DOCUMENT RESUME ED 443 382 IR 020 083 AUTHOR Kennedy, Cathleen TITLE Implications for New Pedagogy in Higher Education: Can Online Technology Enhance Student Engagement & Learning? PUB DATE 2000-00-00 NOTE 7p. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Distance Education; Educational Practices; *Educational Technology; Higher Education; Instructional Effectiveness; *Instructional Improvement; *Learning; *Online Systems; Teaching Methods IDENTIFIERS *Student Engagement ABSTRACT This paper describes the author's research on online higher education. Engagement, online technology, and learning are introduced as three components of online education. The following two research questions are presented: To what extent can we discover factors or dimensions of learning predictive of success in online courses? and To what extent can student achievement in online courses be improved through specific pedagogies used in online courses? Studies, articles, white papers, and miscellany are listed. Contains 17 references. (MES) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Can Online Technology Enhance Student Engagement & Learning? Implications for New Pedagogy in Higher Education PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY C_Kennedy TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 00 O O N O (24 Research by Cathleen Kennedy, Ph.D. Student in Policy, Organization, Measurement & Evaluation (POME) Graduate School of Education, University of California at Berkeley Intro Theory Questions Studies Papers Bibliography Introduction In talking to colleagues about their experience teaching online courses. some interesting themes run through the conversations. First, many find that online students perform better than students taking the same course in a traditional on-campus mode from the same instructor. The second common experience is that faculty seem surprised at how well they get to know their online students. In fact, many find that they communicate directly with a higher percentage of their online students than with their on campus students. The third theme is that faculty discover their experience preparing and teaching online courses also improves what they do in the classroom; that the process of constructing an online course stimulates re-thinking of objectives and methods for the course as a whole. And, perhaps the most surprising experience online teachers share is that students who complete their courses consistently report that they would have preferred to have more face-to-face meetings with the instructor. This implies two things: Most students take online courses because their schedule forces them to, and students who stay in online courses have become engaged in the course. My research explores the "why" of these experiences, and in the process develops empirical evidence to support these anecdotal outcomes of online education. Several explanations for why online students perform better have been posed: "Online courses are easier." 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) el This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this docu- ment do not necessarily represent official NIE position or policy. "Students are graded differently in online courses." "Only mature, highly motivated students enroll in online courses." "Only teachers who like technology teach online courses. Their own bias favors students who also like to use technology." Is any of this true? Does it matter? What can be learned by studying current practices in online education and their impact on student learning? Emergence of a Theory I believe there are three pieces to this puzzle: engagement, online technology, and learning. Engagement. Given two students with similar academic profiles and interest in the subject matter, the student who becomes more engaged in a course will learn more. Online technology. Students who know how to use online tools can easily follow-up on their interest and become more deeply immersed in the subject matter, and they have more opportunities to initiate communiation with their instructors. Learning. Thus, online technology, by virtue of capitalizing on and enhancing student engagement, can improve learning. Online technologies facilitate student exploration of a subject and facilitate communication with teachers and with other students. This allows students to direct and manage their own study of a subject beyond the boundaries of the classroom, and stimulates engagement by turning interest into action. Of course, motivated students could always do more, even before online technologies became available. And, students can still go to the library, meet with one another in study groups, and meet with their teachers during office hours. But online technologies can make this easier by allowing asynchronous and place-independent communication. Longitudinal studies of postsecondary students suggest that a key factor in student engagement is communication with teachers outside of the classroom (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). With online technology, students and teachers can either meet at the same time, from different places, or they can exchange information and ideas in a common area, but participate at different times. The first technique makes use of online "chat" capabilites, while the latter uses online "conferences" or "forums." Even making use of a simpler technology, email, means that students and teachers can send and receive messages at all hours of the day and night without worrying about waking someone up or wondering if the answering machine recorded their message. Research further suggests that certain classroom practices, combined with teacher-availability, encourage student-teacher communication (Wilson and Gaff, 1975). Inviting students to help make class plans or policy , providing opportunities for student 3 evaluation of the course, and encouraging student discussion send a clear message to students that their opinions matter. Discussing points of view other than yours, relating coursework to other disciplines, and discussing current events that relate to the subject give additional clues that you are interested in perspectives other than your own. And, giving essay exams and term papers instead of objective exams, and grading objectively without a curve provide further evidence to students that they are perceived as individuals and not interchangeable "student-units." This provides an important clue to why online education can be successful for students. The very nature of individual emails and requiring extensive student participation in an online course reinforces the message that the individual student is important to the instructor. This factor may have critical significance to student engagement and success in a course. We are compelled to ask whether these kinds of communication are the same as face-to-face interactions. Obviously, they are not. But are they worse, or even harmful? This is an involved question, but a general response is that they are probably not harmful when used in addition to in-person communication. Some studies have shown, however, that relying on "faceless" communication over an extended period of time exacerbates problems among individuals who live in relative isolation. We conjecture, then, that it's safe to use online communication extensively if an individual leads a lifestyle with regular personal interactions at work or within the community. Research Questions 1. To what extent can we discover factors or dimensions of learning predictive of success in online courses? 2. To what extent can student achievement in online courses be improved through specific pedagogies used in online courses? Currently, my research is focusing on the multidimensional nature of student learning; the interactions between ability, motivation, personality, and learning style, and their impact on learning. Collectively, I refer to these as factors or dimensions of Cognitive Engagement. I am exploring the differences between on-campus and online student profiles and predictors for success. The most important expected outcome of this research is discovery of an approach to advising students of effective online learning strategies based on their specific needs as defined by these factors in the context of a specific discipline. At the moment, this research is cross-sectional. I'm looking at today's online students, who I expect to find differ from today's on-campus students in several areas. This concept is consistent with several studies of the differences between distance and traditional students (Biner, 1995; Cheng, 1995; Fjortoft, 1996). Currently, many speculate that online students are highly motivated 4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE and capable learners, and attribute their success in online courses to these personal qualities rather than excellent online course design. I believe, however, that over time online student characteristics will converge with on-campus students as online technologies become ubiquitous and todays K-12 students, who are introduced to online technologies as early as the primary grades, enter higher education. When that happens, we may not find the special motivational and personality traits in online students sprruing them to success. We will need to rely more on sound pedagogy in the design and delivery of online courses and helping students select learning strategies most appropriate to their individual circumstances. Studies Measuring Information Literacy: The "Tool Literacy" Variable (1998) Evaluation of Online Curriculum at College of San Mateo (1998) Study of Student Engagement and Learning (in progress) Measuring Student Engagement: Validation Challenges Part 1(1999) Articles, White Papers, Miscellany "Why I Teach" Personal Statement for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching "1998 - 99 Outstanding U.S. Community College Professor of the Year" Award, May 1998. Online Education: Finding Common Ground, October 1998. Conflicting Purposes of Education: Will Improving Access to Higher Education Undermine Quality?, October 1998. Online Education: Looking at the Dangers, November 1998 Turning the Tables: Engaging Teachers in the Learning Process, November 1998 Online Education: How Does It Benefit Students? , December 1998 Online Education: Pathway or Barrier to Academic Equity?, December 1998 Community College Teaching: Divining the Future from the Past Talk given to the Plenary Session of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges, April 1999 Finding Your Path -- Commencement Address to the Graduating BEST COPY AVAILABLE 5 Class of College of San Mateo, June 2, 1999 My Top 10 Surprises About Teaching SMCCCD Opening Day Keynote Address, August 17, 1999. Reinventing Online Education From A Social Context Talk delivered at the "Online Education in California Community Colleges: Faculty Perspectives" Conference at College of San Mateo, October 9, 1999. Bibliography Andre, R. & Frost, P. J. editors (1997)Researchers Hooked on Teaching: Noted Scholars Discuss the Synergies of Teaching and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Biner, P., Bink, M., Huffman, M., Dean, R. (1995) "Personality Characteristics Differentiating and Predicting the Achievement of Televised-Course Students and Traditional-Course Students", The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, 46-60. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1952), Committees of Educational Inquiry Inaugural Address, Address at First Conference in Skytop, Pennsylvania. Cheng, H., Lehman, J., Armstrong, P. (1995) "Comparison of Performance and Attitude in Traditional and Computer Conferencing Classes", The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 10 No. 5, 51-64. Cross, K. P. & Steadman, M. H. (1996) Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Flagg, B. N. (1.990) Formative Evaluation for Educational Technologies, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Fjortoft, N. (1996) "Persistence in a Distance Learning Program: A Case in Pharmaceutical Education",The American Journal of Distance Education; Vol. 10 No. 3, 49-59. Hildebrand, M., Wilson, R. C., Dienst, E. R. (1971) Evaluating University Teaching Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, Berkeley, CA. 6 Kells, H. R. & Van Vught, F. A. editors (1988) Self-regulation, Self study and Prograin. Review in Higher Education, papers presented at the Ninth European Forum on the Association for Institution Research (AIR), August, 1987 at the University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. McClelland, D. C. & Steele, R. S. editors (1973)Human Motivation: A Book of Readings General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ. Pace, C. R. (1979) Measuring Outcomes of College, Jossey -Bass, San Francisco, CA. Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., (1991)F/ow College Affects Student, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Peters, R. S. (1981) Essays on Educators, George Allen & Unwin, Boston, MA. Sacks, P. (1996) Generation X Goes to College, Open Court, Chicago, IL. U.S. DOE (1995) Realizing the Potential: Improving Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessmen4 National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Washington, DC. Wilson, Gaff, J. G., Dienst, E. R., Wood, L., Bavry, J. L. (1975) College Professors and Their Impact on Students John Wiley & Sons, NY, NY. Zwerling, L. S. (1976), Second Best, McGraw-Hill, San Francisco, CA. Each Study and Paper also includes a bibliography 7 Jun-29-00 10:48A ThIJ L-tb AR r14.;: V.J. isrgrat IffICI le V/ 1LUILII#C14111Mre Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) National Library of Education (NLE) bdUcational Resources Information Center (LRIc;) tA '41On'tt- *;kV ..; 00" REPRODUCTION RELEASE I. DOCUr- WI* IDENTIFICATION: (Specific Document) RIC 1 Title: Iv pit& ez-k Deis f- A te4) Pe cht lAjAer- AUthOr(S): ea4-Alten A. kennedi Corporate free: Publication Date: II. REPF DUCTION RELEASE: In order ;ssemlnate es widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abs t Journal of the ERIC system, Resources In Education (RIE), ere usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy. and electron Ttedla, and sold through Me ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if iapDavc.f;:w :ego to giar;te4, tria; ric.ticea i5 axed iG file down-vent. If permit is granted to reproduce end disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign et the bottom of the page. Thy LI, uckel vhcron Itaokm..al be alfb, all Level I documents PERMIT .1 TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEk E THIS I/LATERAL HAS G7:A1..TEz, ;.; rrl Ti..E .7&711:114A, IRP5r1191175$ INFO' TION CENTER (ERIC) Check here her end Oil swore. media I 1-18 Sign please L Level 1 [X-Ij rekiOno, penmIling reproduction ?moose* Or DOM ERIC Orcnivel s *Weald) 414sops' coy The sample 'ticker Morn baler will be The sample !beta amen onion will be Pied le all Level 24 docurperus aimed to ee Lever P9 desuments °F.9.!A'SS!OM TO Ft.EPP.C.TV: E !IND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA FOR tri:::CC;',:.EC'CN cv,e ER's HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 19 To 74E EMCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2A Level 2A CheicAtiore ks Level 2A mesas& perneedn0 neroducein end dIfeemerlellon In etkrollalle and In erecirocre sledge Re ERIC moms mason subscribers any PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN IC Pc'FV.',HE. Y HAS BEEN CPANTED aY TO THE EOUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 22 Level a Check here roi Level :a release, peneltehp mproducdon end dInsemihelon M microfiche only Cobeturete wW 011 precuseee as Moored mesas reproducion sweaty penses. II petrol seal to reproduce Is preetsd. bur no Darla docket eccurneete lee be processed VI LVVel I. rile grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate Mls document dicated above, Reproductidn from the ERIC microfiche or en/tonic rnedls by persons other then ERIC emptoyees and Ifs system actors 'squires permission Oom me ccpynont holder. Expepeon is made for non -prom reproduction by ii vales end Oilleg $0114.70 09614,40S Gory infoimetida needs of eduelors In response to discrete Liquiries. 66a41- rrobandeShoss Cc /lege .4 700 "Wiled ttemerroekierfrns ea4 hi e'en A. Men n eel P chSJor ,5-74/- 3-4- ,me-to c Dept-, 'orn . c encc iisd4le B I tiel 5.4 n /44.4ec ca Te p-57q-(ISO s40 5C) J "4"4"E* ..1q_00 't 441 01- Me 00 rely C c! s'r iecS. nGt rover)