3.11 Procedures Analysis will begin with the transcribed interviews and observations, and surveysummaries. These artifacts will be read in order to obtain a general sense of theinformation and to reflect on its overall meaning (Creswell, 2009, p. 185). The researchwill note perceptions, interpretations, and patterns that emerge from the shared ideas.Next, words, phrases, and concepts that are repeated in patterns will be identified andcoded. Categorical word analysis will be used to group patterned themes together.Through this analysis, a description of the digital backchannel’s effect on student agenticengagement will emerge. The researcher will interpret this description in the context ofthe research questions and objectives to determine to what extent the influence of digitalbackchannel had if any on the agentic engagement of the sampled students. Three weeks will be designated for focus group data collection and two weeks forelectronic surveys. Formal observations will occur between interviews and informalinterviews will be ongoing. Surveys will be distributed and collected during class times,but focus group sessions will be scheduled for a separate time in a different room oncampus. These sessions will be audio recorded for later review and to ensure accuracyand preservation of data. 3.12 Role of Researcher The researcher is the key instrument for data collection in qualitative research(Creswell, 2007), as will be evident is this study. As much as possible, the researcher willattempt to observe student behaviors and actions from the outside looking in, despitebeing the instructor in the class. With this being stated, the researcher, as instructor, has 51
the opportunity to obtained student ideas based on the nature of the relationship betweeninstructor and student. The researcher will use this relationship to help study participantsfeel safe when delving into their honest opinions about agency and engagement. Respect,trust, and safety will all play a role in the quality and accuracy of answers provided byparticipating students. The researcher’s previous experience with the course content, lecturing atAssumption University, and teaching within a Thai-dominant culture, will allow theresearcher to focus on the objective collection of data. Previous experience with digitaltools and reflective pedagogy will also provide insight and perspective upon analysis ofthe data collected. Transferability of conclusions drawn in this study will occur as adetailed description of the study’s participants and context will help readers compare andcontrast with their own students and school. 52
ReferencesAagard, H., Bowen, K., & Olesova, L. (2010, September 22). Hotseat: Opening the Backchannel in Large Lectures. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/9/hotseat-opening-the-backchannel-in-large- lecturesAchilles, C. M. (1996). Students Achieve More in Smaller Classes. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 76-77.Adler, M. J. (1982). Chapter 7: The heart of the matter. In The Paideia proposal: An education manifesto. New York, NY: Collier.Akbari, M., Bahm, G., & Schroeder, U. (2010). Enabling Communication and Feedback in Mass Lectures. 2010 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. doi:10.1109/icalt.2010.76Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help Seeking and Help Design in Interactive Learning Environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277-320. doi:10.3102/00346543073003277Baker, W. (2009). Intercultural awareness and intercultural communication through English: An investigation of Thai English language users in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton).Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science, 1(2), 164-180.Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning New Paradigm For Undergraduate Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12- 26. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672 53
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. Educause Review, 47(2), 23-33.Beers, G. W. (2005). The effect of teaching method on objective test scores: Problem- based learning versus lecture. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 305.Biggs, J. (1994), “Asian learners through Western eyes: an astigmatic paradox”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 40-63.Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.Bruff, D. (2010). Backchannel in education–nine uses. Teaching with classroom response systems blog.Bry, F., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Pohl, A. (2011). Promoting awareness and participation in large class lectures: The digital backchannel backstage. Proc. IADIS, 27-34.Caram, C. A., & Davis, P. B. (2005). Inviting Student Engagement with Questioning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(1), 19-23. doi:10.1080/00228958.2005.10532080Carbonaro, W. J. (1998). A little help from my friend's parents: Intergenerational closure and educational outcomes. Sociology of education, 295-313.Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in higher education, 47(1), 1-32.Cashin, W. E. (1985). Improving lectures. Kansas State University.Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin, 3, 7. 54
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7Chuah, S. H. (2010). Teaching East-Asian students: Some observations. Higher Education Academy Economics Network, 2010.Cogdill, S., Fanderclai, T. L., Kilborn, J., & Williams, M. G. (2001, January). Backchannel: whispering in digital conversation. In System Sciences, 2001. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 8-pp). IEEE.Conrad, A. M., & Munro, D. (2008). Relationships between Computer Self-Efficacy, Technology, Attitudes and Anxiety: Development of the Computer Technology Use Scale (CTUS). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 51-73. doi:10.2190/ec.39.1.dCornell University. (2017, September 7). Active Learning. Retrieved from https://www.cte.cornell.edu/teaching-ideas/engaging-students/active- learning.htmlCreswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1558689808330883Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.Cross, K. P. (1987). Teaching for learning. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 38(8), 3-7. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED283446.pdfDeveney, B. (2005). An investigation into aspects of Thai culture and its impact on Thai students in an international school in Thailand. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(2), 153-171. 55
Donnelly, H. J. (2016). Exploring student interaction and reflection through the use of digital backchannel discussions (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University).Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Prentice Hall.Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2, 125-153.Enger, E. D., Smith, B. F., & Bockarie, A. T. (2000). Environmental science: A study of interrelationships. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organizational learning to the learning organization. Management learning, 29(1), 5-20.Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59- 109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., and Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: a description of 21 instruments. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: SAGE Publications.Furtak, E. M. (2002). Formative Assessment and Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library. doi:10.1007/0-306-47227-9Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 783-801. 56
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational researcher, 18(8), 4-10.Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology The Journal Of The British Sociological Association, 12, 27-49.Gleason, M. (1986). Better Communication in Large Courses. College Teaching, 34(1), 20-24. doi:10.1080/87567555.1986.10532325Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51-70.Hallinger, P., & Bridges, E. M. (2007). Preparing ‘Managers For Action’. In A Problem- based Approach for Management Education (pp. 5-23). Springer Netherlands.Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2012). Overcoming the Walmart syndrome: Adapting problem- based management education in East Asia. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem- based Learning, 6(1), 4.Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning a synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Heikkil, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students' approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99-117. doi: 10.1080/03075070500392433Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers.Hu, Y., Ching, G. S., & Chao, P. (2012). Taiwan student engagement model: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 1(1). doi:10.5861/ijrse.2012.v1i1.19 57
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27-38. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273-287.Kay, R. H., & Lesage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher education, 40(1), 99-121.Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 15-29.Kinnebrew, J. S., Loretz, K. M., & Biswas, G. (2013). A contextualized, differential sequence mining method to derive students' learning behavior patterns. JEDM- Journal of Educational Data Mining, 5(1), 190-219.Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching More by Lecturing Less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298-310. doi:10.1187/05-06-0082Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3).Krueger, R. (1998). Developing Questions for Focus Groups. doi:10.4135/9781483328126 58
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The journal of higher education, 79(5), 540-563.McNely, B. (2009, October). Backchannel persistence and collaborative meaning- making. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communication (pp. 297-304). ACM.Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge university press.Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.Nguyen, T. H. (2005). Thailand: Cultural background for ESL/EFL teachers. Cuyahoga Community College.[online] Retrieved on February 24, 2017, 3.Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J. A. (2014). A practical guide to using interpretative phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal, 20(1), 7-14.Pohl, A., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Bry, F. (2011). Introducing Backstage - a digital backchannel for large class lectures. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(3), 186-200. doi:10.1108/17415651111165410Portes, A. (2000, March). The two meanings of social capital. In Sociological forum (Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-12). Springer Netherlands.Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 139-160. 59
Reeve, J. (2013). Agentically engaged students: How they create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-595. doi:10.1037/e642622013-067Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267.Rhein, D. (2013). The Workplace Challenge: Cross-Cultural Leadership in Thailand. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 41(1), 41-55.Rhein, D. (2017). International Higher Education in Thailand: Challenges within a Changing Context. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 8(3).Schaeffer, D. (2009). Social and personality development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Schmierbach, M., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2012). A little bird told me, so I didn't believe it: Twitter, credibility, and issue perceptions. Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 317-337.Sen, A. (1982). Rights and agency. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 3-39.Shiller, D. & Liefner, I. (2007). Higher education funding reform and university industry links in developing countries: The case of Thailand. Higher Education, 54: 543- 556.Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. ASTD Learning News, 10(1). 60
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525.Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). Springer US.Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Doing Social Psychology Research, 229-254. doi:10.1002/9780470776278.ch10Sorden, S. D. (2012). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Strauss, M., and Fulwiler, T. (1989). Writing to learn in large lecture classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19(3), 158-163.Thota, N. (2015). Connectivism and the Use of Technology/Media in Collaborative Teaching and Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2015(142), 81-96. doi:10.1002/tl.20131Tolley, L. M., Johnson, L., & Koszalka, T. A. (2012). An intervention study of instructional methods and student engagement in large classes in Thailand. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 381-393. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.05.003Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. S. (2014). Pedagogical agents. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 759-769). Springer New York. 61
Vygotski, L., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., & Scribner, S. (1978). Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Yardi, S. (2008). Whispers in the Classroom. Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected, 143-164. 62
AppendixAppendix A: Pre-Treatment Student SurveyModified from Computer Technology Use Scale (CTUS), Conrad & Munro (2008) and Assessing Agentic Engagement, Jang & Reeve (2016)For reliability and validity testing, refer to links in references section————————————————————————————————Student Number: _____________________ Gender (circle one): male, female, otherWhat is your age (years) _____ Major (if undecided, use general studies) _____________Please respond to each of the following statements by indicating the degree to which youagree or disagree with the statement as it applies to your experience in lecture-baseduniversity classes. Please circle one number for each statement. 12 345 67Strongly Disagree Moderately Agree Strongly AgreeComputer self-efficacy1. I am comfortable operating a smart phone …....………….………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. I am comfortable operating a laptop computer ……………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. I find learning new applications and software easy …………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. I teach myself how to use most computer applications ………....…… 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. I persist when dealing with computer issues ………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Attitudes to technology6. Computers and smartphones enrich people’s lives …………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. Computers and smartphone make life easier …………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. I can do more on a computer or smartphone than with a pencil/paper .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63
9. Emerging computer technology is exciting ……………………..……. 1 2 3 4 5 6 710. Although computer technology changes all the time, I find that I can keep up with it …………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Technology related schooling11. I prefer classes that allow computer and/or smartphone use ……….. 1 2 3 4 5 6 712. I prefer classes that use multimedia to present material ……………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 713. I like using technology to contribute to class ………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 714. I use my computer/smart phone during class for class-related activities …………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 715. I regularly access the Internet in class using my computer/smartphone ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Agentic Engagement Items16. I let my teacher know what I need and want ……………….….……. 1 2 3 4 5 6 717. I let my teacher know what I am interested in ……………….……… 1 2 3 4 5 6 718. During this class, I express my preferences and opinions …..………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 719. During class, I ask questions to help me learn ………….…..….……. 1 2 3 4 5 6 720. When I need something in this class, I’ll ask the teacher for it …...… 1 2 3 4 5 6 721. I refer to other resources during class to help me understand …….… 1 2 3 4 5 6 722. I attend class on time every day ………………………….………..… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64
Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Questions (based on Donnelly, 2016)1. When you learned you would be using digital backchanneling in this course, canyou describe your feelings, concerns, and thoughts and what was your conceptionof how this technique would operate?2. Describe if and how the backchannel has influenced your interactions with fellowstudents, course content, and the instructor?3. Can you elaborate on the influence of digital backchanneling on your process ofmeaning-making concerning the course content?4. Did the backchannel discussion structure allow you to effectively analyze and evaluateinformation from the assigned text?5. Was your ability to plan, regulate, and reflect on your words influenced by the BCstructure?6. What backchannel structures are you most comfortable with and what structure is themost beneficial to your learning? Why? 65
Appendix C: Informal Interview Questions (based on Donnelly, 2016)1. During the courses you have taken at the college level, have you ever been exposed todigital backchanneling in a classroom setting? If so, how often and describe the courseand your experience?2. Have you ever been exposed to digital backchanneling in any other context(convention, lecture, seminar, etc.)? If so, describe your experience?3. During the backchanneling experience, did you feel this structure changed the amountof non-related dialogue that went on compared to a traditional in-class discussion?4. What are your views on backchanneling as a method or technique for teaching andlearning?5. Describe digital backchanneling’s effect on whether or not you have made connectionsbetween what you have learned to other life experiences and ideas?6. Did the discussion within the backchannel allow you to effectively create new ideasand ways of thinking about the discussed information? If so, please elaborate.7. Describe digital backchanneling’s effect on how you reflected on the educationalconversations you had with the instructor or your peers?8. As a result of the backchannel structure, did you feel more or less connected withclassmates, the instructor, and the content? Explain.9. Do you think the instructor should be involved with prompting questions? Contributingto backchannel? Setting up guidelines? Why? How do you feel this would change yourexperience?10. Overall, how would you describe your experience with digital backchannelingwithin this course? Engagement, attention level, frustration, satisfaction, learning, etc. 66
Search
