Teachers and students perspectives about patterns of interactio

Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2019 Teachers' and Students' Perspectives About Patterns of Interaction Ena Smith Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/dissertations Part of the Instructional Media Design Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu. Walden University College of Education This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Ena P.

Smith has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Dennis Beck, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty Dr. Paula Dawidowicz, Committee Member, Education Faculty Dr.

Christina Dawson, University Reviewer, Education Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph. Walden University 2019 Abstract Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives About Patterns of Interaction in Blended Learning Discussions by Ena P. Smith MBA, Keller Graduate School of Management, 2010 BA, DeVry University, 2009 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Education Walden University May 2019 Abstract Social interaction is key to students’ learning in blending learning discussions. Although there is research on interactions in online courses and traditional classes, there is little on whether blended learning discussions are meeting students’ social interaction and educational development needs.

The purpose of this multicase study was to examine attitudes of first-year and final-year business and technology students and faculty members for patterns of interaction and knowledge construction. The study was conducted in the northeastern United States. Piaget’s cognitive constructivism, Vygotsky’s social constructivism, and Knowles’s andragogy constituted the conceptual framework. Using maximum variation sampling, participants were 8 students and 4 faculty for 2 first-year and 2 final-year classes.

Data sources were interviews and discussion responses coded using Straus and Corbin’s open, axial, and selective coding procedures. Coded data were analyzed using Merriam’s cross-case analysis method. The business students displayed the first three phases of knowledge construction: (a) sharing and comparing (b) discovery and exploration, and (c) negotiation of meaning; the technical students progressed to the fourth phase: testing and modification of proposed synthesis. Knowledge construction often occurred in a positive, challenging form of interaction.

The professors expressed that gender, VoiceThread media, and discussion content influenced students’ learning. These findings contribute to positive social change by informing stronger learning processes that students and teachers can use in their blended learning classes to facilitate collective knowledge construction. Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives About Patterns of Interaction in Blended Learning Discussions by Ena P. Smith MBA, Keller Graduate School of Management, 2010 BA, DeVry University, 2009 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Education Walden University May 2019 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my dear parents, Merrick P.

Smith and Ena C. Smith, who passed away January 2012 and December 2012, respectively. Thank you for life; without you there is no me. Papa, the music and laughter we shared kept my energy up during challenging moments of my study.

You taught me how to love life and how important it is to reward oneself for a job well done. You often sang about smiles and laughter and the power they emit to see us through dark times. Papa, your laughter lives on in my mind, I love you and miss you dearly. Mama, as I said to you the moment my proposal was approved, thank you for nurturing my instinct for research.

You taught me to be patient and look beyond the surface of a body of work. You taught me how to look up ambiguous words and phrases using the concordance and footnotes of the Bible to uncover the full context of the stories. Mama, I cherish your wise counsel. I feel honored to know that you saw it fit for me to bear your name, Ena, meaning, mother, fire, and passion.

I miss you and will always love you dearly. Mama and Papa, your exemplary life of kindness is molding and shaping me into the scholar-practitioner that I aspire to be. I now clearly understand the true meaning of our national pledge, even as I play my very small part in “advancing the welfare of the whole human race” (an excerpt from the Jamaican National Pledge). Without the invaluable attributes you imparted to me, earning this PhD degree would not be possible.

Acknowledgments I now take this opportunity to thank the closest people in my life, my son, Jordan Spence, my best friend, Wendy Diamond, my 11 siblings, and all support clusters in my virtual village who helped propel me as I pressed onward to obtaining a Doctorate in Philosophy. The journey was grueling, where I pulled off many all-nighters as I examined extensive academic material and research data to meet each deadline. Jordan and Wendy, thank you for your patience and the sacrifices you made over the years as I pursued and achieved each milestone of this important endeavor. You and my siblings supported me even when I worked throughout major holidays, spending such limited time with you all.

Thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Dennis Beck, and committee member, Dr. Paula Dawidowicz, for sticking it out with me throughout the years of this dissertation process. You taught me how to investigate thoroughly, ponder, and produce measured findings.

I also thank Dr. Christina Dawson, my University Research Reviewer (URR), and my past URR, Dr. Keith Higa, for their guidance and support. Many thanks to my friend, mentor, and editor, Dr.

Carolyn Rose-Smith, for allowing me to talk her ears off as she ensured that I remained on the right path throughout the dissertation journey. Thank you for taking the time-out to read through my study with that second pair of eyes for errors that I might have missed, with the aim of me gaining approval with as little feedback as possible. Finally, thank you mama and papa for your love and support. I can feel your presence.

I can tell that you are happy to see that I have completed my dissertation. Table of Contents List of Tables. vi List of Figures. vii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study.1 Background of the Study .5 Purpose of the Study.

10 Adult Learning Theory of Andragogy. 11 Nature of the Study .17 Scope and Delimitations .18 Significance of the Study .20 Significance to Practice and Policy. 20 Significance to Theory. 21 Significance to Social Change .23 i Chapter 2: Literature Review .25 Literature Search Strategy.

34 Comparison of Cognitive and Social Constructivism. 39 Adult Learning Theory of Andragogy. 46 Patterns of Interaction in Online Forums. 49 Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Thinking Preferences.

50 First Versus Final Year Students’ Self-Evaluation. 52 Effects of Time on Students’ Interactions in Online Discussions. 53 Domination and Disconnection in Online Discussions. 54 First Impression Bias in Online Discussions.

55 Phases of Knowledge Construction: Argumentation Versus Relationship. 57 Blended Learning and Student-to-Student Interaction. 59 Developing Competency Within Different Learning Modes. 67 Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying.

68 Summary and Conclusions .77 Chapter 3: Research Method .79 Research Design and Rationale .80 ii Research Questions. 80 Multiple Case Study Research Design Rationale. 81 Role of the Researcher .85 Participant Selection Logic. 88 Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection.

90 Data Analyis Plan. 96 Issues of Trustworthiness .120 Evidence of Trustworthiness.138 Research Question 1 Discussion Thread Data .145 Within-Case and Cross-Case Analysis to Answer Research Question 1 .158 All Participants’ Discussion Data to Answer Research Question 2 .170 Within-Case and Cross-Case Analysis to Answer Research Question 2 .183 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations .189 Interpretation of Findings .197 Within-Case and Cross-Case Analysis to Answer Research Question 1 .209 Within-Case and Cross-Case Analysis to Answer Research Question 2 .216 Limitations of the Study.231 Appendix A: Criteria for Choosing Participants and Wait List Protocol .271 Appendix B: Invitation to Participate in the Study for Professors.273 Appendix C: Invitation to Participate in the Study for Students .274 Appendix D: Interview Guide for Students .275 Appendix E: Interview Guide for Professors .278 Appendix F: Student Interview Questions Alignment with Research Questions .281 Appendix G: Professor Interview Questions Alignment with Research Questions .285 Appendix H: Categories for Discussion Threads to Answer Research Questions .289 Appendix I: Categories to Capture Data Related to Research Question 1 .290 Appendix J: Categories to Capture Data Related to Research Question 2 .291 v List of Tables Table 1. Student Participants’ Profiles of Class Standing, Major, Gender, and Role. Professor Participants’ Profiles of General Area of Expertise, Gender, and Role.

All-Participant Interview Data to Answer Research Question 1. Professors’ Interview Data to Answer Research Question 1. Students’ Interview Data to Answer Research Question 1. All-Participant Interview Data to Answer Research Question 2 .160 vi List of Figures Figure 1.

Illustration of the zone of proximal development. Total participants in the study. Total participants used in the multiple case study. Major themes and subthemes in the study.

Within-case and cross-case analysis aimed to answer Research Question 1. Within-case and cross-case analysis aimed to answer Research Question 2 .180 vii 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study A popular form of learning environment in higher education is the blended learning delivery mode, which requires much learner-to-learner collaboration, such as in online threaded discussions and virtual group projects to construct knowledge (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007; Hewett, Becker, & Bish, 2019; Lam, 2015; Manzoor, 2018; Stuart, 2014). The blended learning delivery mode allows instructors and learners to make use of both face-to-face and online learning. Student interaction affects students’ learning experiences in online learning environments (Anthony, 2012; Hewett et al., 2019; Song & McNary, 2011; Xia, Fielder, & Siragusa, 2013; Shelton, Hung, & Lowenthal, 2017; Stuart, 2014).

Interaction in learning settings is a necessary and fundamental process for knowledge acquisition and cognitive development (Barker, 1994; Hannafin, 2009; Hewett et al. Online technologies, such as asynchronous discussion forums, provide the opportunity for students to engage in social interaction by reading and responding to peers’ and instructors’ postings (Gallini & Barron, 2001; Lam, 2015); however, Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) found that the depth of such interaction or discussion is not equivalent to traditional face-to-face class sessions. The nature and depth of students’ interaction in online environments is different from that of the face-to- face portion of the course (Kearsley, 2000).

Whereas students in physical classrooms can interact face-to-face or outside of class, students in the online portion of their courses interact with classmates through computer mediated communication (CMC), such as discussion boards. Although asynchronous technology may allow students to compare progress with others, explore topics, and reflect more deeply, other students must share 2 their own responses to realize the potential of online communication (Johnson & Aragon, 2003; Lapadat, 2006; Shelton et al. Shelton et al. (2017) found that student success and persistence in an online course does not necessarily hinge on the total amount of student discussion thread posts; instead, student success relies on consistent interaction with each other over time.

Since online learning requires a higher level of student interdependence and students must navigate time and space displacements, maintaining online interaction is a challenging task (Bannan-Ritland, 2003; Palloff & Pratt, 1999). There are a number of important factors that influence the effectiveness of online discussions, such as the role of the instructor, the degree of the instructor’s interventions, learner characteristics, the nature of tasks, students’ participation, the structure of discussion and the discussion question, group composition and size, and student perceptions (Song & McNary, 2011).