Social networking tools aid collaborative sessions, and repeatedly served as a medium to build relationships between students. Social networking tools were generally shown to ensure students have greater access to the collaboration process, with the exception of Twitter, which was also often used to aid students in expressing ideas and insights from class and disseminate course information. Opportunities found were the ability to facilitate student interactions in real time via participation activities that center on reflection and discussion; social networking used as a way to promote collaborative learning and help students feel a sense of ownership over their course; google apps as a method for sharing resources and group work. Challenges that commonly arose in the literature were reliable internet access, social loafing/lack of trust between student groups, and low tech competence for both students and instructors, and that learning about others and other’s views may distract students from the content in the course. Conclusions: There are various challenges and opportunities for cloud computing technology in higher education blended courses. Google Apps may be the best overall solution to aid in the collaborative learning process. The type of services offered by most synchronous tools have the ability to promote continuous learning while still allowing students to personalize their learning, gain more control of the task, and increase accessibility.
“
Charles Dziuban Patsy Moskal Liza Parker Maria Campbell
|
APA Citation
“Dziuban, C., Howlin, C., Moskal, P., Johnson, C., Parker, L., & Campbell, M. (2018). Adaptive
learning: A stabilizing influence across disciplines and universities. Online Learning, 22(3), 7-39. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i3.1465″
Annotation
“This study is a component invariance study that seeks to understand the “underlying learning dimensions (components) for students in an adaptive educational environment across two disciplines in two organizationally and structurally diverse universities that serve considerably different student populations†(p. 11). Focusing on courses in math and nursing, at two different institutions, the researchers used an adaptive learning courseware, Realizeit, to examine four learning components: . . . knowledge acquisition, engagement activities, communication, and growth. Respectively, these dimensions evaluate students attainment of knowledge, the degree to which students engage with the course content, interaction with peers and instructor, and the change in learning as a result of engaging with the adaptive platform.
The results of the study are based on key performance indicators within Realizeit. The authors examined thirteen of the metrics: knowledge state, knowledge covered, calculated, average score, determine knowledge, knowledge state growth, knowledge covered growth, interactions, messages sent, total activities, total time, number revise, and number practice. The authors explain that the “thirteen variables describing students’ cognitive outcomes and behaviors from the Realizeit platform for each of the three courses from UCF, the three courses from CTU, and combined samples for each institution are intercorrelated and subjected to the principal component procedure (Mulaik, 2009). The method approximates common factor analysis by explaining the variance and relationships (correlations) among the indices and reducing the data set to a smaller dimensionality†(p. 18).
The study’s findings suggest that the learning dimensions remained consistent across the universities and the disciplines, which, according to the authors, demonstrate “that the adaptive modality stabilizes learning organization in multiple disciplines.†The authors argue this is important because “The findings have implications for the fields of learning science and predictive analytics by identifying the viability of constructed variables that reduce the problem of the small predictive power of individual measures and the complexity of incorporating their interactions†(p. 11).
Readers who are interested in research partnerships with vendors will find this article particularly interesting as the authors argue for more attention to research protocol of this kind. Additionally, the article is particularly helpful for understanding some of the implications of adaptive learning, such as a fluid definition, and recommendations for consideration when implementing adaptive learning courseware.
“
