A Cross-Case Study

Work thumb

Views: 82

  • Title: A Cross-Case Study: Comparing the Impact of Technology-Nested Strategies and Instructor Presence on Active-Learning Experiences between Virtual and Face-to-Face Modalities
  • Author(s): Rebecca McPherson
  • Publisher: Common Ground Research Networks
  • Collection: Common Ground Research Networks
  • Series: Common Ground Open
  • Journal Title: Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
  • Keywords: Pedagogy, Ubiquitous Learning, Active Learning
  • Volume: 10
  • Issue: 4
  • Year: 2018
  • ISSN: 1835-9795 (Print)
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v10i04/11-24
  • Citation: McPherson, Rebecca. 2018. "A Cross-Case Study: Comparing the Impact of Technology-Nested Strategies and Instructor Presence on Active-Learning Experiences between Virtual and Face-to-Face Modalities." Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal 10 (4): 11-24. doi:10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v10i04/11-24.
  • Extent: 14 pages

Abstract

Active learning and cocreation of knowledge have been extensively researched in the face-to-face environment; however, few studies have investigated the impact of active learning, cocreation of knowledge, and instructor presence on students’ perceptions of learning experiences in the virtual environment. The purpose of this study is to extend literature on the Active Learning for Knowledge Construction theoretical model. This study identifies and analyzes undergraduate students’ experiences that inform their perceptions of equivalent experiences in the virtual environment as compared to the face-to-face environment. This research study encompasses two sections of a course, one delivered face-to-face and one delivered virtually. Therefore, a cross-case study methodology was used to understand and compare students’ experiences between course sections. This study found that video instruction and use of mobile devices created equivalent learning experiences. However, exploration through technology and mobile devices was valued differently by students between modalities. Further, face-to-face students most valued student-to-student and student-to-instructor interactions, while virtual students most valued student-to-content and student-to-instructor interactions. Finally, suggestions to improve virtual course designs implementing active learning and recommendations for future research are provided.