Issue Eleven

1

A Constructivist Approach to Teaching Media Studies Using Google Drive

Abstract

In this paper we consider online teaching and learning from a constructivist pedagogic perspective and illustrate how learning theory connects to teaching practice in online contexts. To do this we employ an Ontario Media Studies grade 11 course unit to explain how Google Drive applications provide the necessary tools to facilitate constructivist online learning. The media studies unit is a culmination of years of iterations and reflection on the delivery and efficacy of media lessons online. First, the Google online learning environment (GOLE) is discussed in relation to constructivist learning theory, and the grade 11 media studies unit objectives and expectations are explained. Second, the applicability of various Google Drive tools for the constructivist teaching and learning activities related to the unit are considered. We then focus on how the media studies unit will be taught using the GOLE. The administration and unit plan are outlined and decisions regarding learning activities and various Google Drive tools are justified. Finally, two lessons are described in detail to illustrate how constructivist learning theory informs the teaching of various unit tasks and activities. It is our hope that in sharing this sample unit and accompanying theory, other educators can learn from, and adapt our work for their own courses.

Introduction

In the past twenty years, a series of profound technological developments has impacted education. Newly emerging technological tools, applications, and online learning environments present opportunities and possibilities for peers to collaborate in new ways, irrespective of location. As seasoned educators, we have experienced the shift towards online learning in the form of blended and flipped classrooms as well as fully online, credited courses. An integral part of this shift is the role online tools play in facilitating learning, and how the implementation and use of these tools impacts instructional design and online pedagogy. As practitioners, we experiment with online tools to establish what does and does not work in a given learning context. This is important work. However, as educators we also have a responsibility to ensure learning theory and research inform our decision making when planning, reflecting on, and evaluating curriculum tasks, activities, and pedagogic practices.

In this paper we examine a sample media studies unit within a constructivist learning theory framework to show how Google Drive tools can be used as an effective online learning environment (OLE). Although Google tools have been discussed here in JITP and in other reputable publications such as Kairos, the aim of this paper is to illustrate how modern online pedagogic practice and tools connect to key founding theories of constructivism and online learning. The sample media studies unit is a culmination of years of iterations and reflection on the delivery and efficacy of media lessons online. The Ontario Media Studies grade 11 course curriculum is used to illustrate how various Google Drive tools provide the appropriate affordances to facilitate constructivist online learning. While this is an elective course for Ontario students, each grade in the secondary school curriculum contains a media studies strand in the mandatory English curriculum, hence the unit can be adapted for Ontario English courses. It is our hope that in sharing this sample unit and accompanying theory, other educators can learn from, adapt, and build on our work for their own use, not only in media-related courses, but in other subject areas as well. Prior to this, an overview of some of the more pertinent constructivist theories and approaches used in the design of the Google online learning environment (GOLE) is provided.

The Theory behind the Practice

Highly influential constructivist education writers and researchers (Dewey 1916; Piaget 1973; Vygotsky 1978; Bruner 1996) all agree that active learning and the construction of new knowledge is based on prior knowledge, and that the role of the instructor is that of facilitator. Moreover, Dewey (1916) argues that the improvement of the reasoning process is a key function of education. Indeed, utilizing problem-solving methods on personally meaningful and real life problems can act as motivation for students, engaging them in process of discovery. With this in mind, the design plan for our GOLE ensures students have every opportunity to utilize their critical thinking skills and prior knowledge, while making personally relevant choices about what topics and themes to investigate in the media studies unit.

Dewey (1938) also argues that interaction is one of the most important elements of a learning experience and that “an experience is always what it is because of a transaction taking place between an individual and what, at the time, constitutes his environment…” (Dewey 1938 cited in Vrasidas 2000, 1). The GOLE design acknowledges the reciprocal nature of learning interaction and the variety of relationships and communicative exchanges required to facilitate meaningful learning (Simpson & Galbo 1986). As the teacher facilitates activities throughout the course, they should consider the nature and types of interaction present in learning environments: learner-learner, learner-teacher, and learner-content (Moore 1989), as well as the ways these interactions translate to an online learning environment. This social constructivist approach stresses the critical importance of interaction with others in cognitive development and emphasizes the role of the social context in learning (Huang 2002).

Vygotsky (1978) details the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and explains how important social interaction is in the psychological development of the learner. Vrasidas (2000) describes the ZPD as, “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (10). The GOLE features afford students multiple opportunities to learn with others and advance their knowledge through collaboration, working with a variety of learners in different activities using a selection of Google Drive tools.

Class Introduction, Overview of Media Studies Unit, and Expectations

The proposed unit for a media studies course is based on best practices and pedagogy from previous media studies lessons conducted in online learning environments. A Grade 11 English Media Studies course from the Ontario Curriculum is the site of this unit. Figure 1 provides a breakdown of the unit sections and related objectives/expectations.

Unit Sections Unit Objectives
A. Understanding and Interpreting Media Texts 1. Understanding and responding to media texts:

– demonstrate understanding of a variety of media texts;

2. Deconstructing media texts:

– deconstruct a variety of types media texts, identifying the codes, conventions, and techniques used and explaining how they create meaning.

B. Media and Society 1. Understanding media perspectives:

– analyze and critique media representations of people, issues, values, and behaviors;

2. Understanding the impact of media on society:

– analyze and evaluate the impact of media on society.

C. The Media Industry 1. Industry and audience:

– demonstrate an understanding of the ways in which the creators of media texts target and attract audiences;

2. Ownership and control:

– demonstrate an understanding of the impact of regulation, ownership, and control on access, choice and range of expression.

D. Producing and Reflecting on Media Texts 1. Producing media texts:

– create a variety of media texts for different audience;

2. Careers in media production:

– demonstrate an understanding of roles and career options in a variety of media industries;

3. Metacognition:

– demonstrate an understanding of their growth as media consumers, media analysts, and media producers.

Figure 1: Grade 11 English Media Studies from the Ontario Curriculum

Overall expectations addressed in the proposed unit include:

  • Industry and Audience: demonstrate an understanding of the ways in which the creators of media texts target and attract audiences.
  • Producing Media Texts: create a variety of media texts for different audiences and purposes, using effective forms, codes, conventions, and techniques.
  • Metacognition: demonstrate an understanding of their growth as media consumers, media analysts, and media producers.
  • Deconstructing Media Texts: deconstruct a variety of types of media texts, identifying the codes, conventions, and techniques used and explaining how they create meaning.
  • Understanding and Responding to Media Texts: demonstrate understanding of a variety of media texts. (The Ontario Curriculum Grades 11-12: English, 2007)

The Online Learning Environment: Why Google Drive?

When thinking about designing a constructivist OLE it is useful to consider how social constructivist theory can inform which tools to include in it. Vygotsky (1978) argues that people socially construct meaning and cultural norms and that learning is situated. Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest implicit and explicit knowledge is acquired through legitimate participation in situated communities of practice (CoP). Learners participate on the periphery of an activity within a CoP and as they participate and learn they become more knowledgeable. This enables them to move, if they wish, towards the center of the CoP and play a larger role in the communities’ activities. The central idea of situated learning is that learners appropriate an understanding of how to view meanings that are identified with the CoP, and that this process forms a learner’s identity within the learning community. For example, to become a television production assistant a person must appropriate the skills, values, and beliefs required in the practice of working in the television industry.

Hung and Chen (2001) provide a number of design considerations related to situated learning that can help learning designers decide what tools need to be included in an OLE to best support constructivist learning. They argue situatedness can be fostered by contextualized activities that encourage implicit and explicit knowledge acquisition such as projects based on the demands and requirements of the course curriculum. Furthermore, students need to be able to access their OLE in their situated contexts at any time and preferably on portable devices.

Hung and Chen (2001) suggest students also need to learn through reflection and internalize social learning through metacognitive activities such as journaling and asynchronous discussion. Google Drive is available online on portable devices and includes the weblog (blog) software Blogger in its suite of applications. Blogs can be used as interactive online journals, which can be personalized by the learner and used for important metacognitive reflective activities essential for deep learning (Sawyer 2008).

Also as Bereiter (1997) argues, electronic records of learners engaged in discourse on networked computers produce significant knowledge artifacts in and of themselves. These knowledge artifacts are essential for educators because “knowing the state of a learner’s knowledge structure helps to identify a learner’s zone of proximal development” (Boettcher 2007, 4); which in turn allows educators to understand where and when learner scaffolding is required within the OLE.

Hung and Chen (2001) also introduce the concept of commonality, the idea that learning is social and identity is formed through language, signs, and tools in CoPs. They explain that commonality can be fostered through learners having shared interests in books, for example, or having shared assignment problems. Learning designers can leverage commonality and embed tools in their OLEs that enable students to communicate and collaborate on their common interests.

Google Drive has several tools that enable collaboration through computer mediated discourse. These tools include Google Messenger (synchronous and asynchronous text and video messaging), Google Circles (synchronous and asynchronous text messaging and multimedia sharing), and Google Hangouts (synchronous video chat with up to nine people at once, face-to-face-to-face). The interactive nature of blogs also allows them to be used for communicating and sharing ideas within online CoPs. In terms of assessing student engagement and interaction, the revision history tool in Google Docs allows teachers to follow the contributions of each student by observing their writing and editing process, as well as the comments they post to their peers.

Google Drive has several other tools suitable for the online administration of courses. Gmail, the email application, can be used for formal teacher-student correspondence and the distribution of grades and other important announcements. Google Calendar is suitable for updates about the syllabus and deadlines and alerts regarding the course. Google Docs can be used to construct online surveys and polls, often used by constructivist educators to allow learners to vote on aspects of the course they would like to change in some way or for students conducting research of their own. In addition, Google Drive folders can house the course documents; the syllabus, readings, FAQs, and sign up forms can be accessed and updated from anywhere at any time. Student folders can be created on Google Drive for students to upload their work. Educators can use Google Hangouts to discuss group work in online video conferences. Furthermore, YouTube (part of Google) is an ideal platform to present digital artifacts that illustrate project based learning. The affordances Google Drive technology provides learners are numerous (see figure 2).

Quinton (2010) notes that it is essential for student learning that dynamically constructed learning environments be customized to meet the preferences and needs of individual learners in OLEs. The integrated nature of Google Drive enables all course communication, discussion, administration, and student work presentation to be fully integrated and customized to the learners’ needs. Users can personalize their settings and receive updates and notifications about all activity on the course. The GOLE enables students to communicate informally, fostering social presence, either by using one-to-one synchronous messages on Google Messenger, or by setting up their own Google Circle for group chat.

Formal discussions and reflection are afforded by Google Circles, Google Hangouts, and Blogger. Note, Google Hangouts enables synchronous video conferencing. This affordance is particularly useful for teaching and learning because OLEs often do not enable the interactants to see one another’s paralanguage, making the possibility of misunderstanding common, particularly for people from different cultural backgrounds (Dillon, Wang, & Tearle 2007).

An Illustration of the Google Online Learning Environment (GOLE).

Figure 2. An Illustration of the Google Online Learning Environment (GOLE).

Educators and groups of students can see, hear, and talk to each other at scheduled times using Google Hangouts, which has the potential to really boost the social, teaching, and, subsequently, the cognitive presence on GOLE courses. Students have numerous customizable applications to compose and display their learning, such as the Blogger, YouTube, and Google Presentation applications as well as word processing, drawing, and spreadsheet software. All these applications empower users to share and collaborate with each other and determine who can see and contribute to whatever they are working on prior to when it is presented for feedback. Used appropriately, the tools in Google Drive facilitate distributed constructionism, whereby learner knowledge emerges from the distributed discourses and knowledge artifacts they have access to in their OLE (Salomon 1994).

Administration and Unit Plan

From our experience teaching in OLEs, we conceive three key objectives at the course start: acclimatizing students to the online environment, establishing a community of learners, and making explicit the goals and objectives of the course. Early peer to peer and peer to instructor interaction is essential because, as Garrison & Arbaugh (2007, 60) point out, “it takes time find a level of comfort and trust, develop personal relationships, and evolve into a state of camaraderie.” Furthermore, positive social climates promote the rapid mastery of the hidden curriculum and enhances group tasks, self-disclosure, and socio-emotional sharing (Michinov, Michinov, & Toczek-Capelle 2004).

Therefore, one of the first activities in our unit plan requires students to create a biography using general questions and prompts from the teacher, and to share it using Google Docs. For example, we incorporate a simple media studies-related icebreaker using threaded discussions. Students post to the discussion board three personality traits, three favorite television shows, three favorite musicians, and three most used websites. Students are then asked to find at least three other students they have something in common with and write a response. In our experience, sharing commonalities and interests builds rapport and community in peer groups, particularly if this is done at the start of the course.

At the same time, educators must be mindful of critical pedagogy and how identity can play out in online environments. While the opportunity for disembodiment and the de-emphasis on race, class, and gender in virtual environments can lead to many positive possibilities, caution is warranted. As Dare (2011, 3) argues “the constitution of the online classroom as a color-blind space free of raced and sexed bodies is one which deserves greater reflection by examining the implications of ‘disembodying’ students and instructors in the virtual classroom, within the context of classes about race, gender, and globalization.” Such awareness is a necessity and instructors should work to create an inclusive, supportive, and non-threatening community. We have found the best practice is to allow each student to regulate how and what they choose to share about their identity with their peers over time.

During the first week, students are asked to watch an introductory YouTube video created by the instructor using screen capture software such as Jing. The video serves to welcome students and provide a virtual tour of the Google Drive platform, which assists students in locating administrative information to begin the course. All Administrative documents (course outline, assessment and evaluation information, online etiquette, and so on) need to be detailed and explicit to reduce uncertainty, and they should remain in one Google Doc folder for easy reference.

In the administrative section, students should also have access to their grades and feedback through the Google Spreadsheets feature. Students require opportunities to play an active role in their learning process and self-evaluation, through the negotiation of course objectives, content, and evaluation. In previously taught courses, our students have written reflections alongside the teacher-produced grade reports, putting the onus on students to take responsibility for their progress and next steps. Active participation, a central tenet of constructivism, increases the likelihood of embracing and accomplishing tasks used to facilitate learning (Vrasidas 2000).

Finally, a section for technical help should be made available to students using the Google Communities feature. Here, students can post questions and discuss technical issues they may be facing with Google Drive tools, allowing them to collaboratively diagnose problems and find solutions. In our courses, we encourage students to ask course and technical questions in the group forums rather than emailing the instructor. Doing so allows an opportunity for other students to come forward and support others with their knowledge, while also reducing repetitive emails to the instructor with the same questions. This feature “connect[s] people to people and information, not people to machines[,]” and enables students to “engage in collaborative knowledge production and facilitation of understanding—in effect, a connected network of mentors/ interest /practice” (Quinton 2010, 346-47). A high level of teacher presence is required at this stage to monitor the OLE and ensure that any outstanding issues are fully resolved in a timely manner.

Sample Unit Plan: Our Mediated Environment

The sample unit provided below highlights the type of lessons, activities, exercises, and assignments students engage in throughout the course. (Some lesson plans have been adapted from curriculum materials freely available at Mediasmarts.ca and the Association for Media Literacy).

Part One: Marketing to Teens

Throughout the first unit (3-4 weeks), the teacher should moderate class discussions, and explicitly model some of the skills, strategies, and critical thinking techniques that students will need to acquire for moderating future class discussions. As Vrasidas (2000) points out, “having students work in groups to moderate discussions, organize debates, summarize points, and share results will help them achieve their full potential” (10). Following the first unit, pairs of students should select a week to moderate the discussions (based on a topic/ theme of interest) in partnership with the teacher.

In addition to modeling discussion-moderation techniques, the teacher can provide a tip sheet of strategies and offer constructive feedback during their moderation period. As Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) conclude, “to learn [how] to use tools as practitioners use them, a student, like an apprentice, must enter that community and its culture. Thus, in a significant way, learning is […] a process of enculturation” (33). Furthermore, research demonstrates that teacher presence plays an important role in enabling students to reach the highest levels of inquiry (Garrison et al. 2001; Luebeck & Bice 2005).

Lesson 1

Students are assigned two readings online: How Marketers Target Teens and Advertising: It’s Everywhere (Media Smarts n.d.) to introduce concepts such as psychology and advertising, targeted advertising, building brand loyalty, ambient and stealth advertising, commercialization in education, and product placement. Students begin the first threaded discussion using Google Circles with a series of questions and prompts regarding the ubiquitous nature of advertisements targeted at youth. For example, guided prompts might ask questions such as “why are youth important targets for marketers?” “how do marketers reach teens?” or “which media advertisements do students feel have the greatest appeal and why?” The quality of guiding questions directly impacts the quality of responses and interactions between students. As evidence shows, the questions initiating online discussion also play an important role in the type of cognitive activity present in online discussions (Arnold & Ducate 2006).

Activity 1: Research

For this activity, students take a 10-15-minute walk in their local neighborhood, and they note the type and location of all advertisements they encounter (on bus shelters, billboards, newspaper boxes, bike racks, people’s clothes, shopping carts, buses, and so on). They then share their Google Map coordinates and a screenshot to highlight their selected route and share their findings with the rest of the class using Google Presentation. Students then form groups of four in a threaded discussion group to further examine one another’s Advertisement (Ad) Walks. Throughout this activity, students should be encouraged to use a selection of knowledge sources such as libraries, museums, and email exchanges with industry professionals. Asking students to engage in learning with activities such as Ad Walks places them in the center of their learning so “teachers will no longer be [seen as] the only source of expertise” or the only resource (Sawyer 2008, 8). Next, students are asked to consider the target audience for the ads and speculate on the rationale for the location of advertisements (i.e. advertisements targeted at teens are often located close to high schools and shopping malls). In a threaded discussion with teacher prompts, students should have an opportunity to examine the difference in advertising tactics on reservations, in rural, suburban, and urban environments; hence sharing “their situated experiences and knowledge with one another (Dare 2011,10).

Dewey (1916) argues that learning results from our reflections on our experiences as we endeavor to make sense of them; therefore, students should also be asked to compare and comment on the extent of media advertisements in their own homes (internet, television, magazines, radio etc.) and reflect on their findings using the blog and guided questions prepared by the teacher. The teacher should also ask students to read at least two student blog posts and to post comments on each other’s reflections. This activity is intended to increase student motivation and provide authenticity to the learning process, as students will know that there is an active online audience for the online artifacts they are creating (Resnick 1996). The use of technology and other cultural tools (to communicate, exchange information, and construct knowledge) is fundamental in constructivism because as Vrasidas (2000, 7) argues “knowledge is constructed through social interaction and in the learner’s mind.”

Activity 2: Connecting Media Concepts

At the beginning of the course, students should be given the choice to select a unit that holds particular interest to them. In small groups (3-4), they are then given the responsibility for creating a mind map that demonstrates the connections and intersections of new concepts they have been exposed to. Using a mind map, the student groups work collectively to define each of the concepts and identify and illustrate connections among meanings. For example, the unit highlighted in this paper introduces stealth advertising and product placement. These concepts can be connected by their approach; both are non-traditional forms of advertising and are often embedded in other forms of media that contain covert messaging (see figure 3 for student exemplar). Mind mapping tools such as Lucidchart can be located in Google Docs add-ons. Teachers are encouraged to review all the add-on features and extensions that will best suit the needs of their students.

This image is a student examplar of a mindmap created on Lucidchart mindmapping software. The main concept, media messages, is at the centre. Radiating out from media messages are three concepts: targeted advertising, product placement, and stealth advertising. Connected to each of the three terms are examples of student-generated definitions for each.

Figure 3. Mind map student exemplar that demonstrates the connections and intersections of new concepts they have been exposed to.

This ongoing constructed resource shifts and grows throughout the course as students manipulate the document to build new meanings together. This nurtures the collective cognitive responsibility of the class, whereby “responsibility for the success of a group effort is distributed across all the members rather than being concentrated in the leader” (Scardamalia 2002, 2). The students are made responsible for their own learning and should ensure that their classmates “know what needs to be known” (ibid.). This is a particularly effective way for knowledge-building communities to form and grow because collaborative activities need to involve the exchange of information and the design and construction of meaningful artifacts for learners to construct and personalize the knowledge (Resnick 1996). To consolidate and distribute learning, this activity should be repeated for each of the five units in the course.

Part Two: Decoding Media Messages

Lesson 2

In this lesson, students explore the values and beliefs hidden behind advertising messages by analyzing a selection of print, audio, and video advertisements. Students watch an introductory video on “values and media messages” on YouTube (created by the teacher). The teacher video should contain an explanation of how the two media frameworks used throughout the course (The Eight Key Concepts of Mass Media and the Eddie Dick Media Triangle; See figure 4) and how they pertain to decoding and deconstructing advertising and marketing messages. The video provides an introductory explanation of the concepts being discussed in the course and adds important elements of teaching presence such as focusing discussion, sharing meaning, and building knowledge (Garrison et al. 2001). Both frameworks should be made available in the class Google Docs folder titled Administration.

To further their understanding of the constructed nature of media advertisements, students are also asked to watch the Dove Evolution Commercial on YouTube, along with one of the parodies for the Dove Evolution Commercial that can also be found on YouTube. Using their online journals, students then write a reflection on their personal reaction to both the commercial and a Dove parody video, and then identify some of the key elements found on the Media Triangle to arrive at intended and unintended meanings. Online journaling is considered an aspect of cognitive presence, defined as “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse” (Garrison & Arbaugh 2007, 161) in which students work through the stages of inquiry and arrive at their own meanings through reflective practice.

 

This is a diagram depicting the Eddie Dick Media Triangle. At the centre of the diagram is a triangle shape with the term "media messages" inside. Outside of the triangle are three concepts: production, audience, and text. There are three double-headed arrows just outside of the triangle to signify the interconnectedness of the three concepts. Below each of the concepts are corresponding questions intended to assist students in media deconstruction activities. An example of such questions is, "in what ways does this text tell a story? Does it connect to a larger story?"

Figure 4: The Key Concepts of Mass Media and the Eddie Dick Media Triangle. Adapted from http://frankwbaker.com/mediatriangle.htm

Activity 3: Group Presentation

Through discussion in small groups using Google Circles, students deconstruct one advertisement of their choice to be presented to the class using the prompts on the Media Triangle handout. The objective is for students to deepen their awareness and understanding about the explicit and implicit values and meanings associated with their selected advertisement. The use of Google Circles enables the teacher to view what is being discussed and provides the necessary scaffolding (Vygotsky 1978) for the learners to continue to extend their ZPD. Furthermore, working in groups on collaborative activities facilitates social presence in online courses as it enables learners to “project themselves socially and emotionally” (Garisson & Arbaugh 2007) and develop a sense of community and improve and practice “real life” working relationships in online courses.

Using Google Presentation feature, students upload their work in a shared folder in Google Drive for the rest of the class to evaluate. In an asynchronous exercise, students are asked to view all presentations (about 4-5) and offer a critique for each work in Google Circles. Having peers critique group presentations produces further insights/perspectives the group may have overlooked or not recognized. As a result, students are more likely to gain a deeper understanding from “the expertise (knowledge and skills), perspectives and opinions” of their peers and “draw from each other’s strengths” and “make use of each other’s abilities” (Hung & Chen 2001, 7) to help construct knowledge.

Activity 4: Reflection

Using their blogs, each student repeats the process of activity 3 using a media advertisement that has personal relevance or meaning. Students also respond to guided prompts such as, “Explain one way the advertisement communicates to its audience and what one resulting meaning is for you.” Dewey states that “learning results from our reflections on our experiences, as we strive to make sense of them” (Russell 1999, 2); and through reflection, students “externalize and articulate their developing knowledge, [and] they learn more effectively” (Sawyer 2008, 7).

Activity 5: Parody Advertisement Media Production

In this activity, students work either in pairs, independently, or in a small group to create of a parody advertisement. Using their new knowledge about advertising strategies and their understanding of the media construction frameworks from prior activities, students deconstruct one parody advertisement and then create their own media artifact with a focus on branding: for example, a parody print advertisement of their own, a short commercial, a radio jingle, or an audiovisual slideshow.

To introduce the concept of branding, students view a four-minute segment of the award-winning Canadian documentary, The Corporation. In this segment, Canadian activist Naomi Klein discusses the impact of corporate branding on individuals and culture (Note: This YouTube video is a legal chapter segment shared online by The Corporation Director Mark chbar). In a threaded discussion on Google Circles, the teacher prompts discussion by asking students what comes to mind when they hear the terms ‘brand’ or ‘branding,’ and what they think about the video.

Students should also be provided with the following definitions:

Branding: the process involved in creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumer’s mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers. (Business Dictionary, n.d.)

Corporate branding: An attempt to attach higher credibility to a new product by associating it with a well-established company name. Unlike a family-branding (which can be applied only to a specific family of products), corporate branding can be used for every product marketed by a firm. (Business Dictionary, n.d.)

As a class, students examine the iconic brand Nike. The teacher forms small groups of students who have not yet worked together and these groups develop responses to the following questions adapted from lessons available on the Association for Media Literacy (AML) website. This can be completed on a collaborative document in Google Docs and later transferred to the threaded discussion to share with the rest of the class. Students respond to the following prompts:

  • List the positive (intended), neutral, and negative values/ messages that come to mind when considering the brand, Nike. (Responses may range from: cool, stylish, youthful, attractive, wealthy, iconic, patriotism and child labor, mass production and the environment, human rights violation, etc.).
  • Using the Media Triangle framework, how does Nike portray their intended values?
  • How have you been informed about the neutral and negative values?

When students have completed the responses in their small groups, they share their findings with the rest of the class on the threaded discussion and respond to other groups.

Students will then explore the concept of parody advertisements using a Nike Adbusters parody advertisement (see figure 5).

A photograph of Tiger Woods the golfer in his Nike branded cap and top on the left. On the right, a photoshopped photograph of Tiger Woods in a suit with the Nike 'swoosh' Logo behind him that looks as if it is going through his head, and his smile has been photoshopped into the Nike 'swoosh' logo.

Figure 5: Nike vs. Tiger Woods: Image shows two different photographs of Tiger Woods. Adapted from: http://www.adbusters.org/spoofads/unswooshing/

As a reflection assignment to be completed on their blogs, the teacher asks students to consider the following statement from the Association of Media Literacy:

Parody advertisements are a fun way to analyze popular advertisements, especially advertisers who are selling products, which have social and political implications. When you spoof an advertisement, you take elements of the message that give it power and turn the message around to show that it is ridiculous or even untrue. (Association for Media Literacy, March 25, 2017)

Reflection Questions:

  • What elements make this a parody advertisement?
  • What was the first thing you noticed about the advertisement, what is being made fun of? Why is humor an effective way to make a point?
  • What elements are different or the same compared to the real advertisement? (see codes and conventions on Media Triangle Framework)
  • Does the parody advertisement change how you perceive the original advertisers?
  • What is the value message in this parody advertisement? If you could write a statement message for the parody advertisement, what would it be (2-3 sentences)?

To further distribute knowledge, learning, and social and cognitive presence, students are then asked to comment on a student blog they have not visited during the course. As Cole and Engestrom (1993, 15) reason, one person cannot contain all the knowledge or culture of the group that they identify with, thus knowledge can and should be, “distributed among people within a cultural group.”

With background experience in branding and the parody advertisement critique experiences now in place, students are well prepared for the final activity: the creation of a parody advertisement. Students form groups or pairs based on their personal interests (radio jingle, video, magazine advertisement, website etc.). As Resnick (1996) argues, when personally meaningful artifacts are constructed, new knowledge is constructed with greater effectiveness. Students should be encouraged to use freely accessible Google+ applications such as Pixlr (image editing), UJAM (audio editing) and Magisto (video editing). By having students use popular applications from their own cultural context, the task is rendered more authentic, lessening the often ‘transmuted’ activities students may experience in school (Brown, Collins & Duiguid 1989). Student groups create a Google Community to carry out the following tasks:

  • Select a brand to spoof (ideas can be found on Adbusters website)
  • Identify the intended values and value messaging of the brand and their advertisements
  • Select the new value message the group wishes to convey and create a slogan or tagline
  • Using Google+ applications and tools, create parody advertisement in the Google Community.

Once the parody advertisements have been completed, each group signs up for a synchronous video conference with the teacher using Google Hangouts (up to nine participants) to take part in a group critique of their work. Students working independently can be grouped into one critique group. Other students will be encouraged to attend the Google Hangouts session which should also be recorded for students who wish to view the critique afterwards, as well as for teacher evaluation and assessment.

Conclusion

This paper has considered online learning from a constructivist perspective and applied a selection of the key concepts and ideas of influential constructivist thinkers to the design of an online media studies course for 11th graders studying in Ontario. The affordances Google Drive offers to constructivist pedagogic practice have been shown to be numerous. The integrated nature of the suite of applications and the communication, sharing, presentation and administration possibilities the software affords educators planning an online course make Google Drive a very useful pedagogic tool. The central idea of constructivism—that knowledge is constructed in people when incoming information meets and integrates with their existing experience and knowledge—has been discussed and illustrated using authentic current curriculum documents and teaching activities.

To encourage and facilitate constructivist learning, well thought out, student-centered learning tasks and activities that leverage the various affordances of the technology need to be devised, monitored, reviewed, and added to, to ensure the learning experiences of students and educators constantly extend. The construction of knowledge is both an individual and group endeavor that changes from moment to moment and from an educational perspective from course to course. Individual learners that make up the community of any course shape its conversations, its direction, and consequently the learning that happens within it. The fluid nature of this kind of learning makes it an engaging and stimulating way to learn. It is the work of online learning designers to ensure that when they are making pedagogical decisions that they fully exploit the affordances of the technology they use to promote student-centered activities that nurture and sustain learner engagement and stimulation.

Bibliography

Arnold, Nike, and Ducate, Lara. 2006. “Future Foreign Language Teachers’ Social and Cognitive Collaboration in an Online Environment.” Language Learning & Technology 10:1, 42-66. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/pdf/arnoldducate.pdf.

Bereiter, Carl. 1997. “Situated Cognition and How to Overcome it.” In Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives, edited by David Kirshner and James Anthony Whitson. Psychology Press.

Brown, John Seely, Allan, Collins and Duguid, Paul. 1989. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher 18:1, 32-42.

Boettcher, Judith. V. 2007. “Ten Core Principles for Designing Effective Learning Environments: Insights from Brain Research and Pedagogical Theory.” Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3:3, 2. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=innovate.

Bruner, Jerome S. 1996. The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.

Business Dictionary (n.d). Branding. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/branding.html.

Cole, Michael, and Engeström, Yrjö. 1993. “A Cultural-Historical Approach to Distributed Cognition.” In Distributed cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, edited by Gavriel Salomon, 1-46. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Dare, Alexa. 2011. “(Dis) Embodied Difference in the Online Class: Vulnerability, Visibility, and Social Justice.” Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 7:2, 279-287. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no2/dare_0611.htm.

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. The Free Press: New York.

Dillon, Patrick, Wang, Ruolan and Tearle, Penni. 2007. “Cultural Disconnection in Virtual Education.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 15:2, 153-174. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681360701403565.

Garrison, D. Randy, Anderson, Terry, and Walter Archer. 2001. “Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence.” American Journal of Distance Education 15: 7-23.

Garrison, D. Randy, and J. Arbaugh, Ben. 2007. “Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Directions.” The Internet and Higher Education 10:3, 157-172.

Huang, Hsiu‐Mei. 2002. “Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.” British Journal of Educational Technology 33:1, 27-37.

Hung, David WL, and Chen, Der-Thanq. 2001. “Situated Cognition, Vygotskian Thought and Learning from the Communities of Practice Perspective: Implications for the Design of Web-Based E-learning.” Educational Media International 38:1, 3-12.

Lave, Jean, and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

Luebeck, Jennifer L., and Bice, Lawrence R. 2005. “Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change among mathematics and science teachers.” Journal of Distance Education 20:2, 21-39.

Lulee, Su Tuan. 2010. “Basic Principles of Interaction for Learning in Web-based Environment.” Educause Review 7:2 1-32. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://www.educause.edu/sites/default/files/Basic%20Principles%20of%20Interaction%20for%20Learning%20in%20Web-Based%20Environment%20-%20feedback%20from%20Fahy-revised.pdf.

Moore, Michael, G. 1989. Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education 3:2, 1-6. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659.

Michinov, Nicolas, Michinov, Estelle, and Toczek-Capelle, Marie-Christine. 2004. “Social Identity, Group Processes, and Performance in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 8:1, 27-39.

Pea, Roy D. 1993. “Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education.” In Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Edited by Gavriel Salomon, 47-87. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Piaget, Jean. 1973. To Understand is to Invent: The Future of Education. Grossman, New York.

Quinton, Stephen, R. 2010. “Principles of effective learning environment design.” In Looking Toward the Future of Technology-enhanced Education: Ubiquitous Learning and the Digital Native, editors Martin Ebner, Mandy Schiefner ,327-352. IGI Global.

Resnick, Mitchel. 1996. “Distributed Constructionism.” In Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences, 280-284. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Russell, B. 1999. “Experience–Based Learning Theories. The Informal Learning Review. Informal Learning Experience.” Informal Learning Website. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://www.informallearning.com/archive/1999-0304-a.htm.

Salomon, Gavriel. 1993. Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scardamalia, Marlene. 2002. “Collective Cognitive Responsibility for the Advancement of Knowledge.” In Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, edited by Barry Smith, 67-98. Chicago: Open Court.

Sawyer, R. Keith. 2008. “Optimising Learning Implications of Learning Sciences Research.” In Innovating to learn, learning to innovate, edited by Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 45-65.

Simpson, Raymond. J., and Galbo, Joseph. J. 1986. Interaction and Learning: Theorizing on the art of teaching. Interchange, 17:4, 37-51.

Ontario Ministry of Education. 2007. The Ontario Curriculum Grades 11-12: English (Revised). Accessed from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/english1112currb.pdf.

Vrasidas, Charalambos. 2000. “Constructivism Versus Objectivism: Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education.” International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 6:4, 339-362. Accessed October 6, 2016. http://vrasidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/continuum.pdf.

Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.

About the Authors

Chris Harwood has taught English for academic purposes, and writing composition for over 20 years in high schools and universities around the world. He recently completed a PhD in Language and Literacies Education at OISE, University of Toronto, and is currently teaching critical reading and writing in Japan.

Alison Mann is an award-winning media and film educator with over 18 years of teaching experience. She is currently pursuing a PhD. at the University of Toronto focusing on critical media literacy, online learning environments at the secondary level and intercultural communication.

4

Care, Convenience, and Interactivity: Exploring Student Values in a Blended Learning First-Year Composition Course

Abstract

Blended learning (BL) represents one of fastest growing instructional models as an alternative to traditional face-to-face pedagogy. Convenience, interactivity, instructor availability, and classroom community are elements of blended learning environments most often associated with student satisfaction. These elements of student satisfaction all share an innate relational quality that can be understood through the framework of an ethics of care. Through ethnographic analysis, this study seeks to add to this literature by emphasizing the relational aspects of BL and the need to understand students’ experiences through the framework of care. To illustrate the use of this framework in the context of BL, this study explores how college students engage with and make sense of technology in the context of their first college course. Thematic analysis of students’ qualitative responses to interviews and a class survey revealed that students in the course largely valued elements generally associated with care, such as interactive feedback, instructor availability, and freedom of expression. Consistent with the literature, students also valued convenience and interactivity, which in this analysis were also conceptualized through the framework of care. The participants in this study were mostly non-traditional college students (e.g., low-income, minority, commuter). This article argues that understanding the effects of specific online and face-to-face practices on students’ perception of care may prove crucial in designing effective and engaging BL environments.

In a brand-new, tiered classroom, four semi-circle rows of desks cascaded downward, each chair bolted to the floor in front of a desk with just enough room to allow students to slip in and out. A pop-up outlet sat in front of each chair. This space implied a non-interactive pedagogy rooted in expert-to-novice transmission of knowledge. Situated in the middle of the classroom, a professor would deliver a lecture, while students would take notes diligently, many on their plugged-in devices. Group work and other pedagogies of deep student engagement would struggle to thrive in such a space. Here they sat, twenty-seven entering freshmen at one of the eight senior colleges at the City University of New York (CUNY), the largest urban, public university in the country. Paper notebooks and ballpoint pens were the only objects populating students’ desks, with the instructor’s laptop being the only visible electronic device. An ethnographer sitting in the last row, I began typing my notes, documenting these students’ first experiences with college composition and, for some, blended learning.

Blended learning (BL) encompasses teaching models that combine “face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction” (Graham 2006, 5). Following recent calls to cut costs and engage students with “21st century skills,” the growth of BL instruction across educational contexts has led some scholars to call it the “new normal” of course delivery (Norberg, Dziuban, and Moskal 2011, 207). Despite its growing popularity, BL remains an understudied area compared to distance learning and face-to-face pedagogy (Graham 2013). The most impactful literature in BL is theoretical, focusing on the “definitions, models, and potential of blended learning” (Halverson, et. al 2012, 397) with the majority of empirical work focusing on student outcomes (Halverson, et. al 2012). Osguthorp and Graham (2003) identify pedagogical richness, access to knowledge, social interaction, personal agency, cost-effectiveness, and ease of revision as major goals of blended learning.

Given that BL models are relatively new, a growing segment of the empirical research on BL evaluates student satisfaction as a proxy for students’ ability to navigate new learning environments (Moore 2005). Indeed, BL models correlate positively with high levels of satisfaction (Vignare 2007; Graham 2013). Common factors contributing to student satisfaction include interactivity, convenience, flexibility, feedback, and instructor availability (e.g., Bonk, Oslon, Wisher, and Orvis 2002; Dziuban, et. al 2010; Mansour and Mupinga 2007), with interactivity, face-to-face or digital, standing out as particularly significant. For instance, Akkoyunlu and Soylu (2008) found that students, on average, identified a course’s face-to-face elements as the most significant contributors to their satisfaction. Rothmund (2008) found that learner satisfaction correlated strongly with degree of interaction. Similarly, Akyol, Garrison, and Orden (2009) found that students in BL models valued social and teaching presence.

Although student satisfaction surveys can often take the form of marketing research, interactivity and many other factors associated with student satisfaction share a critical quality: relationality. For instance, Garrison (2009) defines social presence as “the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” (352). Similarly, effective feedback, teaching presence, and instructor availability contextualize the relationship between student and instructor. Moreover, I argue that the effectiveness of such relationships, in part, relies on students’ perception of care.

An ethic of care represents one of the key elements of teaching due to its potential to increase students’ motivation and engagement across various learning environments. As a pioneer of this concept, Noddings (1984/2003), identifies caring as, “the primary aim of every educational institution” (172). For Noddings (1984/2003), caring is grounded in the relational, context-specific practice of anticipating another’s needs, fostering an open dialogue, and “apprehending the other’s reality” (16). Similarly, Rauner (2000) defines care as “an interactive process involving attentiveness, responsiveness, and competence” (7). Tronto (1993) further emphasizes the contextual and relational nature of care by arguing for the importance of direct proximity between the carer and cared-for to produce genuine and effective care. Moreover, an extensive research literature in traditional instructional models and school organization links care to better student outcomes and healthy development (e.g., Rauner 2000; Noddings 2013; Goldstein 2002; Cassidy and Bates 2005).

Despite robust research on care in traditional instructional models, its discussion is largely absent from the BL and online education literature. The limited existing research on care in fully online environments suggests that students associate care with timely feedback, personal comments, multiple contact opportunities, personal connection, and commitment to learning (Zitzman and Leners 2006; Marx 2011). Similarly, Deacon (2012) argues that using technology to anticipate and alleviate student anxiety while building a sense of community creates a caring environment in an online course. These findings suggest that many of the factors associated with student satisfaction in BL may be associated with students’ perception of care, yet the existing literature does not engage with those concepts as such.

Through empirical analysis, this paper seeks to add to this literature by emphasizing the relational aspects of BL and the need to understand students’ experiences through the framework of care. Understanding the effects that specific online and face-to-face practices have on students’ perception of care may prove crucial in designing effective and engaging BL environments. In this ethnographic study, I explore how college students engage with and make sense of technology in the context of their first college course. The participants in this study were mostly non-traditional college students (e.g., low-income, minority, commuter), who are often underrepresented in the digital education literature. Foregrounding student voices (Cook-Sather 2002), I focus my analysis on understanding students’ values and the role of care in the voicing of their experiences in the course.

Methods

The ethnographic design of this study included multiple methods of data collection: 30 classroom observations, four 30-minute semi-structured interviews, and a class survey. Interview questions aimed to explore student experiences with and perceptions of various elements of course design as outlined by the instructor in a teaching journal and course syllabus. A 24 question survey was designed based on the initial themes that emerged in the interviews. Twelve students (44% of the class) participated in the survey. In both the interviews and the survey, students were asked about their previous experiences with digital tools, present course practices, and their overall impression of the course. Some of the open-ended questions included: (1) “How does it make you feel knowing that all your work is continuously shared with your instructor digitally?” (2) “In your opinion, are there any advantages to digital comments over traditional pen and paper comments on your work? Why?” and (3) “In what ways (if any) did you find having a course blog/forum (un)helpful?” Additionally, 15 students volunteered their course work for analysis, and the instructor provided a copy of his teaching journal. To facilitate recruitment, I introduced myself and described the project at the beginning of the course. When asked, none of the students expressed discomfort with my continuous presence in a classroom.

To ensure students’ confidentiality, all recruitment activities and communication were conducted without the instructor’s presence. Informed consent was provided for all research activities. To build a caring and productive relationship with the students, I volunteered to provide feedback on their major writing assignments irrespective of their agreement to participate in the study.

Curriculum

The observed course curriculum represents a supplemental model of BL (Graham 2013). A traditional 15 week 45 hour English composition course was supplemented with a course forum, a digital assignment submission and revision system, and the application of digital tools, such as Prezi. Hosted on Google Sites through an embedded instance of Google Groups, the forum extended classroom space beyond the physical room. According to the instructor, the forum served as a space of modeling and collaborative learning: “In the forum, all of my students have the opportunity to follow each other’s ideas, respond to one another, and collectively generate ideas” (Instructor’s Journal).

Another element of this supplemental model included the use of Google Docs for collaborative annotation of class readings and delivery of digital feedback. Throughout the semester, students shared their work with the instructor through Google Drive folders, which served as their final portfolios. According to the instructor, this assignment submission method and the interactivity of digital feedback, aside from being convenient, reinforced the lessons that writing is a collaborative and continuous process. The instructor required students to use Prezi to compile annotated bibliographies. As a blank canvas, Prezi provided students with the flexibility to organize their sources in ways conceptually meaningful to them while breaking the rigidity of a more traditional alphabetical structure. Overall, this curriculum utilized computer-instruction for both course management and community building purposes, while using particular digital tools for their ability to reinforce lessons about the writing process.

Participants

Twenty-seven students registered for the course. A total of 16 students participated in the study: 12 completed the survey and 4 were interviewed, with no overlap. Nine of the participants were 18; two were 19, and one did not provide their age. Twelve were female and 4 male. Out of the 12 survey participants, 5 (42%) were Latina/Latino, 3 (25%) Caucasian, 3 (25%) Black, and 1 (8%) Mixed race. Five reported working 0 hours per week, while 7 worked between 12 to 35 hours per week.

Overall, they were representative of the college’s freshman class, of whom 43% were male and 57% female, 42% were Hispanic, 25% White, 14% African American, 12% Asian and 1% Native American. Ninety-three percent of the entering class received federal financial aid.[1] Eleven out of 12 students reported having access to a computer and Internet at home. Yet, class observations data showed that only 3 students brought laptops to class and 2 students used tablets. Other students used their mobile phones to engage with digital elements of the course during class time. Out of 16 participants, 4 reported having no prior experience with course websites, 5 reported no prior experience with Prezi, and 3 reported no prior experience with Google Docs. To protect student identities, I use pseudonyms when referring to their responses.

Analysis

Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework for thematic analysis, I employed a data-driven inductive approach to identify themes present in students’ qualitative accounts of their course experiences in the interviews and open-ended survey questions. I focused my analysis on themes associated with student values and elements of the course that they identified as important. While student responses were the primary sources of data, I used field notes and student work to supplement and contextualize these data.

Results

Consistent with existing literature, a majority of participants (15) expressed overall satisfaction with the course. Students found the course to be “outside the box” (Jessica), “very different from any other class” (Maria), and “awesome” (David). A thematic analysis of student experiences revealed that, in their discussion of the digital elements of the course, students tend to put the most emphasis on the elements of care, convenience, and interactivity. Within this analysis, care characterizes students’ interactions with their instructor, convenience is understood as a product of a course designed with careful attention to students’ needs, and interactivity is conceptualized as an opportunity to foster caring relationships among students. Furthermore, a detailed exploration of these themes suggests a complex interaction among the elements of course design, digital tool use, and students’ relational experiences.

Care

The theme of care, broadly speaking, characterizes students’ interactions with their instructor. As a multi-faceted concept, elements of care manifested in the themes of feedback, instructor availability and involvement, and freedom of expression.

Value of Feedback

In online learning environments, students tend to associate timely feedback with care (Zitzman and Leners 2006; Marx 2011). In their interviews, survey responses, and reflective letters (one of the course assignments), students in this study placed value on their ability to receive feedback, suggesting a perceived value of care. When asked about their attitude toward having their work continuously shared online with their instructor, six out of twelve survey respondents mentioned feedback as a key element of this practice. Jean wrote that sharing work online with the instructor “gives me an opportunity to receive feedback.” Similarly, Dana reported being “comfortable [with sharing work] since he is able to always give me feedback.”

Availability and Involvement of the Instructor

Moreover, receiving digital comments and sharing their work online made some students feel like their professor was available and involved, experiences often associated with caring. Expressing that she valued her professors’ availability, Heidi wrote, “he is my first professor but he moves out of his way to meet with us and discuss our papers.” Similarly, Rose noted that digital elements of the course made her feel like the instructor was “very involved in the class” and all the elements of the course were “linked all together.” David clarified this perception of care by interpreting the instructor’s intentions behind digital work: “he probably designed it that way to get a more intimate view of the progress.” According to David, interactive feedback and instructor involvement represented a contrast to the “separate and detached assessment” in other courses. In her survey response, Maria implicitly related digital sharing and comments with care: “I feel like it’s helpful because I know that my instructor is actually reading my work.” Likewise, Bill found digital affordances to be supportive: “it encourages you more when it is so easy to get feedback.” He maintained that the interactivity of digital feedback allowed for an agentic dialogue between him and the instructor, saying that “usually I do respond to his comments or let’s say he’ll have a question and if he is unclear sometime I’ll clarify to him like this is my motive for writing that.” Such dialogue, fostered through digital feedback, became an important experience not only for the students but also for the instructor. In his journal, the instructor noted that digital commenting “emerged as one of the more rewarding digital experiments this semester.” He acknowledged the development of an ongoing dialogue where “students were generally consistent about responding to my feedback in the comment bubbles, and I was therefore able to read their comments and respond yet again” (Instructor’s Journal).

Freedom of Expression

As a part of this dialogue, students valued the freedom of expression that the course’s structure and digital tools fostered. Rose spoke about the freedom of structuring work in Prezi, of it being “like a board so you can zoom out; you can change the shapes of things; you can put many things into that one board, and you can’t do that in a Word document.” David echoed her sentiment, “it’s easy to use; it’s fun the way I can get creative with it, how I want things to connect. When I made an annotated bibliography mine was like the most different from everyone else, like, I saw. Instead of white pages, I had like a galaxy and it was moving around.” Referring to the traditional format of annotated bibliography as “rigid,” Bill stated that, “Prezi allows me to do more because it’s not as rigid as traditional one.”

Valuing freedom of expression also appeared in students’ discussions of the course assignments. In his reflective letter, Peter wrote, “[the proposal] was my favorite project to do because I chose a topic that was very important to me and something that I had an enormous experience with.” When asked about their favorite project, three out of four interviewed students named the literacy narrative, citing its personal nature. Centered on student experiences, the literacy narrative assignment resonated with the students because “it was so personal” (Bill). Bill continued to emphasize that overall the instructor allowed student voices to be heard in the class: “he let’s us voice our own opinions; like today, I shared [an] interview. So I really liked that he like is really open minded and he really listens to all the students in a class.” Juan shared this sentiment in his reflective letter: “I don’t like to participate at all in my other classes, but it was different in this class, you were never really wrong when you said something.”

It is evident from student responses that digital components of the course, namely the digital sharing of work with the instructor and digital commenting, were largely perceived and valued as elements of care. Students valued the opportunity to receive feedback and engage in a dialogue with their instructor. Prompt and interactive feedback afforded by the digital comments was perceived as caring, conveying instructor availability and involvement. Moreover, the emphasis on student expression, whether through digital tools or classroom discussion, can be seen as another element of caring.

Convenience

In addition to these elements of care, students also valued the ease and convenience associated with the digital aspects of the course. In their survey responses, students reported that using Google Docs and the course forum to submit assignments “was easier and more convenient” (Ann) and that it “saved time and money on train rides to [College] and ink” (Beth). Digital submissions made “it easier for me to be able to share my work,” wrote Andrea. For Mary and David, convenience rested on the ability “to type it on the computer and just hand it in through the computer” and to “submit anything at any time,” respectively. While six of the students reported seeing no particular advantages of digital feedback over pen and paper comments, all of the students who found digital feedback more advantageous listed convenience as one of those advantages. With digital comments, students found it easier “to find grammatical errors, spell check, etc.” (Beth) and “to make corrections directly into the work” (Valerie).

While convenience presents itself largely as a utilitarian concept, it can also be conceptualized as an anticipation of students’ needs, a key aspect of caring (Noddings 1984/2003). In this course, the instructor’s knowledge of the student population informed many course design choices, such as requiring digital submissions, providing digital feedback, and avoiding a costly textbook. While reflecting on the digital feedback practices, the instructor wrote, “While time consuming, this structure brings a conversational feel to the revision process without requiring additional in-person work, an important consideration at [Institution], where many students commute long distances and work long hours outside of the school” (Instructor’s Journal). Echoing this sentiment, Rose stated, that “it would take more time for me to go to him and talk to him about the comment and then him reply to me.”

Interactivity and Its Complex Layers

Students also valued the interactivity afforded by the digital elements of the course, a value central to the students’ experiences. Interactivity aids in classroom community building, promoting a caring environment among students. This value represents a complex combination of the perceived communication affordances of the course forum and face-to-face interactions.

Students’ discussions of the course forum focused on communicative and interactive features. For Jessica, having a course forum “made it easier to communicate with the whole class outside of the classroom.” Mary liked “the interaction with everybody.” Reinforcing the value of communication and collaboration, Bill described the course forum as a “really collaborative space.” Similarly, Rose indicated that one of the strengths of the course forum was the ability to share work and “to talk to each other about it.”

From students’ perspectives, the course forum successfully served as a source of modeling and validation. All of the participants valued the ability to see other students’ work to help generate ideas when not sure how to proceed. In her survey response, Linda wrote, “It helped me see everyone’s ideas which I could incorporate into my own.” Similarly, on the forum, Ann was able “to view my classmates’ opinions on the assignment and get a clearer understanding of it.” Beth wrote that, “the course blog helped me do my homework because I got to see examples of others’ before doing mine.” In his interview, David echoed these sentiments: “I do use it to get ideas if I am completely completely stuck.”

Paradoxically, little self-directed collaboration or communication actually occurred on the forum. Communication between students only occurred on the forum when the instructor asked students to comment on each other’s work. Outside of these assignments and contrary to their own responses, students did not engage with the forum as a space for communication. For many, “it was just a homework” (Rose). Further supporting the “just homework” attitude, David responded, “I don’t see it as a thing to reply to; I just see it as just homework.” Because “no one else responds to these posts,” Mary assumed that, “we don’t have to or we should not.” In fact, although students reported communicating with up to 7 classmates sometimes as often as 3 times a week, such communication took the form of emails, text messages, face-to-face communication (in and outside of class), and social media posts. However, none of the 12 students who took the survey listed the course forum as means of communication with their classmates.

Although none of the students reported engaging in self-directed communication with others through the course forum, students reported it as a useful mediator of student interaction that facilitated face-to-face communication. Ten out of 16 participants reported communicating with fellow classmates in person outside of class. Eight of these 10 also reported communicating in class. Some of the students reported that the course forum served as an ice breaker for approaching fellow classmates. For instance, Bill reported that, “sometimes like we will see something on the blog and then we won’t comment about it on the blog directly, but like I’ll see them in class and say ‘hey I really liked your topic.’” He described the forum as giving “us a little bit of incentive especially in like a city school like to communicate more with like your peers.” Similarly, Rose discussed how the course forum allows students to “make friends after a while even by doing homework.” Seeing and engaging with one’s peers’ work online provided a reason to initiate contact “because you are not going to ask someone for their number randomly in class; why would you want my number? So after commenting on your work, you can email them privately if you want and see if you want to meet up.”

Indeed, approximately half of participating students voiced an explicit preference or desire for face-to face communication. For instance, when asked whether in-class peer review can be effectively substituted with an online alternative, 9 out of 13 students responded “No.” Out of those nine, five explicitly stated a preference for face-to-face communication. Beth suggested that online peer review may create more room for miscommunication and would not work “because sometimes you really don’t understand what a person is trying to say.” Bill saw merit in the online peer review model, but still maintained that, overall, face-to-face communication is an important form of classroom interaction because “you are able to see in the class like the emotion of the people or you can see like the enthusiasm of like a person with their topic.” For Bill, the ability to see someone and communicate with them in person corresponded to the ability to “relate to them like physically or their past experience.” The disadvantage of online communication, according to Bill, lies in the potential of losing “your own voice, like the physical voice, not just the words but like someone’s actual personality […] which is why I feel like it’s better to talk in person.”

Overall, students saw perceived interactivity afforded by the course forum as an important part of the course. They emphasized deeply relational aspects of the course design, such as an ability to connect emotionally and intellectually with others. However, at times they contradicted themselves by praising the communicative affordances of the course forum while indicating that they did not engage in self-directed communication through it. Thus, these findings suggest that the true value of the course forum lies in its role as a moderator of student relationships with each other, suggesting its potential effectiveness for building community grounded in mutual caring relationships.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this analysis, I demonstrate how concepts commonly associated with student satisfaction in BL environments can be conceptualized and theorized through the framework of care. Overall, the results of this study are consistent with the existing literature on student satisfaction in BL. For instance, students valued convenience and flexibility, which are almost universally identified as benefits of a blended learning design, both by definition (Graham 2006) and in student responses (e.g., El Mansour and Mupinga 2007). Interactivity — in the form of social presence, community building, and collaboration — represents another element of blended learning commonly linked with student satisfaction and improved outcomes (Garrison 2009; Akyol, Garrison and Orden 2009). However, these findings also reinforce the existing framework of care. Both Noddings (1984/2003) and Rauner (2000) situate care in responsiveness, anticipation of other’s needs, and open dialogue. In this case, the instructor’s pedagogical choices demonstrate an awareness of students’ needs, contributing to students’ perception of convenience. Overall, the instructor created assignments that encouraged interactivity and freedom of expression, building a culture of care and a sense of community in a classroom. These practices resist the static physical design of the classroom and the implications of that design on pedagogy. Care, in turn, represents an important component of student experience by fostering trusting relationships and encouraging student perseverance, particularly in students at risk of dropping out (Cassidy and Bates 2005).

Implications for the Instructors

Emphasizing care in BL course design shifts the discussion from cost effectiveness to human relations. It foregrounds both the importance of considering students’ needs and the deeply relational nature of the learning process, regardless of the mode of delivery. Moreover, emphasizing care takes on greater importance when working with non-traditional college students, particularly first-generation, low-income, and minority students, who might have limited social support. For instance, Roberts and Rosenwald (2001) found that first-generation college students often experience “value clashes and communication difficulties” (99) with their parents, other family members, and friends. These fracturing social relations may take a psychological toll and impact students’ retention. Pedagogies that project care may go a long way in encouraging perseverance by helping these students genuinely engage in the learning process.

In practice, instructors should begin by learning about students’ needs and the local institutional context. Consulting available institutional data and/or conducting a brief survey prior to or during the first week of class to learn about students’ prior experiences with instructional technology, access to technology, and outside-of-class obligations might help instructors adjust their course design to better address the needs of a given class. For example, at CUNY, many students use their cell-phones to engage with the digital elements of their courses (Smale and Regalado 2014). This trend is not surprising considering that CUNY largely serves working class and low-income students. According to Pew Research Center’s project on Internet, Science & Technology, working class and low-income youth often rely solely on a phone data plan for Internet access (Smith 2015). The level of access within a given class, however, may be difficult to predict. In an institution as large and diverse as CUNY, class-level access to technology may vary based on college, time schedule, and program of study, among other factors. Fortunately, in this study, nearly all of the surveyed students had access to the Internet and a computer at home. Yet, throughout the semester, the vast majority of the class as a whole used cell-phones to engage with digital elements of the course during class time. In cases like this, using platforms that are not readily compatible with a wide range of operating systems may impede students’ ability to successfully engage with their class.

Students’ personal access to technology should also be evaluated in light of resources provided by the institution. Digital labs on campus and laptop loan services may supplement personal access, allowing instructors to utilize a larger range of platforms. Moreover, students themselves may be unaware that such programs exist, and instructors can bridge gaps between institutional affordances and students’ awareness. Nevertheless, an instructor teaching an evening class, for example, where most students work full time should be mindful of some students’ inability to take advantage of campus resources. Thus, a care-centric pedagogy must always specifically engage with the context of the individual classroom as well as the local institution.

Instructors can foster interactivity and build community by designing assignments and choosing platforms that promote an open dialogue among the students and extend interactive classroom spaces rather than digitally replicating individualistic, isolationist homework. In this study, students did not actively engage in the forum as a communication platform, but were able to relate each other’s posts to classroom discussions, a practice potentially fostered by the free choice of study topics. In other words, a successful BL curriculum accounts for the interdependence of various elements of the course, where the ethics of care and strong pedagogical principles are supplemented and reinforced by digital tools, but not replaced by them. The potential effectiveness of such a curriculum reaches beyond the immediate learning objectives of a course and may contribute to college success and degree completion. Developing a pedagogy of care offers great potential to foster student development, and blended learning environments possess substantial affordances to develop and enhance such a pedagogy.

Notes

[1] These statistics are taken from a report by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, but to ensure the confidentiality of the participants, the name of the college and relevant documents can be revealed only upon request to the author.

Bibliography

Akkoyunlu, Buket, and Meryem Yilmaz-Soylu. 2008. “A Study of Student’s Perceptions in a Blended Learning Environment Based on Different Learning Styles.” Educational Technology & Society 11, no. 1: 183-193.

Akyol, Zehra, D. Randy Garrison, and M. Yasar Ozden. 2009. “Online and Blended Communities of Inquiry: Exploring the Developmental and Perceptional Differences.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 10, no. 6: 65-83.

Bonk, Curtis J., Tatana M. Olson, Robert A. Wisher, and Kara L. Orvis. 2002. “Learning from Focus Groups: An Examination of Blended Learning.” International Journal of E- Learning & Distance Education 17, no. 3: 97-118.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2: 77-101.

Cassidy, Wanda, and Anita Bates. 2005. “‘Drop-Outs’ and “Push-Outs’: Finding Hope at a School That Actualizes the Ethic of Care.” American Journal of Education 112, no. 1: 66-102.

Cook-Sather, Alison. 2002. “Authorizing Students’ Perspectives: Toward Trust, Dialogue, and Change in Education.” Educational Researcher 31, no. 4: 3-14.

Deacon, Andrea. 2012. “Creating a Context of Care in the Online Classroom.” The Journal of Faculty Development 26, no. 1: 5-12.

Dziuban, Charles, Patsy D. Moskal, George R. Bradford, Jay Brophy-Ellison, and Amanda T. Groff. 2010. “Constructs that Impact the Net Generation’s Satisfaction with Online Learning.” In Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age, edited by Rhona Sharpe, Helen Beetham, and Sara De Freitas, 56-71, New York: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R. 2009. “Communities of Inquiry in Online Learning.” Encyclopedia of Distance Learning 2: 352-355.

Goldstein, Lisa S. 2002. Reclaiming Caring in Teaching and Teacher Education. Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Graham, Charles R. 2006. “Blended Learning Systems.” In The Handbook of Blended Learning, edited by Curtis J. Bonk and Charles R. Graham, 3-21. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Graham, Charles R. 2013. “Emerging Practice and Research in Blended Learning.” In Handbook of Distance Education, edited by Michael G. Moore, 333-350. New York: Routledge.

Halverson, Lisa R., Charles R. Graham, Kristian J. Spring, Jeffery S. Dziuban, and Charles Drysdale. 2012. “An Analysis of High Impact Scholarship and Publication Trends in Blended Learning.” Distance Education 33, no. 3: 381-413.

El Mansour, Bassou, and Davison M. Mupinga. 2007. “Students’ Positive and Negative Experiences in Hybrid and Online Classes” College Student Journal 41, no. 1: 242.

Marx, Gina R. 2011. “Student and Instructor Perceptions of Care in Online Graduate Education: A Mixed Methods Case Study.” PhD diss., Wichita State University.

Moore, Janet C. 2005. “A Synthesis of Sloan-C effective Practices.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9, no. 3: 5-73.

Noddings, Nel. 1984/2003. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. University of California.

Noddings, Nel. 2013. Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. University of California Press.

Norberg, Anders, Charles D. Dziuban, and Patsy D. Moskal. 2011. “A Time-Based Blended Learning Model.” On the Horizon 19, no. 3: 207-216.

Osguthorpe, Russell T., and Charles R. Graham. 2003. “Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4, no. 3: 227-33.

Rauner, Diana Mendley. 2000. They Still Pick Me Up When I Fall: The Role of Caring in Youth Development and Community Life. Columbia University Press.

Roberts, Scott J. and George C. Rosenwald. 2001. “Ever Upward and No Turning Back: Social Mobility and Identity Formation among First-Generation College Students.” In Turns in the Road: Narrative Studies of Lives in Transition, edited by Don P. McAdams, Ruthellen Josselson, and Amia Lieblich, 91-119 Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rothmund, Constance A. 2008. “Correlation Between Course Interactivity and Reported Levels of Student Satisfaction in Hybrid Courses.” PhD diss., Capella University, 2008.

Sitzman, Kathleen, and Debra Woodard Leners. 2006. “Student Perceptions of Caring in Online Baccalaureate Education.” Nursing Education Perspectives 27, no. 5: 254-259.

Smale, Maura A., and Mariana Regalado. 2014. “Commuter Students Using Technology.” Educause Review Online.

Smith, Aaron. 2015. “US Smartphone Use in 2015.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 13th, 2017 from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/03/PI_Smartphones_0401151.pdf

Tronto, Joan C. 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Psychology Press.

Vignare, Karen. 2007. “Review of Literature, Blended Learning: Using ALN to Change the Classroom—Will It Work.” Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. 37-63.

About the Author

Karyna Pryiomka is a doctoral student in the Social/Personality Psychology PhD program and has earned the Interactive Technology and Pedagogy Graduate Certificate at the Graduate Center, CUNY. Drawing on the history of psychology and the philosophy of science, Karyna’s research interests include the relationship between psychological assessments and education policy, validity theory, and the qualitative/quantitative divide in social science research. Her dissertation will explore the relationships among the various forms of evidence that inform college admission decisions. Karyna brings these interests and a blend of critical and digital pedagogies into her teaching of psychology and statistical methods courses at CUNY.

Skip to toolbar