Interactive, Asynchronous, Face-to-Face: Does it ... - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 337 – 341

2nd World Conference on Educational Technology Researches – WCETR2012

Interactive, Asynchronous, Face-to-Face: Does It Really Make a Difference? Caroline Akhras, Chukri Akhras Notre Dame University, Zouk Mosbeh, Lebanon

Abstract

With the advent of WEB 2.0, the internet has become participatory and interactive. As a practitioner-researchers, we perceive that business students are citizens of this digital world and are continuously searching for the right tools for the teaching/learning environment. Web 2.0 characteristics support the principles of good teaching and learning– active participation and collaboration. This case study illustrates three different learning environments: face-to-face, virtual learning classrooms, online interactive blogs. A sample was drawn from three different undergraduate business courses. The results show that integrating WEB 2.0 interactive tools seems to be the best. Further research is recommended based on the limitations found. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey

Keywords: Web 2.0, Participatory Classes, Virtual Learning Classrooms, Interactive Blogs, Face-to-Face Learning;

1.

Introduction

WEB communication is essential in business corporations that evolve successfully fusing people across generations and cultures (Deresky, 2011; Finkelstein & Gavin, 2011; Daft, 2010; Schriberg, 2009; Sadik, 2009). Business students are citizens of this digital world in which the core concept of WEB 2.0 is that people are the content of websites, socially interacting to build information. Business students are immersed in technology, yet schools and universities are brick and mortar, slowly, incrementally crawling forward. This paradigm is obsolete. Incremental change and growth stunt growth and lessen the likelihood of success (Akhras, 2012a; Fedorowicz, 2008). Many educators are successfully using and modeling technological integration into their programs (Lee & Winzenried, 2009; Fetscherin & Lattemann, 2008; Garcia & Rose, 2007; Hill, Kim, Laguex, 2007; Bates, 2005). This case study is about business students who engaged in research projects-- face-to-face, in blended learning classrooms on the university Learning Management Systems of BlackBoard, and in online interactive blogs. It seeks to prove that when the sample engages in WEB 2.0 in a media-saturated environment, technologicallysupported-collaboration works most successfully.

Corresponding Author: Dr. Caroline Akhras. Tel.: +00-961-3-256-694 E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.066

338

Caroline Akhras and Chukri Akhras / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 337 – 341

2. Literature Review Here comes everybody (Shirky, 2008). Education has radically changed: today, it is about choosing WEB 2.0 tools for teaching/learning. WEB 1.0 communication was centralized, one-way, surfing the internet to retrieve information; WEB 2.0 is interactive. WEB 1.0 was the first wave of the World Wide Web, proprietary and static, with only the author building content or revising the website visited by everybody/users. Users could not contribute; as a result, WEB 1.0 was dry and dead; it was one-way communication. However, accessing information and engaging in educational dialogue has radically changed. WEB 2.0 revolutionized the flow of content from one to all with nonproprietary sites. WEB 2.0 applications have ordinary users as a participant and a potential resource: On the web, users actively engage in changing content as part of shared knowledge base (Cifuentes, Xochihua, & Edwards, 2011; Parker, 2010; Berger & Trexler, 2010). Education in Business courses seems to have evolved along a similar continuum whereby educators who were bound by strict, fixed, and bureaucratic codes of teaching have begun to adopt a dynamic interactive role, reaching out to learners using diverse approaches and/or interactive multi-media. Business educators have begun to meaningfully integrate technology into their classrooms knowing when, why, and how specific tools should be used to facilitate collaborative learning. This requires three banks of management knowledge: (1) the ability to plan and (2) the ability to select the optimal application tools and (3) the knowledge and skill to implement and evaluate the plan effectively (Akhras, 2012a; Ferris, 2012). Business educators hold that learners are bombarded with information from the environment, selecting only some to remember; new information is considered in light of what is already known and integrated into existing knowledge as such creating a coherent organization whereby new information is more meaningful and linked in search cues (Newby, Stepich, Lehman, & Russell, 2006). Learning is a “persistent change in performance or performance potential that results from experience and interaction with the world” happening in all types of activities, for different reasons (Collins & Halverson, 2009). Because learning is complex, educators have to decide on the general conditions and principles that facilitate/inhibit learning determining how they can best promote reliable learning. Integrating constructivism holds that knowledge is built as learners try to make sense of their experience by reflecting: learners create, test, and refine knowledge incorporating wider experiences into their mental models. It is a complex interplay among learners’ existing knowledge, the social context, and the problem to be solved. Moreover, integrating technology creates an environment in which higher level thinking and problem solving is expected from learners (Grant, 2009). Different tools may be brought into an academic program. Collaboration is becoming the norm in global business; in education, collaborative learning is a significant pedagogical shift changing the look and feel of the traditional classroom to one that is learner-centered, activity and task-oriented. Educators and learners work together to create knowledge (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Akhras, 2009). E-collaboration technologies can supply seamless connectivity to allow work anytime, anywhere thereby facilitating access to expanded shared experience, knowledge, and meeting among team members to deliver ideas that are more creative (Rooksby & Ikeya, 2012; Reinhart, 2010; Wang, MacCann, Zhuang, & Roberts 2009). The time spent in academic activities has been identified as an important factor of success in face-to-face instruction and blended programs (Cavanaugh, 2009). Moreover, the types of activities students engage in during blended learning, a teaching method including face-to-face and online teaching, can affect their scores whereby those who had more experience online performed better (Roqueta, 2010). The number of times student log into their Learning Management System, a software portal as BlackBoard (BB) managing teacher-student, student-student, studentteacher online communication, is believed to be a strong indicator of student academic performance in online learning (Akhras & Akhras, 2010; Dickson, 2005; Dietz, 2002). Other studies hold that the number of times and how long learners spend on LMS is an indication of student engaging in academic activities (Feng & Cavanaugh, 2011). 3. Methodology The purpose of this study is to prove that integrating WEB 2.0 interactive tools seem to be the best of the three collaborative research work options.

Caroline Akhras and Chukri Akhras / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 337 – 341

339

∞

Hypothesis One: Participants working in pairs perform significantly better in online assignments on Blogs than those who are paired and are working in the virtual classroom on BlackBoard or than those working in pairs face-to-face. The 90 participants, junior and senior level business students, belonged to three different undergraduate business courses taught by the practitioner-researcher across one academic semester taken at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics at a private university in the MENA. As such, the participants were a convenience sample. The procedure adopted was to evaluate the research paper submitted at the end of the semester generated by students working collaboratively. Three categories of performance were contrasted: ∞ For the face-to-face category, the participants were informed that they would work in pairs collaboratively and build a research paper. The 30 participants would learn about the research paper in class across the first five weeks of the semester. The practitioner-researcher would provide handouts and explain on the board, and/or rehearse the steps of the research assignment. She would be available during her office hours on campus. ∞ In the virtual classroom on the university BB category, the participants were told that they would work in a blended classroom, both face-to-face and online. The 30 participants working collaboratively in pairs would learn about the research paper in class and on BB across the first five weeks of the semester. The practitioner-researcher would download handouts on content on BB and she would also explain the material in the classroom, systematically and consistently. She would be available during her office hours on BB to support collaborative pair work in the virtual classrooms. ∞ For the Blog category, the participants were told that they would work in a blended classroom, both face-to-face and online. The 30 participants working collaboratively in pairs would learn about the research paper in class and on posts published on the blog across the first five weeks of the semester. The practitioner-researcher would explain the posts in the classroom, systematically and consistently. She would be available during her office hours on campus; she would also be available on the blog three hours each week to support the students’ collaborative performance on their blogs. This study uses both qualitative and field-based constructions and analysis of events (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2010) whereby carefully selected areas were probed. The research was conducted as a case study in that it investigated a contemporary phenomena within its real life context especially as the boundaries between phenomena and context are not clearly defined (Twining, 2010). Here, the case investigated a relatively few number of incidents, covering features of a naturally occurring event, with both qualitative and quantitative data in order to understand what was really happening. Three main research areas were probed: performance based on face-to-face interaction, performance based on discussion in virtual classrooms on BlackBoard, and performance based on blog publishing. The research areas were evaluated using two rubrics. ∞ Rubric One: The first assessment instrument evaluated the performance on four criteria: primary research, secondary research, style, and structure. ∞ Rubric Two: The second assessment instrument was a questionnaire handed out to the sample asking each of the participants to evaluate the collaborative paper methodology they engaged in across 5 weeks of the semester. 4. Discussion Based on the results, it was found that working collaboratively on the blog rather than on BB or face to-face significantly improved performance (Anova F=20.71, df =2, p=0.00, F critical= 3.08). Performance on the blog was better than those working on the virtual classroom: Performance on the blog was better than those working face-toface. Furthermore, business students performed better on paired online assignments in the virtual classroom than those working on paired conventional assignments. The results arrived at can be understood in line with the fact that the participants who are business students in the MENA may have grown up with digital technology as Americans have (Feng & Canaugh, 2011; Prensky, 2001; Education/Evolving 2005) even though the participants are not contextually bound by multimedia (Vincent, McDougall, & Azinian; Jones, 2010: Kennewell, 2010). Furthermore, it was found that the participants devote more time accessing digital media information than traditional printed text; in addition, participants also use other media while reading, habitual multi-tasking. They used these different skills to develop their paper collaboratively on the blog. The participants were also efficient in using Black Board, the LMS, perhaps because they had been taught how to use it to transmit information in their foundation computer

340

Caroline Akhras and Chukri Akhras / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 337 – 341

science course at university as other students in the university had (Ferris, 2012; Roqueta, 2010). However, they had not been taught how to use the collaborative tools. In lower-level-business courses, they had used BlackBoard to upload and/or download information, check announcements and take exams. Based on the results it follows that the participants learned how to use the virtual classroom in the case study. Many became adept: they accessed the virtual class often and spent time there writing the paper. Other participants did not, citing the inefficiency of the portal when they were not on campus: the time it took to access the university website and the additional time it took to access the virtual class in BB (Akhras & Akhras, 2010; Dohn, 2009) all of which is true. To wrap up, even if technological setbacks are still found in the MENA and other developing countries, computer technology and broadband networks slowly reshape not only life and cultural practices but also the nature of MENA literacy (Akhras, 2011; Santos, 2011; Hsu & Wang, 2011; Sadik, 2009; Taggar & Haines III, 2006). 5. Conclusion, Limitations, and Recommendations More than one road leads to Rome. When creative/innovative plans are well-conceived, properly implemented, and carefully controlled, and technologically empowered business teachers can lead their students to technological advancements in business communication and networking (Akhras, 2012a; Akhras, 2012b; Deresky, 2011; Daft, 2010; Schriberg, 2009). The results show that different learning approaches may carve the technological comfort niche where business students are able to deal competently with business research on the WEB. Nonetheless, limitations were met in the study that relate to the small sample size, same academic semester, and similar field of education. Cultural background and religion as well as age group were other factors in common. Other limitations may have stemmed from the participants' discomfort with using technology and their unwillingness to learn. Today education, is as always, ambitious and full of promise. The third millennium seems to be richer, offering endless data streams of novel technology, micro trend after micro trend of software development, nano story following nano story of success. Educators may live in serene self-selected fantasy worlds or controversy-packed novelty-driven data streams, but these practitioners need to unwire themselves and unplug the machine (Wasik, 2009; Hanson, 2007). Side-by-side with the tech-driven information-savy child is the other, plodding along, out of the box. Even though the information context seems to be an infinite spring of incorruptible digestible material, not everyone is comfortable. With information environmentalism, practitioner-researchers can carve a place, a judiciously built information context, a healthy workable ecosystem for teaching/learning that is wisely bounded. This case dealt with different ecosystems, sustainable contexts in which business students each in their own way learned to become efficient with technology. Though the big picture is a maze of technology, we are confident that our students seemed to have found a comfort zone. References Akhras, C. & Akhras, C. (2010, November). An enhanced T/L environment: Steps to measure collaborative BB skills of MBA students. Proceedings of the Second Regional Conference on Program and Learning Assessment in Higher Education. Lebanese American University Center for Program and Learning Assessment. Beirut, Lebanon. Akhras, C. (2009, November). Assessing the pedagogical value of online collaborative work. Proceedings of the First Regional Conference on Program and Learning Assessment in Higher Education. Lebanese American University Center for Program and Learning Assessment. Beirut, Lebanon. Akhras, C. (2010, November). Integrating CMS Learning Tools: Is This Effective Management of Knowledge? 17th International Scientific Congress of LAAS. University Saint Esprit. Jounieh, Lebanon. Akhras, C. (2011, March). Virtual Classrooms and the Discussion Forum: A Net Benefit for Business Students. 22nd International Conference. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A. Akhras, C. (2012a, April). Managing today in business: WEB 2.0. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Business Research Conference. World Trade Center. Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Akhras, C. (2012b, April). Effective networking in the tech-driven business . Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Business Research Conference. World Trade Center. Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-Learning and distance education. 2nd Edition. Routledge: London. Bates, H. & Waldrup, B. E. (2006). The effects of teaching technology on the performance and attitude of accounting principles students. Academy Leadership Journal, 10, 3, 79-92. Berger, P. & Trexler, S. (2010). Choosing web 2.0 tools for learning and teaching in a digital world. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Cavanaugh, C. (2009). Getting students more learning time online: Distance education in support of expanded learning time in K-12 Schools. Washington, D. C.: Center for American Progress. Cifuentes, L., Xochihua, O.A., and Edwards, J. C. 2011. Learning in WEB 2.0 environments: Surface learning and chapos or deep learning and self-regulation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 1-21. Collins, A. & Halverson, R. ( 2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.

Caroline Akhras and Chukri Akhras / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 337 – 341

341

Daft, R. L. (2010). The new era of management. Canada: South-Western. Deresky, H. (2011). International management: Managing across borders and cultures. Boston: Pearson. Dickson, W. P. (2005). Toward a deeper understanding of student performance in virtual high school courses: Using quantitative analyses and data visualization to inform decision-making. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. Dietz, T. L.(2002). Predictors of success in large enrollment introductory courses: an examination of the impact of learning communities and virtual learning resources on student success in an introductory level sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 30, 9. Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 343-363. Education/Evolving. (2005). Listening to student voices __ technology: Today’s tech savvy students stuck in text-dominated schools. http://educationevolving.org/pdf/tech_savy-students.pdf Feng, L. & Canaugh, C. (2011). Success in online high school biology: Factors influencing student academic performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 21, 1, 71-72. Ferris, S. P.(2012). Teaching, learning, and the net generation: Concepts and tools for reaching the digital learner. Portland: Book News, Inc. Fetscheerin, M. & Lattemann. (2008). User acceptance of virtual worlds. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 9, 3, 231-242. Garcia, P. & Rose, S. (2007). The influence of technocentric collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes about technology’s role in powerful learning and teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,.15, 2, 247-266. Ghauri, P. & Gronhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. 4th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson. Grant, L. (2009). I don’t care. Do your page! A case study of using wikis for collaborative work in a UK secondary school. 34, 2, 105. Hanson, J. 2007. 24/7: How Cell Phones and the Internet Change the Way We Live, Work, and Play. New York: Praeger. Hill, L. Kim, S. L., & Laguex, R. (2007). Faculty collaboration as faculty development. Peer Review. 9, 4, 17-19 Hsu, H and Wang, S. 2011. The impact of using blogs on college students reading comprehension and learning motivation. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 1, 68-88. Kennewell, S. ( 2010). Analyzing the impact of information technology on activity and learning. In A. McDougall, J. Murnane, A. Jones, & N. Reynolds (Ed.) Researching IT in education. (pp.112-110). London: Routledge. Lee, M. & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools. Australia: Acer Press. Newby, T.J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (2006). Educational technology for teaching and learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. O’Bannon, W. B. & Puckett, K. (2010). Preparing to use technology: A practical guide to curriculum integration. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson. Parker, J. K. (2010). Understanding youth and digital media. In. J.K. Parker (Ed.) Teaching tech-savvy kids: Bringing digital media iInto the classroom, grades 5-12. (pp.1-14).Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital native digital immigrants. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky/defaullt.asp. Reinhart, J. (2010). Graduate students communication practices and perceived sense of community. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11, 4, 223-238. Rooksby, J. & Ikeya, N. (2012 January/February). Collaboration in formative design: Working together at a whiteboard. IEEEE Software. http://ComputerNow.computer.org. Roqueta, M. (2010). Learning management systems: A focus on the learner. Distance Learning. 5, 4, 59-66. Sadik, A. (2007). The readiness of faculty members to develop and implement e-learning: The case of an Egyptian university. International Journal on E-Learning. 6, 3, 433-449. Schriberg, A. (2009). Effectively leading and managing a virtual team. The Business Review, 12, 2, 1-2. Taggar, S. & Haines III, V. Y. (2006). I need you, you need me: a model of initiated task interdependence. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 21, 3, 211-230. Tirpak, T. M. (2011). The social factor: Innovate, ignite, and win through mass collaboration and social networking. Research Technology Management. 54, 1, 66-68. Twining, P. (2010). Educational information technology research methodology: looking back and moving forward. In A. McDougal, J. Murnane, A. Jones, & N. Reynolds (Eds.) Researching IT in education: Theory, Practice and Future Directions. (pp.153-168). London: Routledge. Vincent, J. & McDougall, A. & Azinian, H. (2010). Visualization, multimodality, and learning with information technology. In A. McDougall, J. Murnane, A. Jones, & N. Reynolds (Ed.) Researching IT in education. (pp. 192-199). London: Routledge. Wang, L., MacCann, C., Zhuang, X., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Assessing teamwork in High School students: A multi method approach. Canadian Journal of School Psychology. 24, 2, 108-124. Wasik, B. (2009). And Then There’s This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture. USA: Viking Penguin.