How to Engage First Year Undergraduate Students: a blended learning approach

Investigations
in university teaching and learning
vol. 6 (1) spring 2010
ISSN 1740-5106
How to Engage First Year Undergraduate Students:
a blended learning approach
Sarah Hosken
Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Languages & Education
Amanda Wilson-Kennard
Teaching Learning and Technology Centre
London Metropolitan University
Keywords: blended learning, discussion, feedback, transition, engagement
Theme
This paper sets out to share a blended learning story. As the tutors built up their
technical skills and became confident and committed Blackboard users, so did their
first year students benefit from the increased learning opportunities and were
supported to:
a) Feel more connected to the learning community;
b) Develop self-confidence as learners;
c) Achieve positive outcomes on the course.
Context
This study was developed around the experiences of two intersecting learning
communities; one of two female members of staff, and another of a first year cohort
of B.Ed. Early Years Teaching students and their tutor. One of the members of staff
was new to lecturing and a novice in the use of virtual learning environments, while
the other was in her fifth year in employment at the university and had a particular
expertise in learning technologies. These two members of staff were also fellow
students on the P.G. Cert. in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The
students who took part in the study were all females from a range of cultural
backgrounds, mostly first generation university attendees between the ages of
eighteen and twenty three years. The virtual features referred to in this paper are
available in the Blackboard learning management system. The tutors were required
to adhere to the university-wide blended learning strategy, and to develop the
virtual components of their courses in order to provide an enhanced learning
experience for their cohorts.
Rationale
The highest dropout rate at university is during the first year of study. The purpose
65
of this investigation is to explore different methods for supporting first year
undergraduate students with their learning, and guiding them through their
transition to university. This study seeks to search for some solutions to this issue
through blended approaches to learning and teaching.
Transition to University
First year university undergraduate students go through a significant transition in
their lives. The extent to which they are affected by the change is dependent on a
diverse set of personal, cultural, demographic and other factors. In order for
learning to take place this transition needs to be as seamless and smooth as possible,
with students feeling comfortable, “at home”, supported and safe. This sentiment is
expressed by Ackerman who, citing Baron, states that “… for learners to focus on
the acquisition of skills and knowledge and not the mechanics of support materials
… a sense of comfort is critical.” (Ackerman, 2006, p.21) The authors believe that
knowledge is socially constructed to a large extent and built up within learning
communities. These themes will be developed throughout this paper. For now,
however, readers need to recall their own transition to academia. What were the
challenges? How did it feel? Where could help be obtained from? When, if at all,
could one expect to feel confident in and accepted by the new community?
Methodology
Blackboard Teaching Tools
Researchers used the Blackboard tracking tools to quantify student access to the
learning platform and identify the most frequent users within the cohort. They
looked in particular at the two second semester modules led by one of the
researchers. One of these modules included an offsite professional placement
experience, which involved a threaded discussion. Both modules included a written
assessment for which students were offered formative feedback on their draft
assignments using the Blackboard assessment tool. Transcripts of the threaded
discussions were also closely analysed to discover features of communication styles.
The students in question were invited to meet with the researchers to discuss their
use of and attitudes towards the virtual facility.
Student Use of the Learning Management System
Most students reported that their use of Blackboard increased over time. Possible
reasons for this may have been, firstly, that some students found it difficult to access
from home in the early stages, and secondly, they may have felt no urgent necessity
to develop their learning in greater depth. One student reported that they initially
felt as if there was “a lot to get my head around” and that there appeared no
obvious need to use WebLearn since neither was it essential to progression nor was
66
success on the module dependant upon it. Other students admitted that their ability
to navigate the platforms was limited in the early stages, hindered by their lack of
skills or comfort in its use. “It takes time”, one student said, and “It has grown on
me”, said another. Initially students used the virtual learning spaces simply to open
module handbooks, access attached resources, to be linked to key documents and
sites, to catch up with sessions missed or to read announcements. As the year
progressed, however, and tutors used the platform more broadly and referred to it
more frequently in sessions, students increased their use of it. The key motivation
for all students was to gain support in preparing for assignments.
Knowledge Construction within Learning Communities
Blended Learning and Not Distance Learning
This paper adopts a Vygotskian approach. The authors believe that learning is
deepened by the sensitive, skilled intervention of others within the learning
community. As Bober and Dennen point out, “the tools alone do not result in an
effective learning environment.” (2001, p. 242). Learning is less about the transfer of
knowledge from the tutor to the student and more about the sharing of skills and
knowledge within diverse communities and particular contexts.
Supporting Individual Learning Styles
The authors believe, along with Keller (2008), that it is important to tailor the
provision to the particular needs of the students in question. In other words, rather
than establish a specific set of learning and teaching routines, it is best to study the
needs of the particular audience in question and tailor the provision accordingly. As
Keller (2008:180) points out, it is important “… to support a problem-solving
approach to determining what motivational gaps exist in a given situation and then
prescribing appropriate strategies rather than prescribing selected motivational
tactics to improve instruction without regards to the situational characteristics.”
Aspen and Helm also stress the importance of being “guided by the student voice”.
(Aspen, 2004, p.247) Similarly, the module tutor in this case changed her approach
on an ongoing basis according to evaluations, student ‘take-up’ levels and growing
knowledge of the individual learning needs of the cohort.
Students declared that they appreciated the individualised approach and flexible
opportunities afforded by blended learning. One student who declared a personal
difficulty with note-taking explained that through blended learning he was able to
read the tutor’s comments on their work at his leisure, as often as necessary and at
any time of the day or night. The asynchronous discussions proved particularly
beneficial to shy students, echoing Graham’s position, as cited in Ackerman (2006,
p.24): “Many times a shy participant in class will come to life on line, in an
67
asynchronous mode where he/she takes advantage of extended processing time
before responding to a question.”
Unsure students are able to spend more time thinking and building up their selfconfidence. All learners in this study appreciated the opportunities for flexible
learning routines, able to access all key materials for as long as necessary and at
home if preferred. One learner particularly benefited from the week-by-week
organisation of the materials on each platform, which enabled them to cross-check
each set of session notes with the contents in the ‘learning module’.
Learning through Asynchronous Discussions
Bober and Dennan explored the relative advantages of synchronous and
asynchronous discussions and found the synchronous type to be more problematic
in virtual spaces. They noted, inter alia, that in synchronous chat situations
comments sometimes cross each other simultaneously denying participants the
option of taking a fresh point into consideration; competent typists can dominate
the discussion; students can experience the timed, themed discussions as contrived;
and there is minimal opportunity for supporting ‘peripheral’ participants (Bober &
Dennan, p.245), namely those who linger silently and whose learning may be more
apparent through their bodily responses in face-to-face situations. The authors
suggest that synchronous discussions take place more fruitfully during face-to-face
opportunities for learning. They propose that asynchronous threaded discussions,
skilfully facilitated and moderated by the tutor, are more effective in enabling group
knowledge construction.
The majority of the students interviewed used the threaded discussion tool. They
claimed that it helped them to feel less isolated during block professional placement
experience in a range of London-wide settings. One student declared that taking
part in the discussion helped to ensure that “you didn’t feel like you were on your
own as much” and that you could offer and share ideas and advice with the other
members of the group. It made a difference to students to know that their questions
and comments were responded to. Some student used the tool to seek ideas for
sessions on a particular theme, for example, and felt supported when they received
one or more responses. Students also appreciated the opportunity to offer support
to their peers and find out about their progress and wellbeing.
The above are examples of how students developed a sense of belonging to the new
culture in which they found themselves at university. Aspen (2004, p. 249) stresses
the importance of students acquiring a “sense of being at university” even when they
are off-campus and “… are not looking to measure the effects of any interactions in
terms of gains in learning outcomes. What we are instead examining are the
properties of the blended environment that enable or facilitate interaction and the
making of connections.”
68
Even when learners were physically apart from each other they could meet socially.
Students claimed that through participating in the threaded discussions they learned
that others experienced some of the same issues as they did; gained a sense that
each student was “in the same boat”; felt increasingly empowered to offer their own
opinions and help their peers; and were able to continue to work as a group in a
live, virtual space even though they were unable to meet in an actual location.
Analysis of Transcripts
Community Building Through Asynchronous Discussions
The researchers analysed the threaded discussion transcripts. Ziegler, Paulus and
Woodside (2006) carried out a similar analysis with a postgraduate cohort. They
used the transcripts as ‘artifacts of the dialogic meaning-creation process’ (Ziegler,
et al, p. 298) and sought to discover what happened to their most active learning
group as they dialogued online. They held the underlying belief that “social
interaction and interpersonal relationships are a necessary part of learning” (ibid.,
p.296) and that ‘groups create knowledge’ (ibid., p.297). They discovered that their
group used inclusive language as they developed their cohesive identity. The authors
identified real learning potential in threaded discussions and went so far as to
propose that “face-to-face discussion groups rarely demonstrate the depth of
engagement observed in this online group.” (Ibid. p. 314) The implication is that
course designers should tap into this online potential for community building,
engagement and knowledge creation.
The authors of this paper discovered that the language within the threaded text was
informal and friendly. Students usually addressed the whole cohort unless they
named a particular student with a specific request or message. Opening greetings to
the group included: “Hi All”, “Hi, everyone”, and “Hello everyone”. The messages
were positive and supportive, with a genuine tone of optimism and spirit of
collegiality. Messages included such phrases as “Good luck Mate”, “All the best”,
“Good luck with your observations”, “Well done” and “Wish you all a very good
placement”. Students sent out spontaneous sentiments, often in text message or
spoken style, such as “placement is going fab”. The informal language was further
evidence of a growing sense of community developing amongst these first year
students.
It is important to point out that the course tutor was also present in the threaded
discussions. Their involvement, however, was only minimal, to acknowledge
comments or offer specific support on request. The tutor promptly responded to all
initial remarks and frequently interspersed comments in a short, encouraging style.
This was in tune with the manner suggested by Ackerman (2006, p. 23): namely that
tutors offer immediate responses to postings to assure learners that they see the
69
product and will get back to them. The students then followed from the modelled
approach in an informal, co-supporting, peer-encouraging fashion. If the tutor had
intervened too much there may have been a danger that the learners reverted back
to more private, less public community building means of support, such as Facebook
or mobile phone communication.
Emotional Well-Being and Success
Phrases used frequently referred to feelings, including sentiments such as “Don’t
worry”, “I am pleased” and “I feel like I’m on top of the world”. This is in line with
Keller’s (2008, p.177) fourth principle of motivation to learn, namely that “when
learners anticipate and experience satisfying outcomes to a learning task [they] have
positive feelings about their learning experiences”. The transcripts also provided
evidence of students’ development as professionals. Messages referred to children’s
levels of engagement in particular activities or students’ plans to extend children’s
learning through planned pursuits. These transcripts provide some evidence that
particular learners used the online threaded discussion to offer mutual support to
each other. Students wrote informal, quick messages to seek help, offer guidance
and keep at bay any sense of isolation. Messages were often written in text
messaging style with ‘emoticons’ (Salmon, 2002, p. 150) - arrays of punctuation
marks signifying different standard emotions. In these ways, the asynchronous
discussions brought students into the shelter of the University ‘cyber quad’. As
these students built up a sense of online solidarity, they developed as reflective
professionals.
This group all achieved high grades for their professional placement experience. The
threaded tools led not only to an enhanced sense of well-being but also to high
outcomes on the course. This result mirrors a similar study conducted earlier by
Melton, Gras and Chopak-Foss who found that “students enrolled in the blended
sections achieved higher in final course grades”. (Melton et al, 2009, p.10).
Better than Facebook
This group of high Blackboard users declared a preference for Blackboard over
Facebook. One student disclosed that they found Facebook “addictive” and as
“wasting too much time” and so “had to come off it”. Another student experienced
intrusive and unwelcome messages through Facebook and so had ceased to use it.
There were serious issues of security and opportunities for bullying with Facebook
that this student found “upsetting”. All students in this group categorised Facebook
as having a social rather than academic function and confirmed that Blackboard was
easier to work with.
70
Issues of Inclusion
Facebook was also described in non-inclusive terms. Students affirmed that a
number of their group “were not on it”. The reasons for this may be cultural and
further studies could investigate this possibility. However, within the limitations of
this small piece of research, Blackboard was shown to be the preferred meeting
point for students on professional placement experience. It became their university
meeting place, or ‘cyber-quad’ as they continued to build up networks of friends and
develop a sense of collegiate belonging to their new, academic community.
Gaining Confidence from Formative Online Feedback
Students found formative feedback given within Blackboard helpful once they had
acquired the technical skills and mastered the operational steps involved in attaching
and retrieving their draft assignments. Their motivation for using the facility was to
gain formative feedback directly from the tutor in order to make improvements on
their work, or simply to be encouraged and reassured that they were “on the right
track”. Some student remarked that they found this means of tutor support more
advantageous than the face-to-face tutorials. With online feedback there was no
need to book an appointment or go through the whole assignment in one go.
“When I go to tutorials,” said the student “I feel I have to go through the whole
assignment in twenty minutes!” Another student commented that with online
feedback there was no need to record or remember everything that the tutor said
since it was all saved.
Online feedback enabled some students to work on assignments chunk by chunk as
they mastered how to meet learning outcomes and develop an appropriate
academic style of writing.
Online feedback offered these students the opportunity to play with their
assignments over time - moving, inserting or cutting words and paragraphs as
necessary. It supported them to acquire crucial editing skills. Students commented
that they were able to go backwards and forwards and refer to the tutor’s
comments as often as necessary. There was also evidence that this learning would
be sustained, with some students commenting that they kept annotated drafts in
sequence for reference with further assignments. Students thus claimed to be
looking beyond the assignment in question and then to be using the feedback as part
of their long-term acclimatisation into academic ways of working. In short, the
online feedback supported students to gain confidence as writers and thereby a
greater sense of belonging to the academic community.
Implications for Future Practice
As the authors developed their fluency in virtual learning and virtual teaching
methods so too did they apply their growing range of skills to the Blackboard
learning platform. Their desire to raise student participation in this mode of learning
was no longer triggered by the University wide strategy for blended learning, but by
71
their own conviction. They came to witness for themselves the advantages of using
asynchronous discussions and online feedback tools with their own cohort and
resolved, with the next cohort of first year undergraduates, to begin the process
from their earliest encounters with them. Tutors therefore planned to begin the
new academic year with the same momentum that they had developed by the end of
the first year and continue their own learning journeys thereafter. In future, they
would embed tailored support for students within the content of all sessions so that
students learn on the platform within the face-to-face sessions and witness the
processes involved for opening tools, accessing learning modules or engaging in
threaded discussions.
The students interviewed suggested that tutors give an initial step-by-step guide to
navigating the Blackboard learning platform. They also recommended that existing
students offer encouragement to new students and point them to ways of engaging
with blended learning. The researchers plan this encounter at the earliest
opportunity in the new academic year.
Limitations of the Study and Conclusions
The conclusions of this small study cannot be translated or applied to all university
cohorts. The findings relate exclusively to a small, diverse group of undergraduate
students on an Early Years teaching course, using a particular commercial learning
management system within a changing, urban institution. The key findings, however,
can be useful for other course tutors to test out in their own cases. The main
conclusions are built on the belief that learning is constructed within communities
and can be summarised as follows:
• There is likely to be a direct link between students’ sense of well-being and
successful outcomes on courses, and that the more smoothly first year students
make the transition to university culture, partly through engagement with
supported online learning, the more likely they are to remain on the course and
succeed
• Face to face learning communities can effectively be strengthened through online,
virtual communication
• There is likely to be a direct link between tutor self-confidence and level of
fluency with the use of virtual learning environments and student engagement
with it
Possible Areas for Further Study
As each new technology is adopted by subsequent cohorts of students we might ask
what happens to older forms of technology. Students are now using a variety of
methods to collaborate and communicate with their teachers and peers including
discussion forums, blogs and text messaging. SMS (Short Message Service) now
appears to be the preferred medium as it is quicker, but texting has for some time
taken over from emails. Prensky (part 1, 2001) has described students as “digital
72
natives” who are used to receiving information quickly. They like to “parallel
process” and “multi-task”, so tutors need to adapt to these trends and to attempt
to accommodate students’ needs accordingly by introducing alternative teaching
methods.
The language used for texting is appearing in email and letters, with shortcut text
and emoticons used to convey feelings and ideas. What will be the implications of
these changes for educators and teachers in the future? How will they support
community building? How will they change learning? Future studies could look at the
evolving language of digital natives, how it changes over time and how students
communicate and develop their learning through these media.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, A. S. (2007), ‘Blended Learning Ingredients: A Cooking Metaphor’, Journal of
Instruction Delivery Systems; Vol 22 (Edition No 3), pp 21-24
Aspen, L. & Helm, P. (2004), ‘Making the Connection in a Blended Learning Environment,
Educational Media International; ISSN 1469-5790, pp 244-252
Bober, M. J. & Dennen, V. P. (2001), ‘Intersubjectivity: Facilitating Knowledge Construction
in Online Environments’, Education Media International; ISSN 1469-5790, pp 241-250
Keller, J. M. (2008), ‘First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning; Distance
Education; Vol 29 (Edition No 2), pp 175-185
Melton, B. Graf, H & Chopak-Foss, J. (2009) ‘Achievement and Satisfaction in Blended
Learning versus Traditional General Health Course Designs’, International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching; Vol 3 (Edition No 1), pp 1-13
Prensky, M. (2001). ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’. Available:
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf (Accessed 16 April
2009).
Salmon, G. (2002), ‘The five stage framework and e-tivities’, in: E-tivities: The key to active
online learning, London, Kogan Page
Ziegler, M., Paulus, T. & Woodside, M. (2006). Creating a Climate of Engagement in a Blended
Learning Environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 295-318.
Biographical Notes
Sarah Hosken, (MA, BEd Hons, EYPS) worked as an Early Years teacher and leader in a
range of London settings and most recently as an Early Years Consultant for a local
authority. She joined London Metropolitan University in 2008 to lead a newly designed,
three-year undergraduate degree preparing students to become Early Years teachers
within culturally and linguistically diverse, urban settings. Sarah continues to lead
workshops and support practice in her part time role as Early Years Problem Solving
Reasoning and Numeracy Consultant for a local authority.
[email protected]
73
Amanda Kennard-Wilson was formerly a Learning Technologist in the Teaching and
Learning Technology Centre of London Metropolitan University. She has been involved in
a number of diverse projects from e-learning development, pedagogic instructional design
and blended learning issues and provides e-Learning technical support. For further
information please see her website at http://amanda.webergy.co.uk/
74