Academic Exchange Quarterly
Winter 2010 ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 14,
Issue 4
To
cite, use print source rather than this on-line version which may
not reflect print copy
format requirements or text
lay-out and pagination.
|
This
article should not be reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale
without author's explicit permission. Anyone may view, reproduce or store
copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by the
"Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright
law. For any other use and for reprints, contact article's author(s) who may
impose usage fee.. See also |
Increasing Motivation Through Web
2.0
Monica
W. Tracey, Wayne State University, MI
Kelly
L. Unger, Wayne State University, MI
Tracey,
Ph.D., Associate Professor of Instructional Technology with interest in
Instructional Design, and Unger, PhD student, with interest in Technology Integration
Professional Development. Both are
active members of AECT.
Abstract
In higher education, it is imperative
that professors who are required to become course designers and facilitators in
online environments are aware of emerging technology tools and have an
understanding of ways to motivate students through the use of these tools. This study reports on one professor’s use of
the constructivist instructional design (ID) model, Layers of Negotiation, in
the design of a blended learning approach incorporating an online social
networking technology tool, NING and its effect on student motivation.
Introduction
The influx of the Internet and Web 2.0
tools in education combined with increased interest in online learning are
driving universities and K-12 school districts to meet the desires and needs of
their student populations. In order to
adapt, faculty are now encouraged or required at a minimum to incorporate an
online learning component into courses.
When designing courses, faculty should choose easy to use technological
tools that assist in online facilitation of strategies and activities that have
been designed for increasing student interaction, collaboration, and motivation. No longer are slate and chalk and paper and
pencil acceptable technology tools to support collective intelligence in
education. When choosing tools,
educators need an open mind to move forward with social and technological
trends. Social networking tools (SNT), allow for imaginative course design
(Mason & Rennie, 2008).
One way universities have selected to
facilitate online learning activities is through the use of a learning
management system (LMS). Most
universities recommend their faculty use the licensed specific packaged LMS
that they own. Most LMS’ provide an
online location for professors to post lectures, assignments, and course
materials for students. Students can
submit work and interact with the professor and other students through email
and discussion boards. Along
with these online learning management systems, there is another area of online
learning tools that are transitioning from entertainment and for strictly
social purposes toward education. These
include “Read-Write Web” tools, also known as Web 2.0 tools. DiNucci (1999) was
the first to use the term Web 2.0 when he was discussing the web in its infancy
stage as pages of content loaded into a browser window, usually known as Web
1.0. The term Web 2.0, however, did not find popularity among the masses until
it was used by Tim O’Reilly at the first Web 2.0 conference in October, 2004
(O’Reilly, 2005). These tools are distinguishable
from Web 1.0 tools, because they allow users to interact with the web without
having any computer programming knowledge or experience. Average or novice
users can participate by creating and sharing their thoughts and ideas directly
to the web and with others. O’Reilly
(2005) states that “One of the key lessons of the Web 2.0 era is this: Users add value.” While allowing users to share
their own content, and add their own value to the social tool is crucial for
collaboration and interaction, from an educational aspect, the design of the
course is a necessary component for a successful collaborative online learning
experience (Mason & Rennie, 2008).
In this article we lead you through one
professor’s journey of blending face-to-face and online instruction, coupled
with a constructivist approach to course design, which led to the migration
from the university LMS, Blackboard, to the Web 2.0 SNT NING. This migration resulted in studying graduate
student perceptions of the NING compared with Blackboard and how it affected
their motivation in the course. The data
from this study demonstrates how Web 2.0 tools can be used to facilitate and
motivate in higher education.
Preparing for the Blend
Transitioning to online instruction is
not always the easiest task, especially for a professor who is a novice to
online instruction. The professor in
this study used a “blended” approach to courses to assist both herself and her
students with easing into online teaching and learning. Blended instruction even though the term is
used widely in education it has been noted to be ill-defined (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005).
Three commonly used definitions include:
1) the
integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches
(drawing on the work of Harrison);
2) the combination of media and tools employed in
an e-learning environment; and
3) the
combination of a number of pedagogic approaches, irrespective of learning
technology use (drawing on the work of Driscoll) (as cited in Oliver & Trigwell,
2005,
p. 17).
Of the three definitions above, this
study defined “blended,” similar to the work of Harrison, and references it as
a style of teaching where the class sometimes meets face-to-face, and other
times meets in an online environment.
Those who select a blended approach to instruction typically find
benefits in both the face-to-face and online environment for learners and
instructors (Ogusthorpe & Graham, 2003). Selecting
specific weeks to facilitate class online allowed the professor to dabble in
some of the online pedagogy and features without feeling overwhelmed by moving
their teaching completely online.
Students, through the blended approach, had the opportunity to learn how
to work with a learning management system (LMS) and experience online learning
at a slower pace; not to be overwhelmed with the soft skills necessary to be
successful in online learning. This professor, at the beginning of the Fall,
2009 semester, blended two of her courses, to meet students face-to-face
seventy five percent of the semester, and twenty five percent in the online
class environment. In this blended
approach, the face-to-face meetings at the beginning of the semester helped to
establish social presence and identity with others in the class, and provided
an opportunity for the professor to discuss how the online sessions would be
facilitated in Blackboard.
During the first online week which was week
three of the semester, students logged into Blackboard to participate in the
class discussion. Class discussions for
online learning in higher education are a standard practice throughout
universities (Mason & Rennie, 2008). Two discussion prompts and
questions were created to stimulate thoughtful discussions about the weekly
readings and content. Students had 7
days to complete an initial posting and respond to two other students’
postings. All postings were to be
completed by Saturday at 5:00pm of the online week. The professor was astounded by the difficulty
in reading the responses. The discussion
board function in Blackboard was challenging to use as it allowed the professor
to read only one student posting at a time.
The challenges experienced with the technology reduced the quality of
responses and were extremely time consuming.
The professor concluded that if it was difficult responding to the
student postings, students were probably feeling the same frustration, in turn
reducing the quality of their responses to other students’ postings.
Utilizing the Layers of Negotiation
Model, a constructivist instructional design (ID) model, the professor elicited
feedback from the students during the next face-to-face meeting. The Layers of
Negotiation Model is a model that incorporates all stakeholders in the process
of knowledge construction using reflection and the examination of information
multiple times for multiple purposes, and the social negotiation of shared
meanings (Cenamo, 2003). This model, used throughout the rest of the
course, provided a way for the professor to gather input regarding the online
activities and instruction from the students, and adapt the instruction to fit
their needs and desires. It also aligned
with Duffy and Cunningham’s (1996) components of constructivism in that the
altering of the instruction, based on student feedback, supported the students’
active process of constructing their own knowledge and experiences rather than
acquiring it. The feedback uncovered their frustrations, so the professor
extended the time requirements for the next postings, and altered student
response requirements to one other student instead of two. Another iteration of the Layers of
Negotiation Model exposed continued frustration from students with Blackboard,
leading the professor to redesign the discussion process to solve for user
constraints. Not wanting a reduction in
learner motivation for the course, the professor needed to assess whether to
change learner attitudes and behaviors, or the environmental conditions (Keller,
2009). Knowing learner motivation is
affected by internal human behaviors and external environmental conditions
(Keller, 2009) it became clear that the external condition, the current LMS
environment, was deterring learner motivation. In an effort to solve this
problem, the professor migrated from Blackboard to the Web 2.0 SNT NING for the
remaining online weeks.
NING
NING is a SNT with similar features of
other social networking sites, in that users have the their own profile that
they can customize by adding pictures and videos, listing personal information,
such as interests and hobbies, and changing the background to a design they
prefer. It is appealing to students
because it provides a level of personalization, socialization, and
opportunities for communication and interaction (Karabult,
Lindstrom, Braet, & Niederhauser,
2009; Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009; Mason
& Rennie, 2008;Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007). This
personalization component is currently not capable in Blackboard. When creating the NING the professor had
control over the design and who had access to it and its content and
discussions. Educators like this feature
because it keeps the network private to those involved in the learning. The discussion forum was used for collaborating
on various course content related topics.
The chat feature provided a means for instant professor-to-student and
student-to-student communication.
The professor watched as the NING became
a central focus of the course, not only for the online discussions, but for
personal interaction among the students.
Students began taking pictures of the face-to-face classroom activities
and posting them for studying purposes, and when working on online
assignments. One course required a group
project, and students established their own groups within the tool in order to
share, collaborate, and work on their projects.
One of the assignments required students to find an online video that
demonstrated a learning theory. Students
were able to embed the videos directly on the NING. One student then posted a voting tool so
students could vote on the best posted video.
Using the Web 2.0 tool served a multiple purpose as it allowed the professor
to model the use of the SNT to facilitate learning to students who are
practicing instructional designers and educators.
From the informal and formative
assessment throughout the first semester of using the blended approach with the
NING, the professor questioned if this SNT was increasing student motivation
during the online weeks.
NING Compared with Blackboard
Data was collected from three courses in
which the professor utilized the NING, and 24 students (n=24) responded to a
voluntary survey. Students were asked if
they had experience with the LMS, Blackboard, and if so to compare it with the NING
environment. All 24 students reported
having exposure to Blackboard, and 67% (n=16) of the students indicated the NING
was superior over Blackboard. One
student commented, “The NING is very user friendly, easy to navigate and the
layout of the NING is less complicated than Blackboard” (Student 5). Another stated, “The discussion threads were
much easier to follow and read in the NING than on Blackboard” (Student
11). Another student went further to
say:
NING
allows for more personalization and socialization between the students and
instructor. It is easier to find and locate information, and the discussion
threads were much easier to follow than Blackboard. Blackboard is quite boring
and was difficult for reading and following discussions (Student 15).
A fourth student agreed with finding the
NING “easier” to use than Blackboard, but also added, “It's a current…tool that
I not only learned the course content on, but also learned a new technological
tool that I can use in my own practice” (Student 22).
While the majority of the students
responded in favor to the NING over Blackboard, 4 students liked the Blackboard
platform better. Of these 4 students, 3
of them liked the discussion feature in Blackboard better finding it “easier to
see and read” (Student 20), and found the NING “somewhat tedious with scrolling
through all the repeated responses” (Student 8). A student who liked Blackboard better
claimed, “I see Blackboard as school and NING as social” (Student 12).
NING Increases Student Motivation
To gather data on overall student
motivation while utilizing the SNT, students were asked survey questions
applying components of Keller’s ARCS model of motivation. The acronym stands for attention, relevance,
confidence, and satisfaction, and should be used when designing learning
environments to stimulate and maintain students’ motivation throughout the
learning process (Keller, 2009). While
discussing each area of the ARCS model in detail is outside the purpose of this
article, we do discuss the questions from the student survey and provide the
results related to each area.
Attention. Describe how the NING environment gained, increased, or held your
attention throughout the course.
83% (n=20) of the students responded to
this question, and 90% (n=18) inferred that the NING had a positive effect on
gaining, increasing, or holding their attention. One student commented that it, “Gained my
interest because it was a new tool that I heard about it but never had experience
with. I was excited to check out its
features” (Student 22). Another student
shared that it “Held [my] attention better than Blackboard because it was
easier to use and had better functionality” (Student 16).
56% (n=10) of the students, who said the
NING assisted in gaining their attention, referenced that the main reason it
did was because of the platform’s features for communicating and interacting
with other students. A student discussed
how it assisted during group work by being, “the primary communication tool for
my group. Without it we wouldn't have
gotten very much done (Student 4).
Students also claimed the personalization and interaction of the SNT
assisted in gaining, increasing, or holding their attention. One student said, “The fact that we all put
photos in and some people made really nice pages about them gained my attention”
(Student 7). Another remarked they, “Enjoyed
the social networking aspect of the NING (user profiles, photos, becoming
'friends' with classmates, etc.). Combining class lessons with social
interaction made it fun to learn” (Student 16).
Relevance. How was the NING environment relevant to the course (i.e., course
content, objectives, learning, and discussions)?
Of the students who responded to this question,
100% (n=18) found the environment to be relevant in some way. 78% of the respondents (n=14) commented that
it was most relevant for communicating with classmates and responding to the
posts. One response indicated:
It
was relevant because it integrated technology and traditional learning in one
setting. We would take discussions or lectures from class and then further
discuss them on the NING instead of having to wait until the next class meeting
to discuss (Student 6).
One student commented that online
discussions helped with understanding course content stating:
The
class was about understanding the theories behind instructional technology and
so I believe that using the NING helped many students come to a complete
understanding of the material after having time to review classmates’ posts,
reflect on them and then post again (Student 12).
A third student found the discussions more relevant on the SNT than on
Blackboard, “…due to less clicking around. This helped promote more discussion,
learning and retention” (Student 23).
Confidence. How did the NING environment affect your confidence level with
interacting with the content, professor, and other students?
83% (n=20) of the students responded to
the confidence question of the survey, with 65% (n=13) stating that it
increased their confidence in the course.
Student 14 found the NING’s “Ease of use really boosted my confidence in
navigating course content. The informal,
social feel of the site boosted my confidence in interacting with classmates
and instructor.” Three of the 13
respondents commented on their confidence being increased because of the photos
associated with each person’s post. A
student noted, “I was much more confident using the NING because I could
visualize the classmate responding to questions in the discussion because of
the pictures next to the posts” (Student 21).
Another student elaborated on this feature by explaining, “It helped my
confidence with interacting with the other students in the class. I could answer
questions with my classmates and see their pictures and response together. It
helped me put a face with a response” (Student 13).
The 7 students who responded that the NING
did not affect their confidence level should not be ignored. One student did not have immediate access and
stated:
I
felt like an outcast when I couldn't get on the NING, and also because I didn't
really love the NING as much as everyone else did. I mean I liked it, but just didn't love it
the way everyone else did. Blackboard
was just fine for me (Student 18).
Four other students simply said that it
did not affect their confidence. Another
student pointed out that while making communication easier, “It did not
directly affect my confidence. If there was no NING, then I would have found
another way to communicate - email or Blackboard” (Student 2).
Satisfaction. Describe your overall satisfaction with using the NING, and how it’s
assisted you in achieving your learning goals.
86% (n=18) of the students who responded
to this question, report feeling satisfied with the SNT for achieving learning
goals. Student 22 wrote:
I
was very satisfied with using the NING for achieving my goals. Some students during the face-to-face
sessions were not as talkative or open with discussions, so this allowed them
to communicate and share their ideas in a safe environment. I believe I learned more sometimes through
their writings and postings than I did in the classroom.
Another found satisfaction with it “as a
classroom collaborative tool [because it] helped with the overall learning
experience” (Student 16). Two students
found satisfaction over Blackboard because it didn’t have as many technical
problems. One commented “Blackboard is
usually unreliable and the NING was always very reliable. Also, I liked how you
could customize your NING page. You were able to show off your individual
personality” (Student 6), while other suggested, “Until Blackboard is
streamlined and technical problems are fixed, I highly recommend using the NING”
(Student 23).
Conclusion
Similar to the results of Hadley’s
(2010) informal open ended survey of 43 students at Brigham Young University,
the NING was found to be a useful tool in higher education courses. The NING proved to be a more conducive environment,
over Blackboard, for the professor and the students, due to its visual appeal,
ease in use, and increased ability to interact and communicate. The constructivist ID model, Layers of
Negotiation, was an effective model for this professor to use as a novice to
blending instruction. The iterative
process of collecting feedback from the students multiple times throughout the
semester demonstrated the need to change an external condition, Blackboard, to
another online learning tool. Migrating
to the NING assisted in preventing a drop in student motivation for the
course. Habeeb
(2009) also found that through incorporating students in the design of the
assessment, NING can increase the motivation of students. The increased personalization of the student
profile provided an effective environment for increasing student motivation in
the online portion of the blended course.
Martinez, Aleman and Wartman (2009) found
similar results through their ethnographic study of college students and their
use of SNT Facebook.
A student in their study claimed, “I don’t often walk around with words
printed on my body about my interests…but Facebook is
an extension of me...through photos of myself and the way I word things, I can
present my personality in my page” (p. 1).
Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds
(2007) discovered when higher education professors of undergraduate students
incorporated more personal information, or increased levels of self-disclosure,
on Facebook, students’ motivation levels increased.
Their results are seen in the personalization of the profile of the professor
in this study as well. An additional
benefit of using the NING was the opportunity for the professor to model the
use of a Web 2.0 SNT for future instructional designers and educators. The results of this study demonstrate
positive outcomes in the application of a constructivist ID approach when
designing blending instruction. Furthermore, this study illustrates the
benefits of using Web 2.0 tools to increase student motivation.
References
Cennamo,
K. (2003). Design as knowledge construction: Constructing knowledge of design. Computers in the Schools, 20(4),
13-35.
Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J.
(1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of
instruction. In D.H. Jonassen
(Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications
and technology (pp.170-198).
New York: Macmillan.
Habeeb,
S. (2009, December 2). AFL – It’s about
student taking ownership of learning: Practical examples. Retrieved from http://education.ning.com/profiles/blogs/afl-its-about-students-taking
Hadley,
J. (2010, April 8). How Ning social networks can improve university classes. Retrieved from
http://lava7.com/2010/04/how-ning-social-networks-can-improve-university-classes/
Karabulut,
A., Lindstrom, D., Braet, D., & Niederhauser, D.S. (2009).
Student level of commitment and engagement with Ning
as a learning management system. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
2009 (pp. 2564-2569). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Keller, J.M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.
Martinez
Aleman, A.M., & Wartman, K.L. (2009). Online social networking
on campus: Understanding what matters in student culture. New York: Routledge.
Mason,
R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning
and social networking handbook: Resources
for higher education.
New York: Routledge.
Mazer,
J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I'll
see you on "Facebook": The
effects
of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation,
affective
learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education,
56(1), 1 -
17.
Ogusthorpe,
R.T., & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended
learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
Oliver, M. & Trigwell,
K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be
redeemed? E-learning,
2(1), 17-26.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0:
Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from
http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228
U.S.
Department of Education (2010). National educational technology plan.
Transforming American education: Learning powered by
technology. Washington, D.C: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf