A blended learning Approach to teaching foreign ... - Semantic Scholar

Computers & Education 56 (2011) 856–864

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

A blended learning Approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance Ana-Maria Bliuc a, *, Robert A. Ellis a, Peter Goodyear b, Leanne Piggott c a b c

Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Sydney, Australia Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia Centre for International Security Studies, University of Sydney, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 25 March 2010 Received in revised form 25 October 2010 Accepted 26 October 2010

This article presents research on students’ experiences of learning through a blend of face-to-face and online discussion. The participants in our study were students enrolled in a foreign policy course at a major Australian university. Students’ conceptions of learning through discussion, and their approaches to both face-to-face and online discussion, were elicited through open-ended questionnaires and semistructured interviews. Students’ responses to both open-ended questionnaires and interviews were analysed using a phenomenographic framework. Qualitative variations in students’ conceptions and approaches were categorised and were found to form a hierarchy. Subsequent quantitative analysis found associations between students’ conceptions of learning through discussion, their approaches to both face-to-face and online discussion and their academic performance (as indicated by the final mark for the course). Implications for teaching and further research are discussed. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning through discussion Blended learning Phenomenography Computer mediated communication Teaching/learning strategies

1. Introduction Research on student learning in higher education has systematically provided evidence for the inter-relational nature of the different aspects of student learning, such as conceptions of learning, approaches to learning and learning outcomes. The increasingly common use of innovative contexts of learning that integrate online and face-to-face learning experiences at all levels of education highlights the need to intensify our research focus on key aspects of these experiences from a student perspective, such as students’ experiences of blended learning, online discussions or Internet-based research (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, & Francis, 2006; Tsai, 2004). In this article we investigate students’ experiences of learning through discussion in a blended learning context. The term ‘blended learning’ is used here with the meaning of mixing “(.) text-based asynchronous Internet technology with face-to-face learning” (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 96). The study is part of a broader project on learning through blends of face-to-face and online discussion. More specifically, the project has been exploring students’ experiences of learning in which part of the experience was mediated by technology, usually taking part of the experience outside of the classroom. The research pays particular attention to how students conceive of, and engage in learning through discussion. In this study, key aspects of the research are to understand: how students make sense of various combinations of online and face-to-face discussion; the extent to which they experience these as separate or integrated, and whether there are significant differences between academic disciplines in students’ conceptions of, and approaches to learning through online and face-to-face discussion (Ellis & Goodyear, 2010). The current study draws its data from an undergraduate social sciences course in Foreign Policy, taught at a major, research-intensive metropolitan university in Australia. On the course being studied, the blended learning experience consisted of face-toface lectures complemented by tutorials structured into face-to-face and online discussions. A primary motivation underlying the teacher’s use of a blend of face-to-face and online discussion was the observation that some of the students taking the course were more reluctant to engage in the face-to-face discussion. One of the central aims of adding the online dimension to the face-to-face discussion was to provide the best context for a broader range of students to participate in discussion. The teacher hoped that the online context with its affordances * Corresponding author. Institute for Teaching and Learning, Carslaw F07, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia. Tel.: þ61 2 9036 6598; fax: þ61 2 9351 4331. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.-M. Bliuc). 0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.027

A.-M. Bliuc et al. / Computers & Education 56 (2011) 856–864

857

(more relaxed pace, relative anonymity, increased opportunities for reflection and better organisation of arguments, etc.) might help students to participate more fully. The teacher’s belief about the pedagogical value of discussion was grounded in a sense of the importance of students having an opportunity to articulate their knowledge. In addition, given the different nature of learning processes involved in learning through online discussion (e.g., possibility to look more into readings, reflect, improve written rhetoric, etc.) the teacher’s intentions were also to provide students with a more holistic experience of learning.

1.1. Theoretical background This is a study in the phenomenographic tradition of research on learning and teaching in higher education. Phenomenography describes learning in terms of the “experience of learning”, or “learning as coming to experience the world in one way or another” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p.33). In focusing on how learners are “going about their learning”, phenomenography distinguishes between two aspects of learning (which are common to all phenomena): the how and the what aspects of learning. In higher education research, the focus is on how students approach their learning (approaches to learning) and what students think they are learning (conceptions of learning). In the case of approaches, attention needs to be paid to what students do, and to the intentions associated with their actions (Ellis, Goodyear, Brillant, & Prosser, 2008a). Our previous research on student learning through blended discussion (Ellis & Calvo, 2004; 2006; Ellis, Goodyear, Prosser, & O’Hara, 2006; Ellis, Goodyear, Calvo & Prosser, 2007; Ellis, Goodyear, Calvo, & Prosser, 2008b) identified in both face-to-face and online contexts approaches that reflect using discussion as a way of deepening understanding (deep approaches) and approaches that reflect the use of discussion in a more instrumental way, as a tool to get information for exams or just as a course requirement (surface approaches). These descriptions are consistent with Biggs and Tang’s (2007) account of differences between deep and surface approaches in terms of active versus passive attitude to learning, memorising versus understanding, and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation to learn. In relation to conceptions of learning, research tends to find similar categories to reflect the variation in the description of these conceptions (Virtanen & Lindblom-Yläne, 2010). In early research on student learning, Säljö (1979) initially identified five qualitatively different conceptions. The first three conceptions - learning as an increase in knowledge, memorising, and acquisition of facts and procedures that can be retained and used in practice - are based around reproductive aspects of learning. The other two conceptions abstraction of meaning, and learning as an interpretative process aimed at understanding reality - involve a significant qualitative shift. These conceptions of learning emphasise learning as a constructive process. These conceptions were later extended through research by Marton, Dall’Alba, and Beaty (1993) who added a sixth conception (learning as changing as a person). Phenomenographic researchers regard these conceptions as being increasingly elaborated, but also inclusive – in the sense that the more elaborated conceptions include and extend the less elaborated conceptions. We follow Prosser and Trigwell (1999) and Ramsden (2003) in using the terms fragmented and cohesive to describe these less elaborated and respectively more elaborated sets of conceptions of learning. In the context of this particular study, cohesive conceptions reflect a view that learning through discussion helps with understanding some of the deeper principles in foreign policy and with gaining the ability to contextualise these principles. In contrast, fragmented conceptions focus on a more instrumental role for discussions - e.g. in helping with preparations for the final examination. Research on student learning has consistently revealed qualitative variations in conceptions of learning, qualitative variations in approaches to learning (what is done, and why) and close associations between conceptions, approaches and academic outcomes in a wide range of learning contexts and situations including mathematics (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1994; 1998), psychology (van Rossum & Schenk, 1984), engineering (Marshall, Summer, & Woolnough, 1999), science (Tsai, 2004; Tsai & Kuo, 2008), distance education (Makoe, Richardson, & Price, 2008; Richardson, 2000), online peer-assessment (Yang & Tsai, 2010), and so on. Building on this body of research, our own investigations have concentrated on qualitative differences in the ways students conceive of, and approach, learning through discussion in blended learning contexts. Drawing data from courses in Social Work and in Web Engineering, regular, though usually moderate, correlations between conceptions, approaches and outcomes were found (e.g., Ellis & Calvo, 2004, 2006; Ellis et al., 2006, 2007, 2008a, b). Some of these studies have used open-ended questionnaires and semistructured interviews, and they have been replicated in quantitative studies using rating scale instruments with much larger samples of students (Ellis & Goodyear, 2010). So far, the studies provide good empirical evidence that students’ approaches to discussion, their conceptions of learning through discussion and their academic performance are inter-related in both online and face-to-face contexts. Consistent with earlier research on student learning (in contexts where technology is not being used), we have found that students who tend to describe their experience of learning in a blended learning context in qualitatively positive terms, reporting integrated, cohesive conceptions about learning through both face-to-face and online discussions also tend to describe approaches to discussion that are consistent with striving for personal understanding and meaningful learning across contexts of learning (these can be classified as ‘deep’ approaches to learning). Similarly, students who tend to describe experiences of learning consistent with conceptions of learning through discussion that are fragmented also tend to describe approaches to learning that are less oriented towards understanding, suggesting more concern towards completing the task and meeting course requirements, descriptions that can be seen as ‘surface’ approaches to learning. To complement earlier studies in Social Work and Web Engineering – which are both vocationally oriented – studies exploring teachers and students in more conventionally academic courses in the social sciences were conducted. Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, and Piggott (2010) used rating scale instruments with a sample of 113 students of political science to capture variations in conceptions of, and approaches to, learning through online and face-to-face discussion. Statistically significant positive correlations were found between fragmented conceptions of learning and surface approaches to learning (online and face-to-face) and between cohesive conceptions of learning and deep approaches to learning (online and face-to-face). However, only fragmented conceptions of learning correlated with academic performance, measured by the end of course mark (r ¼ .23; p < .05). The present study is aimed at investigating this more deeply. As before, the data are drawn from a social sciences course in which a blend of online and face-to-face discussion was used – though this time the topic of the course was Foreign Policy. But also, the methods used in this study allow for gathering much richer qualitative data, using in depth interviews and open-ended questionnaires.

858


1.2. Aims of the present research The study aims to explore: The qualitatively different ways in which students (a) approach learning across different learning contexts, that is, through face-to-face and online discussion and (b) conceive of learning through discussion in general, and The relationships between students’ approaches to learning through face-to-face and online discussion, their conceptions of learning through discussion and their academic performance (as captured by final course marks).

2. Method 2.1. Research context The context of the study was a 3rd year undergraduate course in Foreign Policy at a large research-intensive metropolitan Australian university. The course was designed as a blended learning experience with tutorials incorporating face-to-face and online discussion. Specifically, the tutorials were structured around face-to-face discussion for a number of sessions followed by sessions of asynchronous online discussion. In the face-to-face tutorials, one student prepared a presentation on a designated topic, followed by discussion around the topic. Specific readings and a set of questions were given to the class for each topic. The structure of online tutorials was similar, except that in each week one student led the tutorial with a 500 word presentation and also e-moderated the other students’ responses. The students were required to contribute a minimum of two posts (of 200 words) based on their understanding of the recommended readings for the topic. As mentioned in the Introduction, one of the pedagogical justifications for using blended learning on this course was to provide students with an opportunity to discuss topics in class and then engage in further discussion and reflection online, in between classes. The teacher wanted to “hear” more students than was possible in a classroom-only model and wanted to give students different opportunities to express their thoughts about what were often complex and sensitive issues (e.g., the “War on Terror”, Australia’s involvement in Iraq, AsiaPacific diplomatic relationships, etc.)

2.2. Participants Of the 63 undergraduate students enrolled in the course, 59 completed the open-ended questionnaires. The same issues from the questionnaire were explored at a deeper level with 20 of the participants in semi-structured interviews. Some participants who volunteered for the interviews did not actually complete the open-ended questionnaires, so the total number of responses analysed was 63.

2.3. Interviews and questionnaires Both the questionnaires and interviews were designed around a number of core questions, aimed at exploring participants’ approaches to face-to-face and online discussion, and their conceptions of learning through discussion: What do you think is the purpose of discussion in your unit of study, foreign policy? (Conceptions of learning in the course) How do you approach learning through discussion in class? What do you do and Why do you do those things? (Approaches to face-to-face discussion) How do you approach learning through discussions online? What do you do and why do you do those things? (Approaches to online discussion) The structure of the interviews was similar to the open-ended questionnaires, with the added benefit that issues of interest arising while talking to the participants could be probed and further explored through follow-up questioning.

2.4. Method of analysis Analysis of the responses was conducted using an established procedure developed and widely used by researchers in the phenomenographic tradition (see Prosser, Trigwell, Hazel, & Gallagher, 1994; Yang & Tsai, 2010). The interviews were transcribed and all the participants’ answers to the first question were pooled and read by the researchers. In the initial stages of the process, students’ descriptions of their learning experiences in the course (from both open-ended questionnaires and interviews) were analysed independently by two members of the research team. Specifically, emerging themes were identified and then discussed. Discussion and refinement of the categories continued until total agreement was reached (the process of independent refinement of themes followed by discussion on the main thematic categories and their hierarchy was re-iterated several times until a final decision was made). The same procedure was applied for all questions. The final categories for each question, followed by illustrative quotes from participants ascribed to those particular categories, are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Next, in order to conduct quantitative analyses, each of the students’ responses was assigned to one of the hierarchical categories. Statistical methods were used to identify a pattern of relationships between the ways in which students approached learning through discussion in face-to-face and online contexts, their conceptions of learning through discussion and the level of their academic performance in the course.


859

Table 1 Student approaches in face-to-face discussion in Foreign Policy. Categories

Description

Illustrative quotations

A Class discussions are an opportunity to advance own understanding of the topic and make connections between theory and real world (students display meta-awareness, reflection and ability to integrate).

Preparation: critical reading of materials, integrating the readings with lectures and practice. Participation: critical and active listening to the others to be able to engage with them and stimulate discussion, making meaningful contributions to discussion, followed by reflection on one’s own understanding

B Class discussions are an opportunity to broaden own understanding by integrating various informed opinions on the subject

Preparation: comprehensive reading of materials to be able to understand what others are talking about and also to contribute to discussion. Participation: challenge own understanding of the issues discussed and others in order to get a more rounded understanding of the topic Little preparation (reading done but only because it is required – external motivation) Participation: to express and validate own political opinions and see what other have to say (“test out” own opinions)

“(.) sort of think what they are saying and think about how it relates to the way I interpreted particular articles and whether what they are saying sort of conforms to what I think or whether is different. And if it is different, why. And I try to use it to challenge what I think, but by the same token I won’t necessarily just take what they are saying for face value.” “(.) And I’m always interested to see who’s point of view is being put across and why and try to understand the deeper ideas rather than talking it at face value. And without the other study of the primary documents and listening to the lectures that have come in from, (.) I can’t really understand (what other people say). Helps me to feel like I have a better understanding and I am not just taking things because The Channel 9 news told that to me. (.) So it just helps me in terms of my understanding of what is going on.” “I think it just- it brings the relevance back to the people in the course. Like to have to talk about refugees at the same time when the refugees are being talked about in the media, it makes it very topical, makes it very interesting and, I don’t know, it brings another dynamic (dimension?) to the course that you wouldn’t find it in say a History course or in another course.” “(I participate in class) Because I find it really interesting and I like to discuss these things. I like to put forward my opinion on certain topics that we’re talking about, or my interpretation of it, and then see how other people respond to that. Find out what other people think about it. Whether they disagree or agree. And like it helps shape your own ideas as well because other people can then say oh you know you’ve got some validity to that point but you are ignoring this aspect of it or something like that. And so it helps you to understand the topic better”

C Class discussions are an opportunity to exchange ideas and validate personal opinions (students display no meta-awareness of the topic)

D Class discussions are a formality, a requirement for the course

No or little preparation and participation to discussion in class Participate only because it is required; little participation because of fear of appearing ignorant

“I see other people go in there with their own preconceived ideas. That’s what everyone does and it is the same with me. By waiting for someone to make a controversial statement or say something I don’t agree with, it helps me further cement-understand my own opinions. Because I always try and – it’s best to get someone to try and criticize your argument so you can work out the holes and see if it holds up or see what people think about my argument. If they criticize it and I can’t defend it then it’s probably not worth defending.”Playing ‘devil’s advocate’ because: “Well, I think it’s good for me because you know it challenges your own beliefs and ideas by looking at alternatives. And also I think helps generate discussion because then you’ve got people within the class who are all on one side aiming to argue against one person and it helps build the strength of their argument and it also shows whether there are weaknesses in their argument and their ideas.” “(.) Like I don’t want to spend a lot of time on the tutorials. (.) I have to admit I have this kind of approach where as long as I say something or sort of demonstrate that I’ve done the readings and you know that I’ve done my job for the tutorial. It’s probably better to kind of have more in depth learning process but, I don’t know, I kind of tend to leave that for the assignments and exams as the tutorials aren’t usually worth much in terms of assessment” “To be honest, I probably never read the readings because I know someone else is going to be doing the talk on them. And I know they’re going to try to give a summary of that discussion. And also the discussion almost never covered the actual reading or just the ideas in the reading and I’ve already got a pretty good idea of most of the ideas. So in a face-to-face discussion, my preparation would be very limited.” “But I guess I personally would go to the trouble of trying to make a well-informed opinion because I don’t like to appear inarticulate. Like I would rather be silent than say something where everyone sort of goes err what. (.) It’s sort of like you don’t want to lose face. And it’s probably not even that big of a deal but I think that’s sort of like a barrier to participation.”

3. Results 3.1. Approaches to face-to-face discussion When asked about the ways in which they approached discussion in the face-to-face context, students provided answers describing the learning process in two stages: a) preparation for face-to-face discussion, consisting mostly of completing the recommended readings for each topic (but sometimes attending lectures, and preparing points for discussion); and b) actual participation in discussion, including contributions to discussion and actively listening to others. The participants described approaches which varied considerably, with respect to their associated intentions. Some students described participating actively in discussion in order to get a better understanding of the topic, by integrating theory and practice and by critically listening to other people’s opinions. Other students described their participation as minimal – intended only to receive some feedback about their views and to meet course requirements. Table 1 describes the four categories of students’ approaches to learning through face-to-face discussion that have been identified through the analysis of responses and interview transcripts. There is a marked qualitative shift between categories B and C. Responses classified as reflecting deep approaches (A and B) tend to include a higher level of awareness in relation to the topics discussed (i.e., displaying a higher level of ‘meta-awareness’ applied to their learning referring to a capacity to critically reflect on the actual process of learning, going beyond the content of their learning, see Gunnlaugson, 2007). Given the disciplinary content of the discussions, it is important to note that for categories A and B there is a tendency to express fewer personal political opinions and rather to display an

860


Table 2 Student approaches to online discussion in Foreign Policy. Categories

Description


A Online discussions are an opportunity for reflection and elaboration of one’s own interpretations of topics discussed (and readings)

Students participate by critically reviewing relevant points discussed and reflecting on them in order to be able to further develop understanding and original ideas Students focus in depth on specific points in order to be able to achieve a better understanding of the issues discussed

“I would think about the readings a bit myself and develop some ideas of my own. But I’d also read the other students’ postings. And I would get ideas from their posting or I would respond to questions that they would ask or something like that. So it was really good actually. It was one of those experiences where you kind of bounce your ideas off other people but you develop your own at the same time. (.) It was really useful cause they get different things out of the same information so it was good to see what they thought. ”

B Online discussions are an opportunity for a more specific focus on relevant points and a more thorough approach/treatment of these points C Online discussions are a requirement with little benefit for learning (but easier and less stressful than face-to-face discussions)

D Online discussions are a burden with no benefit for learning

“I found with the online tutes that I’d tend to focus on specific points of the readings more.I tend to often go back and review the points that were highlighted by other people before I make a comment on them. (.) which you do not really have the option to do in class.” “(.) Yeah, I think it was useful but then I’d think I also ignored a lot of points which may have been relevant because they weren’t really discussed. Whereas in face-to-face tutes, you get a more broad conception of the thing before you go in and then focus on specific issues in class. But online is all very specific and you can sort of filter out a lot of the unnecessary stuff.” Students make only basic “I thought that the discussion in the online tutes – often it was just that people were paying – they contributions to meet the were getting their two posts, than that was about as far as the discussion went. Which is fair enough, course requirements (passive I mean I was the same. (.) So probably sometimes the discussion was less meaningful.” approach, mostly responding “(.) Sometimes I just go to the last question and I’d just answer that.Because I saw it as something I to questions than contributing had to do. First few weeks I read all the discussion but if you are posting late it’s a daunting task reading with new points) like if you are the last person.(.) They (the discussions) didn’t help me at all. And once I was in that frame of mind, I mean it’s a continuing cycle. Like I am not going to try and make it work especially when the rest of the group is as apathetic as you are. ” Students invest minimal effort “(I read other people’s postings)mainly the ones that come before mine. Like if I haven’t posted yet. But I in their contribution, mainly do get lazy like if I’ve done my required postings the afterwards sometimes I don’t bother reading them. to avoid embarrassment and (.)(I read them) just to make sure – like to know what other people, how other people are responding to negative evaluations from the question. And to see like – to make sure that you’re not just saying the same thing over again. That peers you’re actually adding something new to discussion.” “I find it much harder to engage in online discussions because I feel your contribution has to be more formal and credible and you are more vulnerable to looking wrong. “

Table 3 Student conceptions of learning through discussion in Foreign Policy. Categories

Description


A Discussion as a way to stimulate reflection and promote an integrated understanding of theory and its application to real issues

The purpose of discussion is to stimulate ideas and enable students to integrate theory with current debates in Foreign Policy

“I think because a lot of the issues and the topics that we covered are really debatable. You know you can take a number of different positions on them. And I think in talking about them you can really tease out those different positions and not just think that something is a certain way and that’s it. That there are a number of ways for foreign policy to be or defense policy to be. So I guess it’s really important to understand that. And that’s where discussions are helpful.” “That everything is very contentious in political issues and that it’s important to engage with those and also to discuss with people these sorts of issues. Because that’s exactly how policy comes about. It’s through discussions and it’s through people presenting certain ideas and reading the readings, but also having to deal with that in a way that forces you to present some kind of a hypothesis or a conclusion as to that sort of information. Which is why tutorials can be really useful – if they worked well.” “(.)I think that for most of those it’s very important to have those discussions. To try and gain a better understanding in a more broad sense. In trying to understand the whole – the course as a whole.” “I think that they were to get more ideas out there than there is presented in the lecture. Cause the lecturer – they will present one, you know, one point of view. And generally it’s a very valid point of view. But they’re only one person in a very wide field.”

B Discussion as a way to The purpose of discussion is to encourage a more holistic enable students to achieve a understanding more well-rounded understanding also incorporating the idea that diversity of views is an essential aspect of understanding foreign policy C Discussion as a way of The purpose of discussion is to acquiring various items provide students with more of information information beside lecture (by sharing a wide range of opinions and aggregating knowledge coming from other view points)

D Discussion as an opportunity to practice for exams

E Discussions as not useful for learning

“I think generally discussions, especially in a subject like government, are really beneficial for learning because there are so many different opinions and you need to assess everyone’s thoughts and feelings and it’s quite political often. (.) (you learn) Because pretty much guarantee that everyone’s read more books than you can. And so everyone’s had more experiences that you can’t find in a book – that you can’t really, you can’t ever get. ” “But, you know, it’s about sharing your ideas and different approaches and engaging in discussion with your peers. SO that you can get a different perspective on certain topics. And the other thing is sometimes certain people haven’t done reading and other people have. Or sometimes I’ve done one reading but I haven’t done the other and somebody else has.” The purpose of discussion is to “And I think if you can articulate your own ideas then you have to have a strong foundation from help students to prepare for exams which to come from so it’s basically testing – and you can test yourself to see how well you know the by providing them with answers subject area. If you can’t say anything about it and you’re not confident, then you know that you need and opportunity to test own to do more work on it. I think that’s the basic premise.” knowledge against peers and further “OK basically just to kind of better understand the material. I mean that definitely helps in terms of like clarify issues from lectures. approaching the exam and things like that and assessments. Because you’ve kind of got a grip on the material and it’s not just your opinion.” No clear understanding of the real “(.)from the discussions you’re just learning how to articulate your ideas and developing that skill educational purpose of discussion; of speaking. I did an oral presentation so I think I probably did better – like I’m getting better at the main purpose of discussion is the oral presentations with the longer I am at uni.” to acquire and develop generic skills.


861

understanding of the importance of having an objective, well-rounded attitude towards the topic. In these responses there is a further criticism of discussion based on personal opinions, as opposed to an objective discussion of political topics based on theory and facts, which replicates a finding in Goodyear (1996). In the responses classified as surface approaches (C and D), there is an identifiable tendency to express and share personal political opinions, challenging others to make the discussion more exciting or to validate their opinions. In these responses, participation in discussion seems to be mostly motivated by a concern to meet the formal requirements of the course. There is a qualitative difference in responses also in the level of preparation for discussion. In categories A and B there are descriptions of thorough preparation, with a critical approach to readings and intentions of developing personal interpretations of materials. For categories C and D, a ‘guesswork’ approach to preparation is more prevalent, as readings are done hastily or not done at all and students rely heavily on what other students have to say, or on their general knowledge. 3.2. Approaches to online discussion The participants’ responses to: ‘How do you approach learning through discussion online? What do you do and why do you do those things?’ in both open-ended questionnaires and interviews were analysed and classified in four hierarchical categories. The responses vary in quality from descriptions of approaches requiring a minimum of effort, often focusing on reasons for not finding online discussion worthwhile, to quite elaborated descriptions of the preparation and participation processes, reflecting approaching online discussion in ways which would ensure that participating would provide great benefits in terms of broadening understanding and awareness of the subject. There is a marked qualitative shift from deep to surface approaches at the boundary between categories B and C. In describing approaches to online discussion there is mention of the preparation process, perhaps because in online discussion preparation is perceived as a more integral part of the actual participation (i.e., students can in fact write their online contribution and peruse reading materials almost concomitantly). 3.3. Conceptions of learning through discussion In terms of students’ conceptions about learning through discussion, five qualitatively different categories were identified. These could be organised in a hierarchy, as shown in Table 3. Conceptions in categories A and B can be seen as cohesive, with discussions considered to be conducive to reflection, promoting holistic understanding of the issues discussed, and enabling students to achieve a realistic, balanced perspective on foreign policy issues. Conceptions in categories C, D, and E differ in terms of their quality and can be seen as fragmented. Specifically, these conceptions reflect views of learning through discussion as a convenient way to collect information from many different sources and as an opportunity to test the strength of one’s own arguments before the final examination. At the lower end of the hierarchy, there are also descriptions revealing no clear understanding of the educational purpose of the discussions (category E). 3.4. Relationships between students’ approaches, conceptions and academic performance Quantitative analyses were conducted to examine the structure and distribution of student responses across the categories for all the questions. To enable the use of statistical procedures such as cross-tabulations and T-tests, categories A and B were merged in ‘Deep approaches’, respectively ‘Cohesive conceptions’ categories, while categories C, and D (also including E for conceptions) were merged in ‘Surface approaches’, and respectively ‘Fragmented conceptions’ categories. Contingency tables are presented to illustrate the relationships Table 4 Structure and distribution of approaches and conceptions. Experience of learning Face-to-face approaches Deep A B Surface C D Total Online approaches Deep A B Surface C D Total Conceptions Cohesive A B Fragmented C D E Total

n

% of responses

3 19

4.8 30.2

31 10 63

49.2 15.9 100

5 20

7.9 31.7

24 14 63

38.1 22.2 100

4 20

6.3 31.7

26 10 3 63

41.3 15.9 4.8 100

862


Table 5 Associations between conceptions and approaches. Approaches

Conceptions Cohesive (A, B)

Fragmented (C, D, E)

Total

Face-to-face

Deep (A,B) Surface (C,D) Total

14 9 23

7 32 39

21 41 62*

Online

Deep (A,B) Surface (C,D) Total

17 7 24

8 31 39

25 38 63

Face-to-face: c2¼11.899, Cramer’s Phi ¼ .438; p < .001 (*one blank answer reduced the N to 62) Online: c2¼15.717, Cramer’s Phi ¼ .499; p < .001.

Table 6 Associations between face-to-face and online approaches. Face-to-face Approaches Online Approaches Deep Surface Total

Deep 17 4 21

Surface 7 34 41

Total 24 38 62

c2¼23.885, Cramer’s Phi ¼ .621; p < .001.

between students’ conceptions of learning through discussion and their approaches to face-to-face and online discussion. Also, independent sample T-tests were performed to see whether academic performance was related to students’ conceptions or approaches in both contexts of learning. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7. Table 4 illustrates the distribution of students’ responses across the categories of approaches to face-to-face discussion (four categories), approaches to online discussion (four categories), and conceptions of learning through discussion (five categories). The distribution of responses across categories broadly follows a Gaussian curve, with the most responses classified as included in ‘middle’ categories such as C and B (to a lesser degree), and gradually less responses in A, D and E. Table 5 shows the results of cross-tabulations performed between conceptions of learning through discussion and approaches to both face-to-face and online discussions. The results suggest that students who tend to adopt deep approaches to face-to-face and online discussion, tend to display cohesive conceptions, while students who tend to adopt surface approaches, tend to display fragmented conceptions. Similarly, Table 6 shows that students who tend to adopt deep approaches to face-to-face discussion also tend to adopt deep approaches to online discussion. This finding is reproduced for surface approaches to face-to-face and online discussions, that is, students who tend to approach face-to-face discussions in a surface way are more likely to approach online discussions in a surface way. In this study, academic performance was indicated by the final mark for the subject. The final mark was computed by considering the performance in a written examination (60%), participation in face-to-face discussion (20%), and in online discussion (20%). Table 7 illustrates the findings of T-tests performed to investigate the differences in students’ academic performance based on their conceptions and approaches. The results suggest that, for this sample, students who tend to describe their conceptions of learning through discussion in a cohesive way tend to get significantly higher academic results than the students whose conceptions appear fragmented (t ¼2.240, p. < 05) Also, students who tend to have a deep approach to learning through discussion get better academic results than do students who tend to take a surface approach. This is true for both face-to-face and online discussions (t¼4.195, p < .001; and respectively, t¼3.125, p < .005). 3.5. Summary of findings This study shows that there was considerable qualitative variation in students’ descriptions of their learning experiences in this course. That is, in both face-to-face and online contexts, the descriptions of the approaches to discussion varied considerably in terms of quality Table 7 Differences in students’ conceptions, face-to-face and online approaches by academic performance (final mark). Aspects of learning

Final mark n

Mean

SD

Conceptions Cohesive Fragmented t

24 39 2.240*

70.29 66.31

4.777 7.851

Face-to-face Approaches Deep Surface t

21 41 4.195**

72.43 65.34

4.400 7.056

Online Approaches Deep Surface t

25 38 3.125**

71.04 65.71

4.605 7.651

N¼63; *p < .05; **p < .005


863

of learning. There are descriptions of approaches to discussion as ways to advance understanding by integrating theory and readings with examples from international foreign policy affairs (categories A and B). There are also descriptions of discussion as an opportunity to exchange personal views on different foreign policy issues, or merely to meet the formal requirements of the course (categories C and D). Similarly, students’ conceptions of learning through discussion ranged from qualitatively higher conceptions of learning which tended to describe the purpose of discussion as an opportunity to promote a more holistic understanding of topical issues and principles across the whole course (categories A and B), to less elaborated conceptions incorporating ideas that the discussions in the course are mostly a way to find out about other people’s views, so more knowledge on each topic can be accessed in preparation for the exam (categories C, D, and E). The quantitative analyses we conducted indicate that students’ conceptions of learning through discussion were associated with their approaches to both online and face-to-face discussion and with academic performance. While not the main findings in this study, they are indicative of key patterns in the student experience. They show that cohesive conceptions of learning through discussions tend to be related to deep approaches to discussions in both face-to-face and online contexts. This finding was mirrored amongst fragmented conceptions and surface approaches in the experience of learning through discussions. Significant differences were found amongst the qualitatively different experiences of learning through discussions and academic performance (as indicated by the final mark), depending on their conceptions and approaches. That is, cohesive conceptions and deep approaches tended to be more strongly related with a relatively higher mark and fragmented conceptions and surface approaches tended to be related with a lower mark.

4. Discussion This study illustrates the existence of significant variations in students’ descriptions of their approaches to face-to-face discussions, approaches to online discussions, and of their conceptions of learning through discussions in foreign policy, variations which are reflected in the quality of learning (see Marton et al., 1993; Purdie & Hattie, 2002; Purdie, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996). In relation to students’ approaches to discussion, similarly to previous research in both face-to-face and blended contexts of learning (e.g., Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Prosser & Millar, 1989; Ellis & Calvo, 2004; 2006; Ellis et al., 2006; 2007; 2008a, b) we found that there is significant variation in respect to both contexts of face-to-face and online discussion. In face-to-face discussion, descriptions of approaches classified as deep tend to incorporate a distinctive meta-awareness in relation to the topics discussed. That is, discussions are not seen as a way to exchange personal opinions in relation to the topics discussed but as an opportunity to reflect on more general foreign policy principles. Furthermore, discussions in this category tend to be well-prepared and both readings and participation in discussion are approached critically, by filtering information, building on one’s own understanding of issues and attempting an integration between theory and the real world context. Approaches which can be described as surface usually include a lesser degree of meta-awareness of the topics, discussions being seen (at best) as a fun way to share ideas and talk about them with no real intent. There does not seem to be an underlying principle to understand the key concepts of foreign policy. Often, discussions are approached with little or no preparation and they are seen as a requirement to pass the course. This pattern is generally reproduced in the online discussions. However, in the online context, approaches which can be classified as deep often describe the advantage of the asynchronous discussions as promoting reflection and allowing a deeper focus on specific aspects of the topics discussed. In contrast, approaches which can be described as surface are mainly concerned with participating online just to fulfil the course requirements. Rather than focusing on the opportunities that online discussions can provide (e.g. reflection, focus, further elaboration of certain points of interest), a surface approach often involves unsuccessfully applying strategies that work in a face-to-face context, such as seek the spontaneity of a “real” debate which often falls short of expectations. For equally problematic reasons, these approaches can reflect a tendency to avoid discussions, with minimal participation, justified by either an absence of need to contribute further to discussions (once the basic requirements of the course have been met) or by a reluctance to being judged by one’s peers. In relation to students’ conceptions of learning through discussion, this variation is reflected in qualitatively different ways in which students describe the purpose of the discussions in the course. Our hierarchical categories of conceptions of learning through discussion broadly map categories of conceptions of learning identified by previous research (e.g., Marton et al., 1993; Tsai, 2004; Watkins & Regmi, 1990; Eklund-Myrskog, 1998). Descriptions of conceptions which we classified as cohesive incorporate ideas that discussions are a good opportunity to stimulate reflection and critical thinking and to promote a more integrated understanding of the issues discussed. These descriptions further tend to include views that discussions can help in placing the foreign policy theory and readings in the context of real events, and also that debate and diversity of interpretations are integral parts of understanding foreign policy. In contrast, fragmented conceptions tended to include views that discussions have no real educational purpose - they are seen more as a way to complement the lectures by providing extra-information, the opportunity to clarify issues and test one’s own opinions. The quantitative analysis of the data provides strong support for the proposition that various aspects of learning such as conceptions and approaches are inter-related (Biggs, 1978; Prosser et al., 1994; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Consistent with earlier research in exclusively faceto-face learning contexts (e.g., Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton, Watkins, & Tang, 1997; Ramsden, 2003) our findings show that the quality of students’ conceptions tends to be reflected in the quality of their approaches to both face-to-face and online discussions, and in the quality of their learning outcomes. Moreover, our study shows that approaches to learning are also inter-related across contexts of learning, that is, the intent underlying discussions may tend to be similar in either face-to-face or online contexts. Our findings suggest that although using technology in learning can certainly improve students’ learning experience by providing opportunities for reflection and ‘doing things differently’, a far more important aspect (than the actual context of learning) in determining how students learn is how they relate to the subject matter. In essence, the quality of students’ learning experience seems to be considerably influenced by their relationship with what they learn, that is, their conceptualisations about what the learning for the subject is supposed to be about. It is also interesting to note that in the current climate of studying in large, highly competitive universities, students are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the ways they express their views about their learning. Students in our sample seem to be increasingly aware of the negative connotations (almost like stigma) associated with ‘rote learning’ and memorisation, but they may still not get to the heart of the ideas that their learning outcomes are designed to achieve.

864


5. Conclusion Our findings highlight the importance of supporting students to integrate their learning experiences (Bliuc et al., 2010). The issue of integration has quite specific implications for teaching and designing blended learning programs that enable high quality student learning. In terms of supporting integrated conceptions of learning when technology is involved, perhaps one way to address this is for teachers to set clearer expectations for students by explaining the purpose, particularities and advantages of each context of learning (Sharpe et al., 2006). For example, students should be helped to understand the role of technology in their learning, that is, that online discussions are not set to replace or precisely reproduce face-to-face discussions. Rather, they are complementary activities aimed at approaching the intellectual challenges of the subject in a somewhat different manner. Each has complementary strengths – whether the liveliness and excitement of a (good) face-to-face debate, or the opportunities for reflection offered by the slower pace of an asynchronous online discussion. Integration is a key principle which needs to occur at many levels. This study has shown that it needs to include integration across the different aspects of learning (between conceptions and approaches), and across contexts of learning (between online and face-to-face learning experiences). By providing students with support (in terms of teaching and design) to achieve an integrated vision at many levels, higher quality, more meaningful experiences of learning can be achieved. Acknowledgement The authors are pleased to acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council through grant DP0559282, and would also like to thank to the reviewers for their helpful comments on the draft version of this manuscript. References Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality in learning at university (3rd edition). England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2010). Learning through face-to-face and on-line discussions: associations between students’ conceptions, approaches and academic performance in political science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 512–524. Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at the university. Learning and Instruction, 8, 455–468. Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: the perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction, 8, 331–345. Eklund-Myrskog, G. (1998). Students’ conceptions of learning in different educational contexts. Higher Education, 35, 299–316. Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2004). Learning through discussions in blended environments. Educational Media International, 41, 263–274. Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2006). Discontinuities in university student experiences of learning through discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 55–68. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., O’Hara, A., & Prosser, M. (2007). The university student experience of face-to-face and online discussions: Coherence, reflection and meaning. ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology, 15, 83–97. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through on-line and face-to-face discussion: conceptions, intentions, and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244–256. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Brillant, M., & Prosser, M. (2008a). Student experiences of problem-based learning in pharmacy: conceptions of learning, approaches to learning and the integration of face-to-face and on-line activities. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 675–692. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Calvo, R. A., & Prosser, M. (2008b). Engineering students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning through discussions in face-to-face and on-line contexts. Learning and Instruction, 18, 267–282. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105. Goodyear, P. (1996). Asynchronous peer interaction in distance education: the evolution of goals, practices and technology. Training Research Journal, 1, 71–102. Gunnlaugson, O. (2007). Shedding light on the underlying forms of transformative learning theory: introducing three distinct categories of consciousness. Journal of Transformative Education, 5, 134–151. Makoe, M., Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2008). Conceptions of learning in adult students embarking on distance education. Higher Education, 55, 303–320. Marshall, D., Summer, M., & Woolnough, B. (1999). Students’ conceptions of learning in an engineering context. Higher Education, 38, 291–309. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Publishers. Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277–300. Marton, F., Watkins, D., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: an interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction, 7, 21–48. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and Teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). ‘The how and what of learning physics’. The European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513–528. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E., & Gallagher, P. (1994). Students’ experiences of teaching and learning at the topic level. Research and Development in Higher Education, 16, 305–310. Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (2002). Assessing students’ conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2, 17–32. Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 87–100. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teaching in higher education (2nd Edition).. London: Routledge. Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching student learning: Approaches to studying in campus-based and distance education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learners perspective I. Some commonsense conceptions (Report 76). University of Gothenburg, Institute of Education. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice. The higher education academy. Retrieved on August 20 2009 from. www.heacademy.ac.uk. Tsai, C., & Kuo, P. C. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 353–375. Tsai, C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: a phenomenograhic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1733–1750. Van Rossum, E. J., & Schenck, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conceptions, study strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73–83. Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Yläne, S. (2010). University students’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the biosciences. Instructional Science, 4, 355–370. Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1990). An investigation of the approach to learning of Nepalese tertiary students. Higher Education, 20, 459–469. Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72–83.