“It’s the Combination That Works”: Evaluating Student Experiences with a Multi-element Blended Design in First-year Law

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 4, 405 - 422, 16.10.2018

Ekaterina Pechenkina Amanda Scardamaglia Janet Gregory

https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.471019

Öz

This mixed method study involved twenty students enrolled in three consecutive
intakes of an Australian Bachelor of Laws program’s introductory unit. Pioneering
a multi-element blended design, the unit featured three key elements: summary
videos, self-test online quizzes and interactive discussion boards. These
elements were chosen based on evidence-based research into digital tools found
effective in enhancing students’ face-to-face learning experience in blended
and fully online designs. The study’s main goal was to evaluate how students
utilized these elements and in what ways their previous experiences with
blended designs influenced their learning process in this unit. A focus-group
and online surveys were used to collect data. Based on literature review, four
areas of student experience with this blended designs formed a particular focus
of this study: student expectations, support, resources, and collaboration. It
was found that students extensively used videos and quizzes for catch-up,
revision, and clarification, while discussion boards were not perceived as
useful, with students preferring to have discussions face-to-face, in and out
of classroom. Findings also indicated that students’ expectations of and
previous experiences with blended learning can be leveraged to strengthen
blended designs.   

Anahtar Kelimeler

Blended learning, Videos, Quizzes, Discussion boards, Law program, Student experiences

Kaynakça

• Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 440-454.
• Balslev, T., De Grave, W.S., Muijtjens, A.M., Scherpbier, A. J. (2005). Comparison of text and video cases in a postgraduate problem‐based learning format. Medical Education, 39, 1086-1092.
• Bashman, J. & Treadwell, T. (1995) Assessing in the effectiveness of a psychodrama training video. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry, 48, 61-68.
• Brook, I. & Beauchamp, G. (2015). A study of final year education studies undergraduate students’ perceptions of blended learning within a higher education course. Educational Futures: E-journal of the British Education Studies Association, 7, 18-38.
• Carpenter, S.K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 279-283.
• Chatfield, K.S. (2010). Content “loading’ in hybrid/ blended learning. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved on 18 May 208 from http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium. org/effective_practices/content-quotloadingquot-hybridblended-learning.
• Chen, C.M. & Wu, C.H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108-121.
• Chen, W.S. & Yao, A.Y.T. (2016). An empirical evaluation of critical factors influencing learner satisfaction in blended learning: A pilot study. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4, 1667-1671.
• Cherrett, T., Wills, G., Price, J., Maynard, S., & Dror, I. E. (2009). Making training more cognitively effective: Making videos interactive. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 1124-1134.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
• Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. Retrieved on 18 May 2018 from https://www-07.ibm.com/services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf
• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., & Middleton, E.L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 551-565.
• Fearing, N., Bachman, S., Holzman, M., Scott, D., & Brunt, M. (2010). Evaluation of a video-based curriculum for laparoscopic biliary surgery: A pilot study from the SAGES MIS Web Learning Center. Surgical endoscopy, 24, 3141-3143.
• Fox, R. (2014). The rise of open and blended learning. In K. L. Cheong and K. S. Yuen (Eds.), 28th Annual Conference of the Asian Association of Open Universities. Hong Kong SAR, China, 93-103.
• Garrison, R.D. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potentail in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
• Garrison, R.D. & Vaughan, N.D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 24-28.
• Ginns, P. & Ellis, R. (2007), Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 53-64.
• Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems. Definitions, current trends and future directions In C. Bonk and C. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
• Guo, P.J., Kim, J. & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@Scale Conference (pp.41-50). ACM.
• Halverson, L.R., Graham, C.R., Spring, K.J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20-34.
• Hansch, A., Hillers, L., McConachie, K., Newman, C., Schildhauer, T., & Schmidt, J.P. (2015). Video and online Learning: Critical reflections and findings from the field. Discussion paper 2015-02 - HIIG Discussion Paper series, Alexander von Humboldt Institut Fur Internet Und Gesellschaft. Retrieved on 18 May 2018 from http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577882.
• Hartwig, M.K. Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 126-134.
• Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G. et al. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308-319.
• Hwang, A. Arbaugh, J.B. (2009). Seeking feedback in blended learning: competitive versus cooperative student attitudes and their links to learning outcome. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 280-293.
• Loch, B., Jordan, C.R., Lowe, T.W., Mestel, B. (2014). Do screencasts help to revise prerequisite mathematics? An investigation of student performance and perception. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45, 256-268.
• McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 729-740.
• McGee, P. (2014). Blended course design: Where's the pedagogy? International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 6, 33-55.
• Mitra ,B., Lewin‐Jones, J., Barrett, H. et al. (2010). The use of video to enable deep learning. Research in Post‐Compulsory Education, 15, 405-414.
• Moore, N. & Gilmartin, M. (2010). Teaching for better learning: A blended learning pilot project with first-year geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34, 327-344.
• O'Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal, 605-613.
• Oliver, M. & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-learning and Digital Media, 2, 17-26.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002a). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002b). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry a personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1, 261-283.
• Picciano ,A. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 5, 4-14.
• Pombo, L. & Moreira, A. (2012). Evaluation framework for blended learning courses: A puzzle piece for the evaluation process. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3), 201-211.
• Roediger, H.L. & Butler, A.C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20-27.
• Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18, 380-393.
• Wanner, T. & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers & Education, 88, 354-369.
• Wissman, K.T., Rawson, K.A., & Pyc, M.A. (2011). The interim test effect: Testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1140-1147.
• Yin, R.K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Zaka, P. (2013). A case study of blended teaching and learning in a New Zealand secondary school, using an ecological framework. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 17, 24-40.