Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 41–47 | Cite as

Increasing Interactivity in the Online Learning Environment: Using Digital Tools to Support Students in Socially Constructed Meaning-Making

  • Judi MoreillonEmail author
Article

Abstract

As more and more library and LIS education migrates to the online environment, college and university faculty are called upon to expand their pedagogy. Interactivity has been cited as one factor in attracting and retaining students in online courses and programs. LIS educators can reach outside the online learning management system (LMS) to discover Web-based tools to develop more interactive learning experiences for students’ use in the virtual classroom. These activities and tools can help faculty as they enact a social constructivist teaching philosophy that increases the focus on students engaging with course content while they learn with and from one another as well as from the instructor. This paper describes one educator’s journey in stretching boundaries and using student-created Web 2.0 tools and multimedia to curate course content and support students’ collaborative learning experiences and collective meaning-making.

Keywords

digital tools LIS education online learning social constructivism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Babson Survey Research Group. (2014). Grade Change: Tracking Online Education in the United States, 2013. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/grade-change-2013
  2. Boston Consulting Group. (2014). Online Learning Consortium Report: “The Five Faces of Online Education: What Students and Parents Want.” Retrieved from https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/education_consumer_insight_five_faces_online_education_what_students_parents_want/#chapter1
  3. Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., & Williams, S. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Castaño-Muñoz, J., Duart, J. M., & Vinuesa, T. S. (2014). The Internet in face-to-face higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, T., Park, Y., Levin, K., & Morse, S. (2013). The incorporation of hands-on tasks in an online course: An analysis of a blended learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(5), 456–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fulton, B., Botticelli, P., & Bradley, J. (2011). DigIn: A hands-on approach to a digital curation curriculum for professional development. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 52(2), 95–109.Google Scholar
  8. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29–35.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, G. (2014). The ecology of interactive learning environments: Situating traditional theory. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jong, B., Lai, C., Hsia, Y., & Lin, T. (2013). Effects of anonymity in group discussion on peer interaction and learning achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(3), 292–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, J. (2013). Influence of group size on students’ participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 62, 123129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim, P., Hong, J., Bonk, C., & Lim, G. (2011). Effects of group reflection variations in project-based learning integrated in a Web 2.0 learning space. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 333–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koole, M., & Parchoma, G. (2012). The ethical and practical implications of systems architecture on identity in networked learning: a constructionist perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(3), 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Moreillon, J. (2013). Educating for school library leadership: Developing the instructional partnership role. Journal of Education in Library and Information Science, 54(1), 55–66.Google Scholar
  17. Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., Hedrick, A., & Steinbach, T. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 125140.Google Scholar
  18. Rice, R. E., & Gattiker, U. E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F. M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 544–584). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Google Scholar
  19. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online environments: An empirical investigation of the community of inquiry framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shulman, L. S. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? The Journal of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 48–53.Google Scholar
  21. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting learner satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online course. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vygotsky, L. (1980). The mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Youngju, L., Jaeho, C., & Taehyun, K. (2013). Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yukawa, J. (2010). Using evidence based practice in LIS education: Results of a test of communities of practice model. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5(1), 104–128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Woman’s UniversityDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations