Best Practices for Cultivating a Sense of Space in Online/Blended Classrooms: An Executive Summary

No comments

The following blog post is an executive summary of a larger research project that explored community building in online/blended classrooms. This study was supported by a Faculty Fellowship from CI’s Teaching & Learning Innovations Group, and was conducted by Kellie Prather (undergraduate student at CI), Brandon Burns (undergraduate student at CI), Maia Smidt (undergraduate student at CI), and J. Jacob Jenkins (Assistant Professor of Communication at CI). For a complete copy of this study, or to inquire about its specific results, methodology, implications, and/or theoretical framework, please contact Jacob Jenkins at jacob.jenkins@csuci.edu for more information.

 

Best Practices for Cultivating a Sense of Space in Online/Blended Classrooms: An Executive Summary

  1. As technology improves, so does the use and popularity of online/blended courses:
  • Since 2009, students enrolled in online/blended classes have risen nearly 7% per year.[1]
  • There are 5,257,379 students currently enrolled in an online/blended course.
  • There are 200,000 more students enrolled in an online/blended course today than in 2014.[2]
  • In 2014, online/blended programs accounted for nearly all of the enrollment growth experienced by two-year institutions in the United States.[3]

 

  1. Reasons for the increased popularity of online and blended courses are numerous:
  • They provide students with greater flexibility and access to certain classes, programs, and universities.
  • They make higher education more accessible for nontraditional students who might already be balancing careers and family obligations.[4]
  • They allow the possibility for instructors to explore more innovative approaches to pedagogy.
  • They challenge the traditional “ivory tower” model of higher education.[5]
  • They reduce commute time.
  • They offer opportunities for advanced technical training.
  • They can potentially lower tuition costs overall.[6]

 

  1. Despite this popularity, there are concerns about a lack of “community” in some virtual classrooms:
  • Community plays a critical role in the academic success of online college students.[7]
  • Students who feel a strong sense of community in their classroom are more likely to participate.[8]
  • Students who feel a strong sense of community report learning more in the classroom.[9]
  • Students who feel a strong sense of community have higher satisfaction rates.[10]
  • Conversely, “perceived lack of sense of community” is one the most commonly cited challenges in online/blended classrooms.[11]
  • Students who report an absence of community in their online/blended courses are less likely to attend, less likely to participate, and less likely to remain enrolled.[12]

 

  1. The present blog post summarizes a 25-page academic study that:
  • Offered one of the first empirical studies of community-building techniques within online/blended classrooms.
  • Used the six elements of community identity as its theoretical framework:[13]
    • locus
    • distinctiveness
    • identification
    • orientation
    • quality
    • functionality
  • Collected original data from 20 faculty interviews and over 150 student surveys.
  • Developed practical implications for cultivating a sense of community at the university level.

 

  1. In brief, the quantitative results of this study revealed:
  • A statistical significance between community and each of Puddifoot’s aforementioned elements of community identity.
  • The first element – locus (i.e., a sense of place/space) – as offering the strongest predictor of community (X2(2) = 375, p < 0.001; ϕ = .636, p < 0.001).
  • The first empirical support for community identity, highlighting the interrelated significance of all six elements, while revealing a subtle hierarchy of importance.

 

  1. Implications for cultivating a sense of place/space include the need for instructors to:
  • Recognize the importance place plays in community building efforts – even in online/blended courses that lack their own physical space in the literal sense.
  • Treat the online space these courses inhabit as their own “virtual commons.”
  • View the aesthetic design of an online/blended course’s webpage, Canvas, or Blackboard site as fundamentally significant as the lighting, acoustics, or seating arrangement in a traditional classroom space.
  • Consider each online space as its own unique environment, with each offering potential benefits and drawbacks – just as physical environments offer their own unique ambiance, with their own potential benefits and drawbacks.
  • Utilize the limited amount of in-class time a blended course offers with overt attempts at community building (i.e., ice-breaker questions, team building exercises, even roleplaying games, and so on).

 

  1. In the end, we hope this study and its implications will help other educators to:
  • Better capitalize on the potential benefits offered by online and blended classrooms (e.g., increased access and flexibility for nontraditional students, advanced technical training, lower tuition costs, etc.)
  • Explore more innovative approaches to pedagogy.
  • Increase student satisfaction, participation, and involvement in online/blended courses.
  • Gain a more informed perspective for how to best capitalize on the potential benefits that online and blended courses have to offer.

 

[1] Lokkin, F., & Mullins, C. (2015). Trends in eLearning: Tracking the impact of eLearning at community colleges. Instructional Technology Council. Retrieved from http://www.itcnetwork.org/component/content/article/1171-itc-2014-distance-education-survey-results.html

[2] Babson Survey Research Group. (2015). Babson study: Distance education enrollment growth continues. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/news_item/babson-study-distance-education-enrollment-growth-continues/

[3] Lokkin, F., & Mullins, C. (2015). Trends in eLearning: Tracking the impact of eLearning at community colleges. Instructional Technology Council. Retrieved from http://www.itcnetwork.org/component/content/article/1171-itc-2014-distance-education-survey-results.html

[4] Kay, D., Summers, J. J., & Svinicki, M. D. (2011). Conceptualizations of classroom community in higher education: Insights from award winning professors. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 5(4), 230-245.

[5] Lokkin, F., & Mullins, C. (2015). Trends in eLearning: Tracking the impact of eLearning at community colleges. Instructional Technology Council. Retrieved from http://www.itcnetwork.org/component/content/article/1171-itc-2014-distance-education-survey-results.html

[6] Open Education Database. (2012). Ten advantages of taking online classes. Retrieved from http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/10-advantages-to-taking-online-classes/

[7] Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.

[8] Young, S., & Bruce, M. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219-227.

[9] Ni, S., & Aust, R. (2008). Examining teacher verbal immediacy and sense of classroom community in online classes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 477-498.

[10] Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.

[11] Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59-70.

[12] Young, S., & Bruce, M. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219-227.

[13] Puddifoot, J. E. (1995). Dimensions of community identity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5(5), 357-370.