Effects on student participation and learning...Prevost, L., Riley, N., & Domizi, D. (2012). The...
Transcript of Effects on student participation and learning...Prevost, L., Riley, N., & Domizi, D. (2012). The...
Effects on student participation and learning
L. Larson, N. Hurt, M. Camus, & L. Prevost
Based on papers in International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning (2012) and College Teaching (in press)
Introduction
As course loads and enrollments rise, how do we encourage students to actively engage with classmates and course materials?
Particularly problematic for online courses
Possible solution: Meet students where they are.
Why Facebook?
As of September 2015, Facebook has 1.6 billion active users around the world (Facebook, 2015)
About 97% of college students have a Facebook account (Smith & Caruso, 2010).
Despite rumors that “Facebook is dead,” numbers suggest otherwise:
Why Facebook?
Facebook is obviously widely utilized by college students, but how does it affect students’ academic performance?
Arguments that Facebook is a distraction?
Arguments for Facebook as a potential teaching and learning tool?
Research Goals
Compare Facebook to a conventional, university-sponsored online learning management system (eLC)…
Research Question: How does participation affect:
Students’ preferences (perceptions, attitudes, perceived learning) for each online discussion forum
Outcomes (participation/engagement, demonstrated learning outcomes, overall performance) associated with each online discussion forum
Research Methods Online discussion assignment (worth 8% of total
grade) in 2 sections of 2 different courses (about 30 students per class, mostly 1st or 2nd year)
Introduction to Women’s Studies (WMST)
Introduction to Philosophy (PHIL)
1 section in each course used Facebook groups, the other used eLC discussion threads
Prior to implementation, we administered trainings to model forum functionality and address potential concerns regarding fear of privacy invasion and information sharing
Facebook Interface
Instructor
Student 2
Student 3
Student 1
eLC Interface
Research Methods Phase 1 (Preferences): Pre & post-course surveys
Background information on students and previous experiences using internet-based technologies
Identify preferences for, attitudes, toward, and perceived learning associated with online discussion in both eLC and Facebook
Phase 2 (Outcomes): Student participation (and associated outcomes) in Facebook & eLC discussion groups
Multiple coders read student responses after the semsesterand assess different aspects of engagement, learning outcomes, and performance
About the Sample
61.5% of participants have a smart phone Ease of navigation* = 6.29 ± .25
97.5% of participants use eLC Ease of navigation* = 5.53 ± .22
98.3% of participants have a Facebook account Ease of navigation* = 6.32 ± .21
Facebook Group eLC Group
Total # of Students 57 61
Gender (% Female) 64.9 67.2
Year (% Freshmen & Sophomore) 78.9 70.5
Mean GPA 3.17 ± .09 3.30 ± .10
Majors Represented 37 39
% Taken Class w/ Online Discussion 47.5 65.0
Navigation Scale ranged from 1=very uncomfortable to 7=very comfortable
About the Sample Facebook = most frequently used online tool
0 20 40 60 80
Personal Email
eLC
Technology Use Frequency
4+ times/day
1-3 times/day
< Once/day
Never
% of Students Using
N = 118
BEST Discussion StrategiesStrategy LIKE the Most LEARN the Most
In-class discussion led by professor 91.5 % 94.0 %
In-class small group work 29.9 % 36.8 %
In-class discussion led by peers 26.5 % 28.2 %
Journal writing 17.9 % 10.3 %
Online discussion generated by professor 15.4 % 17.1 %
Strategy LIKE the Least LEARN the Least
Out-of-class small group work 60.7 % 47.0 %
Journal writing 36.8 % 37.6 %
Online discussion generated by professor 32.5 % 28.2 %
Online discussion generated by peers 26.5 % 41.9 %
In-class small group work 26.5 % 29.9 %
WORST Discussion Strategies
Note: Students could select 2 in each category
Note: Students could select 2 in each category
Results: Student Preferences
ATTITUDES Toward Online Discussions
VALUE of Online Discussions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I contribute, it helps ME learn
When my peers contribute, it helps ME learn
When I contribute, it helps MY PEERS learn
AgreeDisagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Online discussions should be part of every course
I enjoy participating in online discussions
Disagree Agree
Results: Student Preferences
Preferred
Discussion Format
Percentage of
Student Responses
Classroom/in-person 71.4%
Online 23.5%
Group work outside class 5.0%
One-on-one with instructor 1.7%
Open-ended responses
Students who preferred online liked the fact that is was comfortable, convenient and anonymous. They also liked the absence of time constraints (more time to think).
Results: Student Preferences
Discussion Format Facebook Group eLC Group
In-class discussion led by
professor+0.41 -0.17
In-class discussion led by peers +1.23*** +0.34
Out-of-class small group work +1.54*** +0.27
Online discussion boards
(formal, instructor generated)+1.73*** -0.74
Online discussion boards
(informal, peer generated)+1.86*** -0.70
Pre-post Score Changes in Comfort Level Ratings for Different Discussion Strategies by WMST Students (n = 45)
Results: Student Preferences
*,**,*** denote significance of paired t-test at alpha = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.
NOTE: Significant differences were only observed in 1 category for PHIL: Students
in eLC became more comfortable with formal, instructor-generated online
discussion boards
Student Ratings of Perceived Outcomes, by Course and Treatment Group
Results: Student Preferences
Conclusions – Phase 1 Students often respond negatively to online discussion
Facebook can help alter this dynamic by…
Capitalizing on a forum that is familiar and convenient
Generating a positive social interactions and affective responses… in some contexts! (e.g., WMST, but not PHIL)
Potential concerns to consider:
Work and play shouldn’t mix (some view Facebook as distraction from scholarly work)
Ambiguous boundaries between personal and professional relationships (unanticipated or undesired interactions)
Privacy settings and security
Results: Outcome Assessment
Outcome #1: Participation
Total Posts, Length of Post
Type of Post (instructor initiated, novel student-initiated, response to student, post acknowledging previous discussion, post prompting further discussion, extracurricular); not mutually exclusive
eLC Facebook
Total # of Posts 498 1056
Effective Sample Size for Student Posts
446 819
Length of Post (mean no. of words) 174 80
Novel student-initiated posts (%) 5% 23%
Direct responses to instructor (%) 75% 17%
Direct responses to students (%) 21% 71%
Acknowledged previous discussion (%) 46% 85%
Prompted further discussion (%) 22% 69%
Online Discussion Participation in WMST
Note: All Χ2 difference tests significant at α = 0.05)
Results: Outcome Assessment
Outcome #2: Achievement of Learning Goals
Dialogue – ability to interact with others in civil and constructive manner
Application – ability to use knowledge to craft compelling argument
Integration – ability to connect course material to situations not discussed in class
eLC* Facebook*
WMST n=28 n=24
Dialogue 0.40 0.72
Application 0.78 0.67
Integration 0.80 0.71
PHIL n=35 n=32
Dialogue 0.55 0.78
Integration 0.75 0.34
Application 0.87 0.54
*Means reflect average scores for all posts by each individual student in the course.
Each post was coded as: 1=achieved learning goal, 0.5=partially achieved learning goal,
0=did not achieve learning goal.
All t-tests significant at α = 0.05.
Achievement of Learning Goals Linked to Each Forum
Results: Outcome Assessment
Outcome #3: Overall Course Performance
Online discussion grade
Overall course grade
eLC* Facebook*
WMST n=28 n=24
Online Discussion Grades (out of 40) 32 37
Overall Course Grades (out of 100) 82 89
PHIL n=35 n=32
Online Discussion Grades (out of 40) 32 32
Overall Course Grades (out of 100) 87 85
*Means reflect average grades across all individuals in each course section.
For WMST, both t-tests significant at α = 0.05. For PHIL, no significant differences.
Across both courses, student’s overall course grades increased by
0.18 to 0.39 percentage points with every online post.
Overall Course Performance Linked to Each Forum
Conclusions – Phase 2 Facebook more effective at encouraging peer dialogue
and engagement, cultivating classroom community
eLC more effective at encouraging direct communication with instructor, fostering application and integration of course content
Recommendations when selecting discussion forum:
Consider primary goals of online discussion
Consider role instructor intends to play in the forum
Consider content of course
Acknowledgments
For more information, see: Camus, M., Hurt, N., Larson, L., & Prevost, L. (in press). Facebook as an
online teaching tool: Effects on student participation, learning, and overall course performance. College Teaching. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2015.1099093
Hurt, N., Moss, G., Camus, M., Bradley, C., Larson, L., Lovelace, M., Prevost, L., Riley, N., & Domizi, D. (2012). The ‘Facebook’ effect: An investigation of college students’ perspectives regarding online discussions in the age of social networking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 6(2), 2-14.
UGA Center for Teaching & Learning
Drs. Denise Domizi & Paul Quick
Entire 2009-2010 UGA Future Faculty Program Cohort