i-manager Publications

A Comparison Of Traditional And CooperativeLearning Methods In Online Learning

Lori Kupczynski*, Marie Anne Mundy**, Alberto Ruiz***

* Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

** Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

*** Professor and Dean, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Periodicity:July - September'2013
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2411

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the Community of Inquiry framework through an in-depth examination of learning comprised of teaching, social and cognitive presence in traditional versus cooperative online teaching at a community college. A total of 21 students participated in this study, with approximately 45% having taken online courses previously. Repeated Measures ANOVA were completed for all analyses via the SPSS General Linear Model – Repeated Measures with alpha set at α = .05 across all tests Cooperative learning (Mean = 72.18, SD = 12.31) was significantly higher than traditional learning (Mean = 70.91, SD = 12.70). The effect size of .22 as measured by Partial Eta Squared was quite large, with 22% of the difference in variance explained by overall learning. CL in teaching presence (Mean = 33.62, SD = 5.17) was significantly higher than traditional in teaching presence (Mean = 32.82, SD = 5.74). The effect size of .46 as measured by Partial Eta Squared was very large, with 46% of the difference in variance explained by teaching presence. Social and cognitive were not statistically significant (p>.05). Future studies should examine different designs of teaching presence, such as allowing students to choose their own groups, which may lead to increased social presence and cognitive presence and in turn increased learning.

Keywords

Online Learning, Cooperative Learning, Teaching.

How to Cite this Article?

Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A. and Ruiz , A. (2013). A Comparison Of Traditional And Cooperative Learning Methods In Online Learning. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 21-28 . https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2411

References

[1]. Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(2): 135–149.

[2]. Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers' social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning & Technology 10(1): 42–66.

[3]. Ashong, C. Y., & Commander, N. E. (2012). Ethnicity, gender and perceptions of online learning in higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(2): 98-110.

[4]. Assinder, W. (1991). Peer teaching, peer learning: One model. ELT Journal, 45: 218-229.

[5]. Bliss, C., & Lawrence, B. (2009). Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? A comparison of small group and whole class discussion board activity in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13: 25-39.

[6]. Ciges, A. (2001). Online learning: New educational environments in order to respect cultural diversity through cooperative strategies. Intercultural Education, 12: 135-147.

[7]. Cox, B. & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education, 4: 553-565.

[8]. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (Rev. Ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath.

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

[10]. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3): 87–105.

[11]. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1): 7–23.

[12]. Garrison, D. R. and Archer, W. (2003). A Community of Inquiry Framework for Online Learning. In: M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education. New York: Erlbaum.

[13]. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M. and Fung T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2): 61– 74.

[14]. Havard, B., Du, J., &Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19: 37-50.

[15]. Hutchinson, D. (2007). Teaching practices for effective cooperative learning in an online learning environment (OLE). Journal of Information Systems Education, 18: 357-367.

[16]. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction.

[17]. Ku, H., Lohr, L., & Cheng, Y. (2004). Collaborative learning experiences in online instructional design courses. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

[18]. Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A., Goswami, J., & Meling, V. (2012). Cooperative learning in distance learning?: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2): 81–90.

[19]. Kupczynski, L.Mundy, M. A. & Maxwell, G. (2012). Faculty perceptions of cooperative learning and traditional discussion strategies in online courses. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 95-106.

[20]. Luebeck, J. L. &Bice, L.R. (2005). Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change among mathematics and science teachers.Journal of Distance Education 20(2): 21–39.

[21]. McKlin, T., Harmon, S.W., Evans, W. & Jones, M.G. (2002). Cognitive presence in web-based learning: A content analysis of students' online discussions. ITForum Paper #60.

[22]. Meyer, K. A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8(2): 101–114.

[23]. Murphy, E. (2004). Identifying and measuring ill-structured problem formulation and resolution in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 30(1): 5–20.

[24]. Paulsen, M. (2008). Cooperative online education. Seminar.Net: Media, Technology & Life-Long Learning, 4: 1-20. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

[25]. Pierce, R. (2012). Transforming Interaction and Social Presence through Course Design: Authentic Implementation of Threaded Discussion Tools. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2012, No. 1, pp. 770-778).

[26]. Prestera, G.E. & Moller, L. (2001). Exploiting opportunities for knowledge building in asynchronous distance learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2: 93-104.

[27]. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics. Behaviour & Technology, 26(1): 55-71.

[28]. Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online discussions. In: S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices, 147–164. London: Kogan Page.

[29]. Vaughan, N. D. (2005). Investigating how a blended learning approach can support an inquiry process within a faculty learning community.(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Nr03893).

[30]. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Examining the Effectiveness of Online Learning Within a Community College System: An Instrumental Variable Approach. Community College Research Center. Working Paper 56, 1-30.

[31]. Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., &Kyeong-JuSeo, K. (2011). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1): 77–87.

A Comparison Of Traditional And CooperativeLearning Methods In Online Learning

Abstract

Keywords

How to Cite this Article?

References

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Options for accessing this content:

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Pdf	35	35	200	20
Online	35	35	200	15
Pdf & Online	35	35	400	25