how, in practice, did HyFlex instruction for large lectures work out? One University of Copenhagen researcher studied exactly that in a study just published in the Danish journal, Læring og Medier (Learning and Media).
Organizations like Flatiron School and Stack Overflow make particularly good use of this strategy. Focused on helping software developers build out their skill sets, these businesses facilitate collective learning through group problem-solving and community feedback. “It’s also just [having] people to vent with,” said Kate Cassino, CEO of Flatiron School. “How are you making your way through?”
Handshake, an early career exploration platform for college students, uses student-to-student messaging to help users reach out to others like them on the platform.
Ruben Harris, chief executive officer of Career Karma, a career navigation and mentorship platform, highlighted just how powerful audio rooms can be as a tool to drive meaningful conversation and community. “I can just organize everybody together, and they’ll give you the sauce that you’d never be able to find,” he said. “Someone that comes from an underestimated background that already broke in [to the tech industry] can give you insight.”
Jenn Hofmann is a graduate fellow working on student engagement issues for Stanford University’s Digital Education team.
We define student engagement as a constructivist approach to teaching and learning: less “sage on the stage” and more learning by doing.
Digital collaborative technologies embrace three important student engagement objectives: connecting students with the content, with the instructor, and with one another, within and across groups. Formulating, sharing, and getting feedback on responses benefits all students by increasing the exchange of ideas and approaches to the given prompt, helping students develop critical thinking skills through thoughtful peer review and analysis, and engaging them with timely feedback from expert instructors. Retaining these “blended learning” practices and additional affordances post-pandemic is worthwhile as we move to the next normal.
The five teaching enhancements/adaptations discussed above—collaborative technologies for sense-making, student experts in learning and technology, back channels, digital breakout rooms, and supplemental recording.
Looking for different ways for students to share their knowledge. I’ve done Jamboard, Google Slides, Discussion posts, padlet…I just want something different and am not able to come up with any great ideas here. Anyone come up with anything else fun or interesting? This is for an asynchronous course.
Drouin, M., & Vartanian, L. (2010). Students’ feelings of and desire for sense of community in face-to-face and online courses.(Survey). Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(3).
Keengwe, J., & Wilsey, B. (2012). Online graduate students’ perceptions of face-to-face classroom instruction.(Report). International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(3), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2012070106
Singh, A., & Srivastava, S. (2014). Development and Validation of Student Engagement Scale in the Indian Context. Global Business Review, 15(3), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150914535137
Embracing online school requires a new mindset, as well as new criteria for measuring academic success—measures that take into account the nature of teaching and learning online, the types of students online schools serve, and the unique ways in which those students learn.
Teachers interact with students during synchronous learning sessions, and they connect one-on-one through calls, online chats, texts, and interactive whiteboard sessions.
Accountability measures must adapt to and reflect a self-paced, competency-based learning environment. A traditional one-size-fits-all rubric does not translate cleanly with respect to online schools.
A new report from the Learning House and Aslanian Market Research measures the opinions of 1,500 online students regarding everything from course satisfaction to study methods
institutions need to more clearly share the positive outcomes that come with completing degree and certificate programs online.”
online courses would be better if there was more contact and engagement.
This case study of Indiana University’s e-text initiative reports on students’ actual use of and engagement with digital textbooks.
In a typical semester, students read more in the first four weeks and less in later weeks except during major assessment times; in a typical week, most reading occurs between 5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. from Monday to Thursday, indicating that students use e-texts mainly as a self-study resource.
Highlighting was the markup feature most used by students, whereas use of the other interactive markup features (shared notes, questions, and answers) was minimal, perhaps because of students’ lack of awareness of these features.
Research found that higher engagement with e-texts (reading and highlighting) correlated with higher course grades.
Although cost savings is often cited as a key advantage of electronic textbooks (aka, e-textbooks or simply e-texts), e-texts also provide powerful markup and interaction tools. For these tools to improve student learning, however, their adoption is critically important.
The Indiana University e-texts program, which began in 2009, has four primary goals:
Drive down the cost of materials for students
Provide high-quality materials of choice
Enable new tools for teaching and learning
Shape the terms of sustainable models that work for students, faculty, and authors
To date, student savings on textbooks amount to $21,673,338. However, we recognize that many students do not pay the full list price for paper textbooks when they purchase online, buy used copies, or recoup some of their costs when they resell their texts after the semester is over.
herefore, we divide the calculated savings by two and report that total as a more accurate representation of student savings. Consequently, we claim that students have saved about $11 million since IU’s e-texts program started in spring 2012.
In addition to printing through the e-text platform, students can purchase a print-on-demand (PoD) copy of an e-text for an additional fee.
One downside of e-texts is that students lease their textbook for a limited time instead of owning it. This lease generally lasts a semester or six months, and students lose their access afterwards. However, with IU’s e-text model, students get access to the textbook before the first day of class and maintain their access until they graduate from Indiana University. That is, students can go back to the e-texts after their course to review or reference the content in the book. This could be especially important if the e-text course is a prerequisite for another course.
ECAR collaborated with 157 institutions to collect responses from 13,451 faculty respondents across 7 countries about their technology experiences. ECAR also collaborated with 124 institutions to collect responses from 43,559 undergraduate students across 10 countries about their technology experiences. Please see the 2017 student and faculty studies hub for more about this year’s research.
When it comes to meeting technological support needs, students’ default modality is DIY. Students are more than twice as likely to figure out solutions to technology problems on their own, to search online sources, or to ask a friend than they are to use their campus help desk. Contacting the vendor or company to fix a technology problem is the last resort.
Laptops are king, smartphones are queen, and tablets are on the way out.
Students’ experiences with their instructors’ use of and approach to technology in the classroom are a mixed bag. A majority of students said most of their instructors have adequate technology skills, use technology to enhance learning, and encourage the use of collaborative technology tools. However, students said fewer faculty use technology for sophisticated learning tasks (e.g., engagement, creative and critical thinking), and relatively few faculty ask students to use their own devices for in-class work.
Students are choosing sides in the online versus face-to-face debate. For the fourth year in a row, the number of students preferring a blended learning environment that includes some to mostly online components has increased. The number of students preferring completely face-to-face or completely online courses continues to dwindle. The number of students expressing no preference has been cut by more than half since 2014.
Students are satisfied with features of their LMS…except when they aren’t.Students have favorable opinions about the basic features and functionalities of their LMS. But, the more sophisticated the task and the more engagement required of students, the less happy they tend to be. This may be a function of the tools, the instructors who use them, or both.
Students would like their instructors to use more technology in their classes.Technologies that provide students with something (e.g., lecture capture, early-alert systems, LMS, search tools) are more desired than those that require students to give something (e.g., social media, use of their own devices, in-class polling tools). We speculate that sound pedagogy and technology use tied to specific learning outcomes and goals may improve the desirability of the latter.
Students reported that faculty are banning or discouraging the use of laptops, tablets, and (especially) smartphones more often than in previous years. Some students reported using their devices (especially their smartphones) for nonclass activities, which might explain the instructor policies they are experiencing. However, they also reported using their devices for productive classroom activities (e.g., taking notes, researching additional sources of information, and instructor-directed activities).