People Who Need People: Enhancing Student Engagement in Undergraduate, Blended Delivery Environments.
COHERE Conference
October 27, 2014
Melanie Peacock, PhD, CHRPMount Royal University
Dissertation
“An exploration of how interpersonal relationship development between undergraduate learners and instructors impacts student engagement within a post-secondary, blended delivery environment.”
Primary Research Question
How do interpersonal relationship elements and dynamics, between instructors and adult learners in a post-secondary, undergraduate learning environment, impact deep student engagement in blended delivery settings?
Objectives
Background and Context Literature Review Research Design Findings Future Opportunities for Exploration
Background and Context(Why This Research Matters)
Understanding the Interpersonal Relationship Paradigm
Instructor and Adult Learner Interpersonal Interaction
Criticality of Deep Student Engagement
Researcher’s Story
Understanding the Interpersonal Relationship Paradigm
Through interpersonal relationships we become our true selves and all that we can be (Cranton & Roy, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wertsch, 1985).
In lieu of categorization, based upon the processes within the interpersonal relationship (Clark & Reis, 1988).
Developing patterns of exchange and trust (Berscheid, 1994).
Instructor and Adult Learner Interpersonal Interaction
Critical competency for all instructors (Frisby & Martin, 2010; Senior, 2010).
Motivated learners who want to learn for the sake of learning and apply this learning to future endeavors (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Garrison, 1997).
Power differential (Brookfield, 1997, 2000, 2006; Kreisberg, 1992; Shor, 1996).
Affective Domain (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1996; Illeris, 2003, Kovan & Dirkx, 2003).
Criticality of Deep Student Engagement
Relationship between student engagement and how learners acquire and keep knowledge (Martin & Furr, 2010).
Students need to be actively involved in their engagement in order for learning to occur (Dixson, 2010; Kuh, 2004; Vella, 1994).
Retention and life-long endeavors (Heller, Beil, Dam, & Haerum, 2010).
“We must be ever vigilant and continue to learn more about what forms of engagement work best under what circumstances” (Kuh, 2009. p. 15).
Researcher’s Story
Unanswered questions:
Blended delivery underrepresented in the literature and need to for better understanding (Chen & Jones, 2007; Lin, 2007; Rovai & Jordan, 2004).
Focus on graduate programs (Collopy & Arnold, 2009).
Pedagogical implications of technology integration are more critical than the actual technology and its capabilities (Lin, 2007).
“Blended learning inherently is about rethinking and redesigning the teaching and learning relationship” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004. p. 99).
Literature Review Theoretical Perspectives on IR:
Emotion
Logic
Benefit to interaction
Reliance on one another
Elements of IR:
Interaction
Communication
Connection
Community
Literature Review
The Adult Learner:
Ability to learn.
Desire to learn.
Learning as a social enterprise (Fenwick, 2002; Knowles, 1980; Mezirow, 2003).
CoI (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2004).
Student Engagement:
The Blended Delivery Environment
GAP (Eiss, 1969; Frisby & Martin, 2010; Frymier & Houser, 2000; Myers, 2004).
Criticality of Interpersonal Relationships
Can overcome less desirable traits and keep learners motivated and engaged (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007).
Research Design
Social Constructivism
Social Interdependence Theory
Interpretive Phenomenology
“Social meaning and personal significance” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 104).
Lived Experience.
Participants
Explication
Social Interdependence Theory (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson &Johnson, 2005).
The manner in which interdependence among goals is structured determines how individuals interact, which in turn largely determines outcomes.
Positive Interdependence
Individual Accountability
Promotive Interaction
Appropriate Use of Social Skills
Group Processing
Model(Peacock, 2014)
Findings
Synergies Foundation: Clarity of Expectations
Goal Clarity (Foundation: Conversation & Mutuality)
Process Clarity (Foundation: Mutuality)
Communication
Accessibility
Role Clarity (Independence & Mutuality)
Findings
Synergies Mutuality: Influence
Affect Regulation (Mutuality: Foundation & Conversation. Lessens Mutuality to Independence Conflict)
Social Skills
Self-Disclosure
Feedback
Findings
Synergies Foundation: Through Continuity
Between Face to Face and Online
(Foundation to Conversation, Mutuality, and Independence)
Instructor and Adult Learner Exchanges
Continuity of Interpersonal Relationship
(Foundation to Mutuality)
Continuity of Post-Secondary Education
(Foundation to Independence)
Balance
Synchronous and Asynchronous Work
Interdependence and Independence
Emotion and Logic
Shared Responsibilities and Power
So….. Not Just What but HOW!
Use synergies from intersections of IRD themes and minimize conflict.
Adult Learners:
Enact IR skills, in addition to abilities to utilize technology.
Instructors:
Goodell and Avis (2010), “When one heart, mind, and spirit connects to another, both become teacher and learner, and both are changed” (p. 188).
Remain Engaged! Post-Secondary Institutions:
Encouraged to consider interpersonal capabilities of adult learners when offering undergraduate, blended delivery courses and the capabilities of instructors to develop and/or enact social interdependence, through interpersonal relationship competencies.
Future Research Structuring of Face to Face Interactions
Timing
Methodology
Composition of Adult Learner Groups
Class Size
Diversity of Backgrounds
Cultural
Gender
Stage of Post-Secondary
Assessment of Social Interdependence Capabilities
References
Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79-129. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.000455
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1996). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In R. Edwards, A. Hanson, & P. Raggatt (Eds.), Boundaries of adult learning (pp. 32-36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. D. (1997). Assessing critical thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 75, 17-29. doi:10.1002/ace.7502
Brookfield, S. D. (2000). The concept of critically reflective practice. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 33-49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2006). Authenticity and power. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 5-16. doi:10.1002/ace.223
Chen, C. C., & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 31-45.
Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.
Collopy, R. M. B., & Arnold, J. M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: Online and blended learning environments in undergraduate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 85-101.
Cranton, P., & Roy, M. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket. Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(2), 86-98. doi:10.1177/1541344603001002002
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.
Eiss, A. B. (1969). Behavior objectives in thee affective domain, Washington, DC: National Science Supervisors Association.
Fenwick, T. J. (2002). Problem-based learning, group process and the mid-career professional: Implications for graduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/07294360220124620
Frisby. B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 146-164. doi: 10.1080/03634520903564362
Frymier , A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207-219. doi: 10.1080/03634520009379209
References
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(18), 18-33. doi:10.1177/074171369704800103
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2004). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Goodell, J., & Avis, J. (2010). Under the Arcoiris: Making dreams come alive. In P. J. Palmer & A. Zajonc, The heart of higher education (pp. 184-188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Heller, R. S., Beil, C., Dam, K., & Haerum, B. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, July, 253-261. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2010.tb01060.x
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396-406. doi:10.1080/02601370304837
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358. doi: 10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286-1298. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286
Kovan, J. T., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). Being called awake: The role of transformative learning in the lies of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 5(2), 99-118. doi:
10.1177/0741713602238906
Kriesberg, S. (1992). Transforming power. Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Kuh, G. D. (2004). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved from:
http://nsse.indiana.edu/2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_Conceptual_Framework.pdf
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-20. doi:10.1002/ir.283
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: University of Cambridge Press.
References
Lin, H. (2007). Blending online components into traditional instruction: A case of using technologies to support good practices in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Instruction Delivery System. 21(1), 7-16.
Martin, M. B., & Furr, M. (2010). Promoting classroom engagement. Principal Leadership, 10(1), 18-21.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Myers, S. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college student in-class and out-of-class communication. Communication Reports, 17(2), 129-137. doi:10.1080/08934210409389382
Peacock, M. J. (2014). An exploration of how interpersonal relationship development between undergraduate learners and instructors impacts student engagement within a post-secondary, blended delivery environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/27
Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for understanding effective language teaching in face-to-face and online learning communities. RELC Journal, 41(2), 137-147. doi:10.1177/0033688210375775
Shor, I. (1996). When students have power. Negotiating authority within a critical pedagogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen/learning to teach: Training trainers in the principles and practices of popular education. Convergence, 27(1), 5-22.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Top Related