Top

TechTrends

Published in:

02-01-2020 | Original Paper

Graduate Students’ Use and Perceived Value of Learning Resources in Learning the Content in an Online Course

Authors: Mary K. Wilhelm-Chapin, Tiffany A. Koszalka

Published in: TechTrends | Issue 3/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This study focused on student-content interactions and engagement in an online graduate course. Student descriptions of their experiences and learning processes in relation to digital course resources were examined to understand how and why resources were used. Fourteen students provided detailed explanations of their use and perceived value of resources in gaining content knowledge. Results were mapped by whole group to examine patterns of behavior in use of course e-text, video tutorials, and self-check quizzes. Interactions with course e-text and video tutorials – reported as the primary sources for learning content – were also mapped on an individual level. Student explanations were then examined through the lens of Generative Learning Theory to further describe students process for learning content. Continued study of connections between learning resources and student-content interaction and engagement may inform effective and efficient design of online educational experiences.

previous article Trends of Educational Technology in Korea and the U.S.: A Report on the AECT-Korean Society for Educational Technology (KSET) Panel Discussion

next article Learning Computational Thinking Together: Effects of Gender Differences in Collaborative Middle School Robotics Program

Available only for authorised users

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 82–103.CrossRef

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1–14.CrossRef

Archer, W. (2010). Beyond online discussions: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 69.CrossRef

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.CrossRef

Bogdin, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston: Pearson.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRef

Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2014). Ten common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 151–173). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRef

Dempsey, P. R., & Zhang, J. (2019). Re-examining the construct validity and causal relationships of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in community of inquiry framework. Online Learning, 23(1), 62–79.CrossRef

Dixson, M. D. (2010, June). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.

Fidaldo, P., & Thormann, J. (2017). Reaching students in online courses using alternative formats. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(2).

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717–741.CrossRef

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1).

Hilton, J. (2016). Open educational resources and college textbook choices. A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 573–590.CrossRef

Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online education compared to face-to-face education. Distance and E-Learning: European Journal of Open.

Janesick, V. J. (1998). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 35–55). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Jonassen, D. L. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood: Prentice-Hall, Inc..

Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 143–156.CrossRef

Lee, S., & Koszalka, T. A. (2016). Course-level implementation of first principles, goal orientations, and cognitive engagement: A multilevel mediation model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 365–375.CrossRef

Littlejohn, A. (2003). Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning. Sterling: Kogan Page.CrossRef

Littlejohn, A., Margaryan, A., & Vojt, G. (2010). Exploring students' use of ICT and expectations of learning methods. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 8(1), 13.

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397.CrossRef

Morris, C., & Chikwa, G. (2014). Screencasts: How effective are they and how do students engage with them? Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 25–37.CrossRef

Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2012). An analysis of success and failures: Focusing on learner–content interactions for the next generation of distance education. In The next generation of distance education (pp. 235–250). Boston: Springer.CrossRef

Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1098–1108.CrossRef

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.

Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612.CrossRef

Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2009). What works. In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins, & M. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 157–178). Charlotte: Information Age.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press.

Stauffer, E. (2016). TechTrends 2010-2015: A content analysis. TechTrends, 61, 147–154.CrossRef

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383.CrossRef

Valentine, K. D., Kopcha, T. J., & Vagle, M. D. (2018). Phenomenological methodologies in the field of educational communications and technology. TechTrends, 62, 462–472.CrossRef

Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27, 531–541.CrossRef

Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–45 10.1080.00461520903433554 (Original work published 1974).CrossRef

Title: Graduate Students’ Use and Perceived Value of Learning Resources in Learning the Content in an Online Course
Authors: Mary K. Wilhelm-Chapin
Tiffany A. Koszalka
Publication date: 02-01-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: TechTrends / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Electronic ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00464-5

Springer Professional

Graduate Students’ Use and Perceived Value of Learning Resources in Learning the Content in an Online Course

Abstract

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Examining the Effects of Immersive Game-Based Learning on Student Engagement and the Development of Collaboration, Communication, Creativity and Critical Thinking

The 35th Meeting of the Professors of Instructional Design & Technology: A Special Report

Award Papers from the 2019 International Malaysian Educational Technology Convention

The Fault in our Systems: LMS as a Vehicle for Critical Pedagogy

An Industry Liaison for Graduate Learning in Instructional Design

Instructional Development of Media-Based Science OER

Premium Partner