- Describe a situation in which you believe “shaping” students’ learning would be most appropriately used with your online student(s). Explain what you would do, and why. Cite the Learning Resources to justify your stance.
- Describe a situation in which you believe “scaffolding” students’ learning would be most appropriately used when teaching online. Explain what you would do, and why. Cite the Learning Resources to justify your stance.
RESOURCES
Scaffolding in e‐Learning Environment
Antonín Jančařík
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic
[email protected]
Abstract: The paper focuses on the potential and possibilities of use of scaffolding in e‐learning courses. One of the key
concepts the author works with and builds upon is the concept of zone of proximal development, which was introduced by
Vygotsky. One of the key questions every teacher must ask is how to state the border between the current pupil’s
knowledge and the horizon where it can be developed. Needless to say that determination of these limits may be of crucial
importance for the educational process. The question becomes even more important in work with gifted pupils, in whose
case the limit of what they can achieve under convenient guidance is very individual, as well as the teacher’s role very
specific. The author presents various forms of scaffolding based on his longitudinal experience from work with
mathematically gifted pupils in an e‐learning course Combinatorial Game Theory. This course is organized within the frame
of the Talent project which is designated for gifted Czech upper secondary school students from all over the country. This
course has been designed with respect to the principles of the method of problem‐based learning. Students are assigned
problems that they solve either collaboratively or individually. Some of the problems are intentionally designed in such a
way to bring students to situations in which they must overcome epistemological obstacles. In these situations scaffolding
proves to be a very efficient method. However, its implementation in the environment of internet is specific and differs
from its use in ordinary classrooms. As there is no face to face contact with the student, it is much harder to determine
his/her real state of knowledge. Also the time lag in off‐line communication makes the process harder. The paper discusses
different aspects of use of scaffolding in the internet environment in detail. This all is illustrated on specific examples of its
use. The paper presents four forms of scaffolding realised by specific instructions. The aim of the paper is to illustrate by
and demonstrate on concrete examples the benefits of the use of scaffolding in an e‐learning course for gifted students.
Keywords: scaffolding, game theory, e‐learning, mathematical education
1. Introduction
The concept of zone of proximal development, introduced by L. Vygotsky (1978), is defined 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.” However, this guidance does not have to be personified, it may also be provided e.g. by
an e‐learning system. That is why Vygotsky introduced also the concept of “more knowledgeable other”.
1.1 Scaffolding
The concept of scaffolding is close to the concept of zone of proximal development but is not used by
Vygotsky. The concept refers to the help and support provided to a pupil or student while solving problems in
order to allow him/her to achieve the desired goals (German, 2011, Saffkova, 2011). The methods of providing
scaffolding are manifold. Saye and Brush distinguish between soft and hard methods (Saye and Brush, 2002).
Soft, or also contingent scaffolding is based on a teacher’s discussion with their pupils, their reactions to the
pupils’ needs and on offer of support and guidance with respect to the momentary needs (Simons and Klein,
2007). In contrast, in hard scaffolding the teacher analyses the problems that can be come across in advance,
already when planning the lesson (Nováková and Novotná, 2011) and prepares supporting problems or hints
to offer to the pupils or students when needed. Scaffolding can also be provided automatically (e.g. Wood,
2011) by the e‐learning system. However, this paper focuses predominantly on situations when guidance and
support is provided by the course teacher, or more specifically the lecturer.
Wood and Middleton (1975) define three categories of support that can be provided to pupils:
General encouragement
Specific instructions
Direct demonstration
The following text demonstrates and specifies the use of all these three categories of support within e‐learning
courses. When introducing the category “Specific instructions”, four different forms of its use are
distinguished:
Pushing the limits
149
Antonín Jančařík
Confronting a counterexample
Providing the right answer but not the solving procedure
Experimenting using Trial and Error method
The advantages of each of the methods is classified with respect to the anticipated benefits of scaffolding into
the following five categories (Wood et al., 1976):
Gaining and maintaining the learner’s interest in the task.
Making the task simple.
Emphasizing certain aspects that will help with the solution.
Controlling the level of frustration.
Demonstrating the task.
1.2 Course description
The paper presents methods of scaffolding used by the author in e‐learning courses for mathematically gifted
students. These courses for gifted students are opened repeatedly and the here reported research on
scaffolding is still in progress. The paper therefore presents its interim findings and work in process. The
courses are organized for small groups of students (5‐10 persons) from selected upper secondary schools from
all over the Czech Republic. The syllabus of the course is Combinatorial Game Theory (Berlekamp, Conway and
Guy, 2001, Nowakowski, 1998). The course is designed as assisted problem‐solving. There is almost no
instruction, students are assigned a series of graded problems which they solve in open discussion forums.
Students may also enter private discussion with the teacher but this option is seldom selected. The lecturer’s
guidance has the form of his intervention into the discussion. This intervention has different forms, the
lecturer uses both soft and hard scaffolding.
The course is divided into two parts. In the first part students are introduced to different variants of the NIM
game. The goal of this activity is to guide students to discovery of the winning strategy (Bouton, 1901). In the
second part students get to know the game hackenbush. Their task is to find the value of given positions. The
key moment of the course is discovery of positions with surreal values , a . Pupils must overcome
epistemological obstacles (Bachelard, 1940) connected to their existing understanding of real numbers,
number line and the concept of infinity (Cihlár, Eisenmann, Krátká and Vopenka, 2008).
2. General encouragement in e‐learning courses
It is often the case of e‐learning courses that pupils and students who find the presented problems too difficult
stop being active. That is why the lecturer must observe activity of different participants of the course carefully
and encourage the pupils and students as needed. It is much easier for a teacher to see that a pupil is not
paying attention in the classroom – he/she starts disturbing, stares out of the window, reads something else.
These evident signals are not present in e‐learning courses and the lecturer’s position is much more difficult.
He/she may notice a participant’s lack of activity but may fail to interpret the reasons for this drop‐out. He
must then carefully think what and how to do to encourage and motivate the student to get involved again.
Sometimes it is very hard to discover the true reason of a student’s drop‐out.
2.1 First example
A student ceased to be active for several weeks during the course and did not even answer the lecturer’s
messages. Only later was he able to find out that she had had a serious injury and had spent some time in
hospital where she could not participate in the course. Having recovered she got involved in the course again
and completed it successfully.
2.2 Second example
The lecturer was facing the situation when several students fell silent for a longer period of time. He addressed
them by personal e‐mails asking for reasons of their inactivity and offered help with difficult problems,
including organizing a videoconference. The following are some of the replies he received:
150
Antonín Jančařík
Student 1: I find the course very interesting and enjoy solving the problems. However, I’ve been a
bit too busy recently and haven’t managed to do all the work in time. I apologize. Sorry.
My plan is to join in again at the end of the week. As soon as I finish other things that kept me
occupied. I hope I will catch up on coursework. 🙂
Student 2: Hello, sorry for my activity but I have too many courses and am getting short of time.
As it is I only have time to look at it at the weekend. But now I’ve been offered two scholarships 😛
so I won’t get to the coursework before the weekend. Honza
After the lecturer’s encouraging intervention the students joint in actively again.
Soft scaffolding in the form of general encouragement helps to gain and maintain the learner’s interest in the
task. In some cases it may also help to control the level of frustration. It is advisable to make this
encouragement very personal and to combine it with offer to help. This eliminates the potential risk of the
student’s dropping out of the course for its difficulty.
2.3 Comparison to the situation when no scaffolding was offered
In the first course, the teacher repeatedly used mail merge to alert to deadlines. Despite these alerts, some
students did not join in and often sent excuses for having dropped out of the course. An analysis of individual
cases showed that these students’ drop‐out was most often the consequence of a sudden increase in difficulty
of the tasks and problems. Having discovered this, the lecturer now informs students in advance that they are
about to proceed to a more difficult level and offers them additional help if they fall silent at this point.
3. Specific instructions – pushing the limits
Pushing the limits is one of the forms of soft scaffolding. It may be in the form of lecturer’s reactions to the
limiting conditions in a pupil’s or student’s reasoning and thinking. The lecturer tries to encourage the pupil or
student to broaden and generalize his/her considerations. The aim of this type of guidance is predominantly to
turn the student’s attention to those aspects of the assigned problem that he/she failed to notice or to
deduction of consequences the pupil or student has been not aware of.
3.1 Example
Lecturer: What is the relation between won and lost fields?
Student: Is their structure always regular?
Lecturer: A good question, but what do you mean by a “regular structure”? Try to find an answer,
it is connected to the previous question.
Student: With the exception of the fields before finish, won and lost positions always repeat in the
same numbers. In case one cannot use a move by one field they are always two blue and four red
fields.
Lecturer: I thought you were asking whether a situation must necessarily have a regular structure
regardless of the rules of the game. Is this not a more interesting question :‐)?
This example shows that the student uses the concept of “regular structure” spontaneously. This enables
introduction of the general topic of periodicity of a solution to a problem. The lecturer takes the student’s
concept which is yet not developed and hands it back to the student for further development. As the initial
initiative was on the student’s part, the problem seems more real to the student and he/she is much more
motivated to be solving it.
3.2 Comparison to direct task assignment
Tasks in which students are asked to find a regular structure of won and lost positions can also be come across
in the course but only if they follow a series of lead‐in tasks. In this case, reaction to the student’s spontaneous
idea made it possible to skip these exercises and start solving a more demanding task before the student
would have done if proceeding along the standard course trajectory. The idea of a regular structure had just
moved into the particular student’s zone of proximal development, thus allowing the lecturer to make use of
it.
151
Antonín Jančařík
4. Specific instructions – confronting a counter example
Another example of soft scaffolding is providing a counterexample to the presented hypothesis. Confrontation
of the student’s strategy with a situation in which it does not work makes him/her reconsider the whole
situation. Moreover, a conveniently selected counterexample may guide the student to the correct solution.
4.1 Example
One of the games solved by the pupils in the discussed course is the game TIC‐TAC‐TOE (see fig. 1). In some
cases students assess the game as won by the first player even though it is a draw. The counterexample is
offered by playing the game with teacher.
Figure 1: TIC‐TAC‐TOE game (from Jancarik, 2007)
Providing a well‐chosen counterexample to the presented hypothesis helps to emphasise some aspects of the
problem and may help with the solution. A counterexample may help the student realize where he/she is
making a mistake and to correct his/her solution.
4.2 Analysis of use of counterexamples
Providing a counterexample is in some cases far more efficient than looking for and uncovering of mistakes in
students’ logical reasoning. The reasons are:
A student’s justification may be long and complicated. In some cases explanation of different separate
ideas and deductions may require a lot of time. This of course implies that in an e‐learning course
environment the effort to pinpoint the source of a mistake in reasoning is extremely difficult and time
demanding. On the other hand, without any doubt in some cases this time and effort are worthwhile,
especially in case of complex problems.
If a teacher or a lecturer points out a pupil’s or student’s mistake, it might demotivate the pupil or the
student. In contrast providing a convenient counterexample enables the pupil or the student to succeed
by discovering the source of his/her mistake in reasoning on his/her own.
5. Specific instructions – providing the right answer but not the solving procedure
This form of help is based on the teacher’s provision of correct answer and student’s search for justification or
explanation of this answer. This form of scaffolding may be situation based or planned in advance by the
lecturer. It means this is a form of hard scaffolding.
5.1 Example
The example comes from a discussion forum about the Cat and Mouse Game (Tapson, 1977, see fig. 2). The
goal of the game is to have the cat capture the mouse. The game has a very simple winning strategy but every
time most students defend the possibility that the mouse can always escape.
152
Antonín Jančařík
Figure 2: Cat and mouse game (from Jancarik, 2007)
Student: Each hole neighbours at least with other two holes which means the mouse can never
“be cornered”. The mouse can be escaping for ever. (This is the last of a number of comments
expressing the same idea.)
Teacher: You all agree here that the mouse can be running away as long as it wants, you present
supporting arguments, but are you sure about this? Are you sure there are not any mistakes in
your considerations?
Teacher (after 4 days with no reaction): Well, nobody replied to my comment. So I am giving the
right answer now: The cat, if it uses the right strategy, will catch the mouse quite fast, regardless
of the mouse’s strategy. Will you find how the cat can do it?
…
The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding” Student Learning
The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding”
Student Learning
Program Transcript
[MUSIC PLAYING]
JOSHUA STERN: To employ scaffolding in you’re teaching, what you do is you
begin with simplified versions of a task, or whatever it is you’re teaching, and you
work your way up to the full task. It’s like a bridge or a scaffold. Think of the
scaffold on a building– it’s like that– or bridge. It supports the learner and allows
the learner to move forward, to progress.
It comes out of social learning theory and it was described by Lev Vygotsky. So
you’ve probably heard of Vygotsky, maybe in your foundations courses. His idea
is that by employing support and instruction and concrete goal setting, can
instructors help bring their students to higher levels of understanding?
It’s like a building. You don’t just start with an entire building built, you start with
the first floor and, with the scaffolding around it, the building grows. You build it
up from the bottom. It’s that same idea with learning.
OK, this approach– scaffolding– works best with individual workers and the key
to it is trust. So you need to build a– and this is a good idea no matter what in
your online classes and it makes your online teaching that much more enjoyabl–
but to build trust. And to create a safe and supportive environment for your
students where you’re able to really interact with them. And they can take
feedback from you and use it, OK?
You can really have substantial learning gains happen using scaffolding, but a
commitment is required by the student and by you as the instructor. So let me
give you an example. I build upon what students already know, slowly leading
them to what they don’t yet know, OK? So you find out where they’re at, meet
them there, and then start bringing them forward or up. Students benefit from this
personal attention and guidance– but, of course, it takes time– by you, the
instructor.
Baby steps– you build baby steps. That’s the scaffolding to help them keep from
getting overwhelmed, OK? I only intervene with the skills that are beyond the
student’s current capability. So if there is something that I know they already
know, that’s their business now. I’m focusing on what they don’t yet know and not
all the way over here, but just outside of what they know, OK?
And so I allow students to complete the tasks as much as possible unassisted.
So I’m not in there doing it for them, but I’m trying to give them a task that’s a little
bit harder than what they’re able to do and have them do it the best they can.
And I expect students to make errors. And I have in my mind time built in to give
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1
The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding” Student Learning
feedback and prompting and specific, concrete instruction on how to move them
forward. But it is intended for students to make mistakes and learn that way.
I try to stand back, as much as possible, and watch students grow in their ability.
Rather than pushing them forward, I allow them to figure it out but make sure that
the task is only a little bit harder than what they already know how to do. So in
time, students grow in their ability incrementally and they also increasingly take
responsibility for themselves and their learning experience.
And they move forward until they master the task. And as they do that, as that
progression is happening, I slowly fade out. I fade out of the process. What that
means is I gradually remove the scaffolding. It allows the students to work
independently and have success.
OK, and a concrete example that I do in my teaching is when I’m teaching
educational foundations course, theory is complex in its nature and not all
students do well with it. For some, it’s brand new and they really struggle. And so
to introduce a really complex theory right out of nowhere is like trying to create a
building in one go. You need to lead students toward the most complex version
through scaffolding.
And so let’s say I’m teaching two theories that overlap, have some differences,
and ultimately I want them to be able to compare and contrast them and fully
understand them, OK? Do I start with that task? Not necessarily. Some students
can handle that, some can’t. And so, based on feedback that I’ve received in
previous times I’ve taught the course, I understand that this is an area that
students struggle with. And what I’ve decided to do is build some scaffolding in
so that most of them have the best chance of success possible.
And so I start by teaching the basic concepts of each theory and I teach them
separately, OK? And what I’m looking for is to see if students can differentiate the
two theories. Are they able to understand what one theory is and what the other
theory is? Maybe they understand that, right? But they’re not able to differentiate
between them in application, OK? So that’s where I want to get them to.
So I customize my teaching and what I do is I explain the differences in the
theories with lots of examples, OK? That would be the next step. And then, once
the class is able to understand the differences, then maybe I move on to more
complex subjects like how the theories overlap, exceptions to the rules in the
theories, counter theories that impacted them throughout history, et cetera.
There’s lots of different things that you would move on.
But so what I start out is the basic level of the theories, then the comparison and
contrasting of the theories, the theories in application, These are all pieces of the
scaffolding. And, as I move in those steps, students work their way up the
scaffolding and they tend to have more success. Takes a little more time– some
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2
The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding” Student Learning
students can buzz right through it really quickly, other students are going to really
need it.
And so I highly recommend building this in. Now, I’m not saying to do this for
everything that you teach in your class, but do it for the things that seem complex
or that you see students are struggling with. Teach a class a couple of times and
you will know where the trouble spots are.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 3
The Art of Teaching Online: Darci Harland – “Shaping” Student Learning
The Art of Teaching Online: Darci Harland – “Shaping” Student
Learning
Program Transcript
[MUSIC PLAYING]
DARCI HARLAND: I have had the best success with shaping in a public setting
rather than individual. Public shaping occurs for me during discussions.
Remember that shaping has to do with wanting to change behaviors. And so you
can do this in an online discussion by how you respond to students.
So for example, one of the things I like to do that influences how the students will
behave in the future, and when I say behave in this case, I’m talking about how
they will post responses to their peers, by modeling. But I have found that
modeling in and of itself is not usually enough. They just think, well the teacher’s
smarter. Her responses are going to be different than mine.
And in actuality what I’m doing is I’m saying, the way I am posting my responses
to students is modeling what I expect you to do. And I overtly tell them this or
else it’s just lost on them. So I set the requirements for how I want them to
respond in the discussions. I tell them that I will be modeling them, and that they
should be using my responses to their peers as good examples, exemplars, of
how they also can be responding to their peers.
I also then remind them that if I respond to a student, I do kind of expect
everyone to be reading my responses, particularly early in the quarter, just so
that they can get a feel for– get insight on the content, and also how to behave
on the discussion boards.
Another thing I do in shaping, on the discussion boards, is when someone does a
really, really good job, you compliment them. You have to be careful because
you don’t want to isolate people, either really good or really bad, publicly. You
need to be careful about that. But when a student nails it, you want to make sure
that the student who wrote it knows it’s good, and that all the students who are
reading it knows it’s good.
And so you would put a post– a reply post to what they said and say, this is
exactly the kind of post that I am expecting in this course. Great job. Thanks for
your hard work in sharing this, and thank you for writing it so well. Something like
that.
Nearer to the middle and the end of the course, I expect my students to become
more autonomous. So I back off. I don’t reply as much. And I give them more
ownership of what it is that they’re doing. What I feel is very, very dangerous is if
I feel like they’re writing all of their discussion prompts to me. I do not want them
writing to me. I don’t want answers that they think the teacher will like.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1
The Art of Teaching Online: Darci Harland – “Shaping” Student Learning
And so again I can shape those behaviors by asking follow up questions. When
they do something I don’t want them to do, I’ll say, oh, that’s a good point you
make, however, what would happen if? And you lead them to the point where
you want them in how you reply to them. Can you add something to this that
would help explain your reasoning on this? Those kinds of replies will help get
the critical thinking that you’re after, and allow students to become more
successful.
Another way you can use shaping in online teaching that you really couldn’t do in
a face to face situation, is use the data in the learning management system.
You’ve got access to how often students log on, how long they’re spending
places. If you have a student who’s struggling, that’s a good thing to do. Go look
and see. If they’re only logging in the day something is due, you have a little
insight into the problem. And so, that can give you information that can then help
you help the student.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2
Scaffolding in e‐Learning Environment
Antonín Jančařík
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic
[email protected]
Abstract: The paper focuses on the potential and possibilities of use of scaffolding in e‐learning courses. One of the key
concepts the author works with and builds upon is the concept of zone of proximal development, which was introduced by
Vygotsky. One of the key questions every teacher must ask is how to state the border between the current pupil’s
knowledge and the horizon where it can be developed. Needless to say that determination of these limits may be of crucial
importance for the educational process. The question becomes even more important in work with gifted pupils, in whose
case the limit of what they can achieve under convenient guidance is very individual, as well as the teacher’s role very
specific. The author presents various forms of scaffolding based on his longitudinal experience from work with
mathematically gifted pupils in an e‐learning course Combinatorial Game Theory. This course is organized within the frame
of the Talent project which is designated for gifted Czech upper secondary school students from all over the country. This
course has been designed with respect to the principles of the method of problem‐based learning. Students are assigned
problems that they solve either collaboratively or individually. Some of the problems are intentionally designed in such a
way to bring students to situations in which they must overcome epistemological obstacles. In these situations scaffolding
proves to be a very efficient method. However, its implementation in the environment of internet is specific and differs
from its use in ordinary classrooms. As there is no face to face contact with the student, it is much harder to determine
his/her real state of knowledge. Also the time lag in off‐line communication makes the process harder. The paper discusses
different aspects of use of scaffolding in the internet environment in detail. This all is illustrated on specific examples of its
use. The paper presents four forms of scaffolding realised by specific instructions. The aim of the paper is to illustrate by
and demonstrate on concrete examples the benefits of the use of scaffolding in an e‐learning course for gifted students.
Keywords: scaffolding, game theory, e‐learning, mathematical education
1. Introduction
The concept of zone of proximal development, introduced by L. Vygotsky (1978), is defined 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.” However, this guidance does not have to be personified, it may also be provided e.g. by
an e‐learning system. That is why Vygotsky introduced also the concept of “more knowledgeable other”.
1.1 Scaffolding
The concept of scaffolding is close to the concept of zone of proximal development but is not used by
Vygotsky. The concept refers to the help and support provided to a pupil or student while solving problems in
order to allow him/her to achieve the desired goals (German, 2011, Saffkova, 2011). The methods of providing
scaffolding are manifold. Saye and Brush distinguish between soft and hard methods (Saye and Brush, 2002).
Soft, or also contingent scaffolding is based on a teacher’s discussion with their pupils, their reactions to the
pupils’ needs and on offer of support and guidance with respect to the momentary needs (Simons and Klein,
2007). In contrast, in hard scaffolding the teacher analyses the problems that can be come across in advance,
already when planning the lesson (Nováková and Novotná, 2011) and prepares supporting problems or hints
to offer to the pupils or students when needed. Scaffolding can also be provided automatically (e.g. Wood,
2011) by the e‐learning system. However, this paper focuses predominantly on situations when guidance and
support is provided by the course teacher, or more specifically the lecturer.
Wood and Middleton (1975) define three categories of support that can be provided to pupils:
General encouragement
Specific instructions
Direct demonstration
The following text demonstrates and specifies the use of all these three categories of support within e‐learning
courses. When introducing the category “Specific instructions”, four different forms of its use are
distinguished:
Pushing the limits
149
Antonín Jančařík
Confronting a counterexample
Providing the right answer but not the solving procedure
Experimenting using Trial and Error method
The advantages of each of the methods is classified with respect to the anticipated benefits of scaffolding into
the following five categories (Wood et al., 1976):
Gaining and maintaining the learner’s interest in the task.
Making the task simple.
Emphasizing certain aspects that will help with the solution.
Controlling the level of frustration.
Demonstrating the task.
1.2 Course description
The paper presents methods of scaffolding used by the author in e‐learning courses for mathematically gifted
students. These courses for gifted students are opened repeatedly and the here reported research on
scaffolding is still in progress. The paper therefore presents its interim findings and work in process. The
courses are organized for small groups of students (5‐10 persons) from selected upper secondary schools from
all over the Czech Republic. The syllabus of the course is Combinatorial Game Theory (Berlekamp, Conway and
Guy, 2001, Nowakowski, 1998). The course is designed as assisted problem‐solving. There is almost no
instruction, students are assigned a series of graded problems which they solve in open discussion forums.
Students may also enter private discussion with the teacher but this option is seldom selected. The lecturer’s
guidance has the form of his intervention into the discussion. This intervention has different forms, the
lecturer uses both soft and hard scaffolding.
The course is divided into two parts. In the first part students are introduced to different variants of the NIM
game. The goal of this activity is to guide students to discovery of the winning strategy (Bouton, 1901). In the
second part students get to know the game hackenbush. Their task is to find the value of given positions. The
key moment of the course is discovery of positions with surreal values , a . Pupils must overcome
epistemological obstacles (Bachelard, 1940) connected to their existing understanding of real numbers,
number line and the concept of infinity (Cihlár, Eisenmann, Krátká and Vopenka, 2008).
2. General encouragement in e‐learning courses
It is often the case of e‐learning courses that pupils and students who find the presented problems too difficult
stop being active. That is why the lecturer must observe activity of different participants of the course carefully
and encourage the pupils and students as needed. It is much easier for a teacher to see that a pupil is not
paying attention in the classroom – he/she starts disturbing, stares out of the window, reads something else.
These evident signals are not present in e‐learning courses and the lecturer’s position is much more difficult.
He/she may notice a participant’s lack of activity but may fail to interpret the reasons for this drop‐out. He
must then carefully think what and how to do to encourage and motivate the student to get involved again.
Sometimes it is very hard to discover the true reason of a student’s drop‐out.
2.1 First example
A student ceased to be active for several weeks during the course and did not even answer the lecturer’s
messages. Only later was he able to find out that she had had a serious injury and had spent some time in
hospital where she could not participate in the course. Having recovered she got involved in the course again
and completed it successfully.
2.2 Second example
The lecturer was facing the situation when several students fell silent for a longer period of time. He addressed
them by personal e‐mails asking for reasons of their inactivity and offered help with difficult problems,
including organizing a videoconference. The following are some of the replies he received:
150
Antonín Jančařík
Student 1: I find the course very interesting and enjoy solving the problems. However, I’ve been a
bit too busy recently and haven’t managed to do all the work in time. I apologize. Sorry.
My plan is to join in again at the end of the week. As soon as I finish other things that kept me
occupied. I hope I will catch up on coursework. 🙂
Student 2: Hello, sorry for my activity but I have too many courses and am getting short of time.
As it is I only have time to look at it at the weekend. But now I’ve been offered two scholarships 😛
so I won’t get to the coursework before the weekend. Honza
After the lecturer’s encouraging intervention the students joint in actively again.
Soft scaffolding in the form of general encouragement helps to gain and maintain the learner’s interest in the
task. In some cases it may also help to control the level of frustration. It is advisable to make this
encouragement very personal and to combine it with offer to help. This eliminates the potential risk of the
student’s dropping out of the course for its difficulty.
2.3 Comparison to the situation when no scaffolding was offered
In the first course, the teacher repeatedly used mail merge to alert to deadlines. Despite these alerts, some
students did not join in and often sent excuses for having dropped out of the course. An analysis of individual
cases showed that these students’ drop‐out was most often the consequence of a sudden increase in difficulty
of the tasks and problems. Having discovered this, the lecturer now informs students in advance that they are
about to proceed to a more difficult level and offers them additional help if they fall silent at this point.
3. Specific instructions – pushing the limits
Pushing the limits is one of the forms of soft scaffolding. It may be in the form of lecturer’s reactions to the
limiting conditions in a pupil’s or student’s reasoning and thinking. The lecturer tries to encourage the pupil or
student to broaden and generalize his/her considerations. The aim of this type of guidance is predominantly to
turn the student’s attention to those aspects of the assigned problem that he/she failed to notice or to
deduction of consequences the pupil or student has been not aware of.
3.1 Example
Lecturer: What is the relation between won and lost fields?
Student: Is their structure always regular?
Lecturer: A good question, but what do you mean by a “regular structure”? Try to find an answer,
it is connected to the previous question.
Student: With the exception of the fields before finish, won and lost positions always repeat in the
same numbers. In case one cannot use a move by one field they are always two blue and four red
fields.
Lecturer: I thought you were asking whether a situation must necessarily have a regular structure
regardless of the rules of the game. Is this not a more interesting question :‐)?
This example shows that the student uses the concept of “regular structure” spontaneously. This enables
introduction of the general topic of periodicity of a solution to a problem. The lecturer takes the student’s
concept which is yet not developed and hands it back to the student for further development. As the initial
initiative was on the student’s part, the problem seems more real to the student and he/she is much more
motivated to be solving it.
3.2 Comparison to direct task assignment
Tasks in which students are asked to find a regular structure of won and lost positions can also be come across
in the course but only if they follow a series of lead‐in tasks. In this case, reaction to the student’s spontaneous
idea made it possible to skip these exercises and start solving a more demanding task before the student
would have done if proceeding along the standard course trajectory. The idea of a regular structure had just
moved into the particular student’s zone of proximal development, thus allowing the lecturer to make use of
it.
151
Antonín Jančařík
4. Specific instructions – confronting a counter example
Another example of soft scaffolding is providing a counterexample to the presented hypothesis. Confrontation
of the student’s strategy with a situation in which it does not work makes him/her reconsider the whole
situation. Moreover, a conveniently selected counterexample may guide the student to the correct solution.
4.1 Example
One of the games solved by the pupils in the discussed course is the game TIC‐TAC‐TOE (see fig. 1). In some
cases students assess the game as won by the first player even though it is a draw. The counterexample is
offered by playing the game with teacher.
Figure 1: TIC‐TAC‐TOE game (from Jancarik, 2007)
Providing a well‐chosen counterexample to the presented hypothesis helps to emphasise some aspects of the
problem and may help with the solution. A counterexample may help the student realize where he/she is
making a mistake and to correct his/her solution.
4.2 Analysis of use of counterexamples
Providing a counterexample is in some cases far more efficient than looking for and uncovering of mistakes in
students’ logical reasoning. The reasons are:
A student’s justification may be long and complicated. In some cases explanation of different separate
ideas and deductions may require a lot of time. This of course implies that in an e‐learning course
environment the effort to pinpoint the source of a mistake in reasoning is extremely difficult and time
demanding. On the other hand, without any doubt in some cases this time and effort are worthwhile,
especially in case of complex problems.
If a teacher or a lecturer points out a pupil’s or student’s mistake, it might demotivate the pupil or the
student. In contrast providing a convenient counterexample enables the pupil or the student to succeed
by discovering the source of his/her mistake in reasoning on his/her own.
5. Specific instructions – providing the right answer but not the solving procedure
This form of help is based on the teacher’s provision of correct answer and student’s search for justification or
explanation of this answer. This form of scaffolding may be situation based or planned in advance by the
lecturer. It means this is a form of hard scaffolding.
5.1 Example
The example comes from a discussion forum about the Cat and Mouse Game (Tapson, 1977, see fig. 2). The
goal of the game is to have the cat capture the mouse. The game has a very simple winning strategy but every
time most students defend the possibility that the mouse can always escape.
152
Antonín Jančařík
Figure 2: Cat and mouse game (from Jancarik, 2007)
Student: Each hole neighbours at least with other two holes which means the mouse can never
“be cornered”. The mouse can be escaping for ever. (This is the last of a number of comments
expressing the same idea.)
Teacher: You all agree here that the mouse can be running away as long as it wants, you present
supporting arguments, but are you sure about this? Are you sure there are not any mistakes in
your considerations?
Teacher (after 4 days with no reaction): Well, nobody replied to my comment. So I am giving the
right answer now: The cat, if it uses the right strategy, will catch the mouse quite fast, regardless
of the mouse’s strategy. Will you find how the cat can do it?
…
Journal of Interactive Online Learning
www.ncolr.org/jiol
Volume 13, Number 3, Spring 2015
ISSN: 1541-4914
112
Student Perspectives of Assessment Strategies in Online Courses
Scott Bailey, Stacy Hendricks, and Stephanie Applewhite
Stephen F. Austin State University
Abstract
Engaging professional adults in an online environment is a common challenge for online
instructors. Often the temptation or commonly used approach is to mirror face-to-face strategies
and practices. One premise of this study is that all strategies used in an online environment are
assessment strategies, and as such should be considered for their value in measuring student
experiences. This research study investigated student responses within a principal preparation
course to the use of twelve assessment strategies that included: work samples, “Twitter”
summaries, audio recordings, traditional papers, screencast/videos using “YouTube”, group
projects, open discussion, paired discussion, response to video, field experiences, quizzes, and
interviews. The redesigned course used in this research allowed the researchers to experiment
with both traditional and innovative strategies within an online environment to determine how
students perceive the value of each assessment strategy. Student experiences were measured in
terms of level of enjoyment, level of engagement, and the extent to which students believed the
assessments would result in the creation of knowledge that could be transferred to future
professional practice. The results indicate that students prefer assignments that are less-
traditional and which fully incorporate the technological tools available.
Online teaching is here to stay. With each passing semester, more college courses—and
even entire degree programs—move online. The question is no longer one of whether teaching
online is effective; the question now rests on how to maximize its effectiveness. Answering that
question, or maximizing the effectiveness of online teaching and learning, requires online
instructors to shift their attention “from the technology tools to the pedagogical practices and use
of the tools” (Redmond, 2011, p. 1058) and “to make a transformational shift in their approach to
teaching from one of disseminating information to one of creating learning environments where
students co-construct knowledge through interactions” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 61). Johnson and
Aragon (2003) addressed the issue head on: “the challenge for instructional designers is to devise
ways to incorporate the most effective and innovative instructional strategies in courses delivered
over the Internet” (p. 33). This study accepted that challenge and examined the experiences of
students engaging in a variety of teaching through assessment strategies embedded in the
redesign of an online educational leadership course.
For years, one regional university supported face-to-face, hybrid, and online delivery of
courses in an educational leadership program. Recently, driven by the realities of economics and
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
113
student demand, the entire program moved online. Despite contradictory evidence (Johnson &
Aragon, 2003; Whitlock, 2001), the online course offerings have, to date, closely mirrored their
face-to-face predecessors. With both the quality and quantity of online teaching tools expanding
rapidly, the authors reexamined how their online courses were designed and presented to
students. The review of literature revealed several relevant themes that influenced the
subsequent course redesign (Johnson & Aragon, 2003; Laurillard et al., 2011; Redmond, 2011),
including: (a) engagement (Kearsley & Shneiderman,1998; O’Brien & Toms, 2008; Schlechty,
2001; Steinbronn & Merideth, 2008); (b) instructor and Learner roles and responsibility
(Cunningham, 2010; Moore, Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011); and (c) teaching through
assessment (Edwards, 2012; Gayton & McEwen, 2007). Each of these themes was significant to
both course development and research design.
Review of Literature
An outside observer could ostensibly conclude that learning online is different from
learning in a conventional classroom, yet research indicates that might not be true (Johnson &
Aragon, 2003; Russell, 1999; Steinbronn & Merideth 2008). In terms of learning outcomes,
Steinbrom and Merideth (2008) found “no statistical difference when using online or face-to-face
formats” (p. 266). However, what happens during the learning processes to achieve those
outcomes does differ. The relationships between the instructor and the students and the content
and the process change in important ways, namely: “learners become more active in their
responsibility for learning,” and instructors serve as the “facilitator, strategist, and coordinator
for the learning activities” (p. 266). These changes inform the theoretical framework for this
study which is grounded on the premise that, as learners become more responsible for their
learning, instructors are tasked with redesigning their courses to successfully engage the learners
to achieve the course objectives.
Engagement Theory
The changes in instructor/student relationships described by Steinbronn and Merideth
(2008) mesh well with the “engagement theory” developed in the infancy of online learning by
Kearsley and Shneiderman (1998), who presented engagement theory as
a model for learning in technology-based environments. The major premise is that
students must be engaged in their coursework in order for effective learning to occur. The
theory posits three primary means to accomplish engagement: (1) an emphasis on
collaborative efforts, (2) project-based assignments, and (3) non-academic focus. It is
suggested that these three methods result in learning that is creative, meaningful, and
authentic. (p. 23)
In their view, students become engaged when they interact with others and complete meaningful
work, and it is the meaningful nature of those interactions that creates the intrinsic motivation
required for their success as learners. The meaning of an assignment is created when the student
makes connections to their immediate context (Cunningham, 2010), which for these courses was
the emerging school administrator. The technology involved with the online presentation is just
a means to create and deliver these experiences and is not a focus of the course. However, taking
into consideration possible differences between classroom engagement and online engagement
proves useful in the re-design of an online course.
O’Brien and Toms (2008) conducted a study to “critically deconstruct the term
engagement as it applies to peoples’ experiences with technology” (abstract), considering
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
114
pleasure or enjoyment as a measurable factor linked to a person’s level of engagement. Other
measured attributes included “feedback, intrinsic motivation, fun, user control, and interactivity”
(p. 940), with these attributes contributing to the survey design of this research study and was
used to justify the inclusion of “enjoyable” as a valid factor. The results of O’Brien and Toms
(2008) yielded a “common trajectory for engaging experiences” that they describe as
“experiential threads” which included: “the point of engagement, period of engagement,
disengagement, and reengagement” (p. 943).
As Schlechty (2001) noted, “to be student centered is not to cater to student whims.
Rather, it is to understand the students and the things that motivate them better than the students
understand their own motivations” (p. 29). Further, “students learn from what they do” (p. 63),
so the first thing instructional designers must focus upon is developing assignments that students
will do, as no learning will occur until students actually do something. To create those
assignments, instructional designers must tap into their students’ motives. O’Brien and Toms
(2008) affirmed Schechty’s ideals in their study, identifying the period of engagement of the
study participants as “marked by the attention [they] were able to focus on their task and the
application, the novelty of the experience, their level of interest, and their perceptions of
challenge, feedback, and user control inherent in the interaction” (p. 943).
The types of assignments that Schlechty (2001) discussed are precisely the ones needed
to engage online learners. These assignments cause students to “experience a sense of
satisfaction, accomplishment, pride, and sometimes delight;” they “result in students’ persisting
with the tasks assigned until their work meets the desired standard;” and, they result in “students
learning those things they need to know to do well” (p. 71).
Re-Designed Online Instructional Framework
While modern educators recognize the importance of student engagement and the
pathways to achieve it in traditional classrooms, including project-based, situational, and
collaborative learning, Johnson and Aragon (2003) noted that those innovations often do not
transfer to the online courses instructors create; instead, those courses reflect more “traditional”
forms of instruction focused on the transmission/recitation of information between the instructor
and the students. That more traditional framework will not stimulate the engagement Kearsley
and Shneiderman (1998) deemed necessary for student success online. In short, “the challenge
for instructional designers is to devise ways to incorporate the most effective and innovative
instructional strategies in [online] courses” (p. 33), and they are not meeting this challenge
(Johnson & Aragon, 2003). In essence, these online courses become correspondence courses,
centered around readings or recorded lectures followed by quizzes or tests over the content.
In response, Johnson and Aragon (2003) synthesized elements of behavioral, cognitive,
and social learning theories to develop a “synergistic” (p. 34) framework that instructional
designers can utilize to guide the development of more engaging and student-centered online
courses. Accordingly, the framework consists of elements that “(1) address individual
differences, (2) motivate the student, (3) avoid information overload, (4) create a real-life
context, (5) encourage social interaction, (6) provide hands-on activities, and (7) encourage
student reflection” (p. 34). This framework serves as an extension of the engagement theory
proposed earlier (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998) and a practical way to visualize a course
construct similar to Gayton and McEwen (2007) in which students affirmed high levels of online
engagement through a variety of assignments that served as assessments.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
115
Re-Designed Instructor and Student Roles and Responsibilities
The instructor’s responsibility is now to re-design activities or assessments that follow
the guidelines of the framework and successfully engage and motivate students to accomplish the
desired learning outcomes. The redesign process involves a re-discovery of roles and
responsibilities because the teacher is no longer the lecturer, but instead transforms out of the
traditional identity into a facilitator or designer (Cunningham, 2010; Moore et al., 2011;
Redmond, 2011). For some, this process is terribly challenging, and one solution to overcoming
that challenge is to reach out to others who are also re-designing their courses.
Laurillard et al. (2011) suggested that collaborative design strategies were found to be
useful for academics to create meaningfully designed online courses. Their study was designed
to investigate the value of an interactive design tool that allowed the sharing of strategies,
experiences, testing of ideas, and sharing of results.
The idea of a “Community of Inquiry” (CoI) (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer,
2001; Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Cunningham, 2010; Redmond, 2011) was researched for its
value to the online learning environment. CoI framework involves the intersection of three
components, all of which are framed as a type of “presence” that included social, cognitive, and
teaching presence (Akyol & Garrison, 2008). As Cunningham (2010) discussed, the idea of
presence in an online environment causes both instructors and learners to assess their traditional
assumptions about their roles and responsibilities in the learning process.
The assumptions that Cunningham (2010) challenged as needing to change included:
“students do not learn without a teacher present” (p. 92); “my students cannot possibly
understand this textual content without my lectures;” and finally the assumptions that both
teachers and students hold regarding their views of what learning looks like and how it occurs (p.
93). Cunningham (2010) concluded that “understanding the needs of a self-directed student is
paramount for a successful course design” (p. 99). Moore et al. (2011) conducted research on the
roles in the online learning environment and found that even when given survey answer choices
to identify themselves as “instructor/facilitator, designer, and evaluator” (p. 132) the majority of
the teacher-participants selected the answer choice of “instructor” which validated the
assumptions Cunningham (2010) discussed.
In an effort to further the understandings of how students perceive their experiences in
the online environment, the researchers of this study, using the literature as a guide, determined it
was necessary to re-design their online courses using a collaborative planning approach, and
developed a tool to measure the students’ level of engagement with the newly implemented
strategies.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ perceptions of various assessment
strategies, with the intent of determining which strategies students find most engaging and
meaningful. These three questions guided the study:
1. Which assessment strategies do students find enjoyable?
2. Which assessment strategies do students believe create meaningful engagement?
3. Which assessment strategies do students perceive as likely to create knowledge that will
transfer to practice?
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
116
Method
This study followed a descriptive format, relying on student-perception data collected
from an online survey. An email with the link to the online survey was sent to the course email
addresses of all the students concurrently enrolled in both courses under study (N = 51) and was
followed by a reminder email three days later. The survey window was open for five days, or the
final week of the course (so that the students had time to complete all of the assessments).
Thirty-five students responded, yielding a response rate of 69%.
The idea of learning design through peer collaboration (Laurillard et al., 2011) inspired
the partnership of researchers in this study. Focusing on two introductory courses to the
principal preparation program, the authors redesigned the courses to make them more conducive
to online delivery and structured them so students would work through the courses in parallel,
utilizing the same texts and resources.
For the purposes of this study, all learning activities are referred to as assessments,
because all activities formatively assess student progress (Edwards, 2012; Gayton & McEwen,
2007).
In accordance with engagement theory and the instructional framework discussed earlier,
a key component of this process was driven by the researchers’ desire to increase student
interactions with the professor, other students, and most importantly, the content. To that end, the
redesign acknowledged that, in an online setting, learning is highly self-directed (Cunningham,
2010; Johnson & Aragon, 2003); and, it is precisely that dependence on self-direction that begs
for the creation of engaging assessments. Recognizing that interaction with course content results
in knowledge creation and that learning occurs most intensely during the assessment process
(Edwards, 2012), the authors imbedded multiple assessment methods in the courses to engage
students with the content in varied ways. A total of 12 assessment strategies were included in the
course and subjected to analysis, and together, these strategies addressed all seven of the
elements outlined in the online instructional framework developed by Johnson and Aragon
(2003).
The assessments included:
1. Work Samples: Supplied with either a data set or a scenario, students produced
documents replicating ones they would actually create as practicing administrators,
such as a campus plan, a professional development plan, a campus needs assessment,
and a professional growth plan for a teacher in need of assistance.
2. “Twitter” Summaries: Students followed Twitter guidelines to summarize each
chapter of a course textbook in 140 characters or less.
3. Audio Recording: In lieu of written artifacts, students submitted audio recordings of
themselves explaining important concepts as they might explain them to parents,
faculty, or other groups.
4. Traditional Paper: Students wrote and submitted traditional papers of various lengths
(2, 5, and 8 pages) or used the textbook to respond in writing to a series of questions.
5. Screencast/Video: Students were required to locate and download screencasting
software which was utilized to create a screencast with embedded video of
themselves. Then they uploaded the screencast to a private YouTube channel for
instructor and class viewing. This assignment simulated the students’ introducing
themselves and their professional priorities as an administrator to the faculty at a new
school.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
117
6. Group Project: After being randomly assigned to groups, students worked together to
complete tasks and submit one finished written product representative of the group.
Most students utilized the communication tools embedded in the course (email,
private discussion boards, and chat tools), yet some relied on other publicly available
tools from outside the course.
7. Open Discussion: Topics were posted to the course discussion board, and students
created original posts to add to the board and reply to other students’ posts. Students
interacted with the entire class (30 students).
8. Paired Discussion: Students were grouped (2-5 students) and discussed the
assignment topics only within that group. Students could only view responses within
their group.
9. Respond to Video: Rather than respond in writing to a text, students responded in
writing to a video. They accessed and watched a one-hour documentary, streamed
through the course management system, and produced a written analysis.
10. Field Experiences: Students must complete field experience hours (20 hours/course).
Students choose what activities to engage in to complete these hours as best suits their
needs and interests, but the activities must be outside the scope of their regular jobs.
At the end of the course, students submit a log of their hours and a written reflection.
11. Quizzes: These quizzes were short, multiple-choice quizzes designed to test students’
factual knowledge of the content immediately after it was presented. Quizzes were
auto-graded, with the grade immediately released to the student.
12. Interviews: Students interviewed practicing school administrators. For each assigned
topic, students interviewed two administrators and synthesized their work into a
summative reflection.
Participants
The participants were graduate students in the educational leadership program
concurrently enrolled in each of two sections (four sections total) of the authors’ two courses
under study. Of the 35 respondents, 18 (51%) were male and 17 (49%) were female. They were
relatively equally split among age groups, with 14 (40%) occupying the 25-35 years span, 10
(29%) in the 36-45 years span, and 11 (31%) in the 46+ years span. The respondents self-
identified as technologically proficient. Thirty-one (89%) have owned a computer for more than
eight years, and 26 (74%) had taken online classes before.
Instrument
The online survey used to collect student perception data was developed and designed by
the authors specifically to address the research questions. The authors checked the survey for
face and content validity with colleagues in the department and graduate students in one of the
author’s research classes.
The survey consisted of twelve sections, with each section representing a different
assessment strategy. Each section included a brief description of the assessment strategy and a
reminder of the assignments which represented that strategy. Respondents answered three
questions about each assessment strategy according to three criteria.
First, students rated each strategy in terms of enjoyableness, guided by the following
choices: A = very enjoyable; B = somewhat enjoyable; C = just another assignment; and, D = not
enjoyable at all. The survey defined enjoyable as “resulting in pleasure or satisfaction both while
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
118
working on and after completing the assignment,” and asked students to “think about how you
felt in regards to the process of completing the assignment.”
Then, students evaluated the level of engagement each strategy engendered, with the
following choices: A = highly engaging; B = moderately engaging; C = just another assignment,
and; D = not engaging at all. The survey defined engaging as “heightening interest, motivation,
and attention brought to task” and asked students to “think about how the assignment caused you
to interact with the course content.”
Next, students estimated the degree to which each strategy helped generate knowledge
applicable to their future practice using the following options: A = always apply directly to
professional practice as an administrator; B = sometimes apply to professional practice; C =
rarely apply to professional practice; and, D = never apply to professional practice. The
instructions directed students to “think about whether you believe the knowledge gained from
this assignment resulted in something you could utilize as a practicing administrator.”
Finally, students were presented with an open-ended response box asking for “additional
comments about or suggestions for these types of assessments.” Once the survey window closed,
the authors utilized the tools built into the survey collection program to disaggregate the
responses.
Limitations
This study was limited in that the researchers relied on a non-standard data collection
instrument and utilized a small sample of convenience. These factors prevent the results of the
study from being generalized to a different population, but the results remain relevant as points
of discussion to work toward program improvement.
Results and Discussion
This study asked students in an educational leadership program to rate 12 assessment
strategies utilized in two of their online courses on the criteria of enjoyableness, engagement, and
the degree to which they believed the knowledge gained from completing the assessments could
be transferred to future practice as an administrator. The final percentage ratings are summarized
in Table 1. These ratings, along with anecdotal evidence taken from the students’ open-ended
responses, were used to provide a descriptive view of students’ feelings toward their experience
with online assessments.
Overview
Overall, students indicated an overwhelmingly positive experience. Thirty-five students
rated twelve assessments on three criteria, constituting a total of 1,260 responses. Of that total,
only 19 responses (1.5%) were negative and 145 (11.5%) were neutral, meaning that 1,096
responses (87.0%) were moderately to highly positive.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
119
Table 1
Student Ratings of Assessment Methods by Percentage
Level of Agreement
Assessment Methods High Moderate Neutral Not at All
Work Samples
Enjoyableness 29 63 3 6
Engagement 40 57 3 0
Transferability 74 26 0 0
Twitter Summary Enjoyableness 71 20 6 3
Engagement 71 23 6 0
Transferability 71 23 6 0
Audio Recording Enjoyableness 54 26 11 9
Engagement 60 23 17 0
Transferability 54 34 11 0
Traditional Paper Enjoyableness 23 46 23 9
Engagement 31 40 26 3
Transferability 51 40 9 0
Screencast/Video Enjoyableness 49 40 6 6
Engagement 71 20 9 0
Transferability 71 23 6 0
Group Projects Enjoyableness 46 34 20 0
Engagement 54 23 23 0
Transferability 49 46 6 0
Open Discussion Enjoyableness 31 52 17 0
Engagement 37 51 11 0
Transferability 43 51 6 0
Paired Discussion Enjoyableness 34 49 14 3
Engagement 40 43 17 0
Transferability 43 40 17 0
Respond to Video
Enjoyableness 91 9 0 0
Engagement 91 9 0 0
Transferability 91 9 0 0
Field Experiences
Enjoyableness 57 31 9 3
Engagement 74 17 6 3
Transferability 83 14 3 0
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite
120
Quizzes
Enjoyableness 9 40 46 6
Engagement 17 31 49 3
Transferability 23 54 20 3
Interviews
Enjoyableness 66 26 9 0
Engagement 83 14 3 0
Transferability 83 17 0 0
For the individual assessments, students rated the response to video the highest in terms
of enjoyableness (91%), followed by the twitter summaries (71%) and the interviews (66%). In
terms of engagement, the response to video was again rated highest (91%) and was followed by
the interviews (83%) and field experiences (74%). For the final criterion of transferability of
knowledge, the response to video was rated highest for the third time (91%), trailed by the field
experiences and interviews (83%) each.
Using the “neutral” response as a guide, students judged the quizzes (46%), the
traditional paper (23%), and the group projects (17%) least enjoyable. The same three
assessments were ranked in the same order in terms of being the least engaging (quizzes, 49%;
traditional paper, 26%; and group projects 23%, respectively). For the assessments that produced
the least transferable knowledge, the quizzes again received the top neutral ranking (20%),
followed by the paired discussion (17%) and the audio recording (11%). Due to their small
number, the negative, or “not at all” responses were not included and the “neutral” responses
were used as a proxy for the negative response.
Individual Assessments
Response to video. The highest rated assessment across all categories was the response
to video. There was only one assessment that fit this category, and the video to which the
students responded was a 50 minute documentary that tracked the struggles of two principals.
From prior experience in other classes, students almost always unanimously agree that the video
is inspiring, moving, and very enjoyable; many students have reported watching it several times.
Initially, the researchers attributed the high ratings for this assignment to the failure of the
students to separate the quality of the video from the quality of the assignment; in other words,
did students respond positively simply because they liked the video or was it because they
actually liked the assignment? The answer to that question was found in their open-ended
responses. Comments included,
“Enjoyed something visual for once.”
“It is REAL LIFE! You can’t beat that.”
“Able to learn from someone else’s experience.”
“ROLE MODELING. Now I’m better able to synthesize the readings. Very
effective.”
“Loved this assignment and the movie. It really helped give me a vision of the
kind of principal I would like to become.”
These comments indicate that the students found value in the assignment beyond watching an
enjoyable video. The video provided a …
