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 f i nd mo st st ud e nt s (n ot a l l ) mo r e en g ag ed in t he c ou rse through the small groups and the individual meetings with me.

I n t h e s m a l l g r o u p s , t h e y o f t e n e n d u p m o r e e n g a g e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r a s w e l l .

S o m e t i m e s “ o n l i n e ” m e a n s 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 first year 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  texts + open topic selection from menu of 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 first year 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, [email protected]