Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education
(USC Thesis Other)
Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING 1
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING IN SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE EDUCATION
by
Jessica Miyun Lee
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2018
Copyright 2018 Jessica Miyun Lee
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
2
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my dissertation committee for all their support, their constructive
criticism and their encouragement along the way. Thank you Dr. Corinne Hyde, Dr. Julie
Slayton, and Dr. Jennifer Crawford.
A special and incredibly necessary thank you to Dr. Greg Knotts, who first opened this
door for me. None of this would be possible without you. I am forever grateful.
Thank you to my parents, Eunice and Joosin Lee for encouraging me to pursue each and
every goal. Your support has been crucial.
Finally, thank you to my husband, Dong Hoon Jun, for supporting and comforting me
throughout this entire process. You’ve been my rock from day one. We finally get to see what it
looks like on the other side. Thank you for all the talks and for pushing me to finish. I love you.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Abstract 6
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 7
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Question 11
Significance of the Study 11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 13
The Rise of Online Learning 14
Types of Online Learning 16
Synchronous Online Learning 19
Pedagogy of Synchronous Online Learning 19
Synchronous vs. Asynchronous 21
The Start of Synchronous Models 23
Technology’s Hand in Synchronous Online Learning 23
Advantages of Synchronous Online Learning 24
Obstacles in Synchronous Learning 26
Effectiveness of Online Learning 27
Accountability of Online Learning 30
Grounded Theories and Frameworks 32
Dewey’s Constructivist Theory 34
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
4
Piaget’s Cognitive Theory of Constructivism 36
Bruner’s Sociocultural Theory 37
Vygotsky’s Learning Theory 38
Perspectives of Student Learning as the Unit of Analysis 41
Implications for the Future of Synchronous Online Learning 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 45
Sample 46
Settings 46
Participants 47
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols 49
Interviews 50
Data Analysis 51
Interviews 52
Limitations 53
Delimitations 54
Credibility and Trustworthiness 55
Ethics 55
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 57
Instructor of the Synchronous Online Courses 58
Students of the Synchronous Online Courses 59
Organization of Class and Activities 65
Masters of Arts in Teaching 66
Educational Leadership Doctoral Program 67
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
5
Student Learning Through Scaffolding 68
Instructor 69
Students 70
Student Learning Through Engagement in Discourse 73
Instructor 75
Students 76
Student Learning Through Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice 80
Instructor 80
Students 81
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 84
Discussion of Findings 85
Student Learning Through Scaffolding 85
Student Learning Through Engagement in Discourse 86
Student Learning Through Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice 87
Implications for Practice 89
Future Research 94
Conclusions 96
References 98
Appendix A: Interview Questions 110
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
6
Abstract
Online learning is on the rise, and synchronous online learning in particular is gaining traction in
the higher education field. To better understand how instructional strategies and technology are
leveraged to maximize opportunities for meaningful and higher-level student learning, a deeper
dive into what happens in a synchronous online class from the perspectives of all of its participants
is necessary to best understand how to synthesize and apply best practices. The purpose of this
study is to understand from the instructor’s and students’ perspectives what learning looks like in
a synchronous online class and how it contributes to student learning. The research question is
answered through a case study that included interviews with a single instructor and students from
multiple courses she taught. Based on the data gathered and analyzed from the study, responses
showed students identified key learning opportunities when they were provided scaffolding
activities, when given opportunities to engage in meaningful guided discussions with peers, and
when asked to reflect and think critically about their practice. On this basis, it is recommended that
instructors of synchronous online learning courses provide ample opportunities for students to
participate in instructional scaffolds to build their knowledge, participate in dialogue with peers
through whole class discussions and smaller break out groups facilitated by the videoconferencing
technology provided, and to embed activities that require students to reflect on their practice.
KEY WORDS
Key Words: Synchronous Online Learning, Student Learning, Constructivist Learning Theory
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
7
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Technology has crossed over into education, and the result has been the growth of online
education programs and courses; these courses are now a thriving sector in K-12 and higher
education (Allen & Seaman, 2010). In particular, colleges are experiencing a significant and
steady increase in the demand for synchronous and asynchronous online courses as students and
professionals look to further their education, while maintaining the flexibility of their busy
schedules. Asynchronous learning involves students taking the same course but accessing
materials and interacting with their instructors individually and at different times, while
synchronous learning involves all participating students receiving instruction simultaneously
(Wallace, 2015). Students now search for these synchronous and asynchronous online programs
and courses that are convenient according to their location, schedules, and finances (Picciano,
Seaman, & Allen, 2010). While the supply of online synchronous courses and instructors
continues to meet the increasing demand of students in higher education, the question remains as
to whether these programs are meeting the learning needs of the students, the learning objectives
mapped out by the instructor, and the mission and values of the institution.
Background of the Problem
In the field of education, the presence and growing mandate of online programs and
courses is undeniable (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Since technology has made resources available to
more people than ever before, access to information continues to proliferate rapidly (Robinson &
Hullinger, 2008). Education has joined the ranks of the booming information era because the
methods and techniques through which it is delivered and processed have changed with the times
(Allen & Seaman, 2007). Particularly, information and communication technologies (ICT) have
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
8
helped resolve the issues surrounding distance and time, enabling online education to blossom as
instructors and their students are able to interact more frequently and from further distances
(Kuo, Walker, Ballard, Schroder, & Kuo, 2014).
University administrators and instructors have responded to a growing interest and
demand for online programs by creating and supplementing their pre-existing courses with
distance learning options to reach a wider population of students who are not confined to the
geographic proximity of the institution (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Students have responded to the
growing opportunities, and as of 2015, more than six million college students participated in at
least one online course that did not require them to step foot on campus (Allen & Seaman, 2017).
The projected annual increase for the future will soon outpace increases in enrollment in the
traditional university overall (Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012).
The key factors attributed to recruiting students to enroll and participate in online
programs are convenience in access to programs, flexibility with scheduling, and cost
effectiveness in terms of transportation, supplies, and tuition (Cheawjindakarn,
Suwannatthachote, & Theeraroung, 2012). Students now have options outside of traditional
lecture style or physical classroom settings with inflexible meeting times (Allen & Seaman,
2007). Interaction and access to learning materials and instructors are now more open and
available making online learning a more convenient option (Falloon, 2011). Through online
learning, students can join interactive and engaging classrooms and programs with their laptops
and mobile devices and begin interacting almost immediately in a way that education has never
seen before (Falloon, 2011).
As stakeholders invest in the creation and administration of online learning programs, the
response from students with regard to the availability of flexible programs at any age and
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
9
juncture in their careers has been overwhelmingly positive (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Ryan,
Kaufman, Greenhouse, She, & Shi, 2015). Before, online learning programs were primarily
thought of as meeting the needs of undergraduate students; today, online learning has allowed for
anyone who would like to transition back into education to have a specific program that fits their
schedule and needs (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Statistics show this increasing trend as online
learning in higher education has established a population of approximately 6.02 million students,
or 29.7% of college and university students (Allen & Seaman, 2017).
Despite the increase in participants and the benefits of online education, challenges for
both the learners and the instructors still remain (Akarasriworn & Ku, 2013). Learners often
experience feelings of isolation and loneliness. At the same time, instructors struggle with
bridging the distance gap as their tone of voice, questions, and other verbal and non-verbal
behaviors that students typically hear and see in the context of a face-to-face lesson are now
absent (Lahaie, 2007). The phenomenon of students feeling alone and isolated has been linked to
substantial attrition of students participating in online learning despite the best intentions and
efforts of universities (Fasso, 2013). There also remains a widespread perception that the online
format of higher education is inferior in quality to traditional face-to-face real-time teaching, and
does not actually create greater access to higher education (Power & Gould-Morven, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
While the current literature shows an abundance of case studies examining the benefits
and obstacles of online learning (Akarasriworn & Ku, 2013; Chao, Hung, & Chen, 2012; Fasso,
2013; Francesucci & Foster, 2013; Power & Gould-Morven, 2011), there is a need for current in-
depth research on the students’ and instructors’ perceptions of learning taking place in a
synchronous online course.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
10
Means, Toyoma, Murphy, and Baki (2013) found in reviewing pedagogical practices that
instructor-directed and collaborative synchronous learning results in significantly better
outcomes than does independent asynchronous learning. Although asynchronous online learning
allows for students to access curriculum and communication anytime, there may be additional
learning objectives that are not met due to the absence of face-to-face real-time interaction in an
asynchronous environment (Finkelstein, 2006). Despite the obstacles that remain in
asynchronous online learning, studies that focus on online courses continue to focus more on the
asynchronous classroom than the synchronous online classroom (Chao et al., 2012).
More so, the activities that contribute to student learning within a synchronous online
program are not articulated in the current research available. Studies outlining the effective tools
utilized in synchronous online programs are prevalent (Akarasriworn & Ku, 2013; Chao et al.,
2012; Francesucci & Foster, 2013; Mergendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2000), but scholarship
investigating the effective activities utilized within the sociocultural context of a synchronous
online classroom, through the perspectives of the instructor and students, is needed to add to the
impact synchronous online programs might have. The understanding and perception of what
leads to student learning from both instructors and students are lacking in the general discussion
of what works in synchronous online learning. This study focused on the perceptions of
affordances for learning from the participants in a synchronous online learning environment. The
detailed and testimonial data from the instructor and his or her students may have the potential to
transform the distance learning experience for synchronous online instructors and students.
Purpose of the Study
Online education options continue to expand with a variety of classroom formats and
platforms that include synchronous and asynchronous communication tools (Chen & Shaw,
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
11
2006). Utilizing qualitative methods, the purpose of this study was to explore how learning was
supported within a synchronous online classroom from the perspectives of an instructor and her
students. The data gathered from this qualitative case study was grounded by the foundational
cognitive learning theories by Dewey (1933), Piaget (1963), Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner
(1986). These frameworks of learning were used to draw connections to the data gathered and for
analyzing the perspectives of the instructor and her students in a synchronous online class.
Research Question
There are many layers of activities, communication, and participants within a
synchronous online class. To narrow and to focus the scope of this study, it was necessary to
focus primarily on the perspectives of affordances for learning from the instructor and the
students in the synchronous online classroom that is the subject of this research. This study was
guided by the following research question:
How do the instructor and students in a synchronous online class identify and describe
the affordances for learning in their synchronous online course?
Significance of the Study
The current body of literature examining synchronous online learning largely reflects the
benefits of specific, dated, information and communication technology (ICT) tools and general
instruction methods used within a synchronous online classroom such as videoconferencing,
collaboration, and communication (Akarasriworn & Ku, 2013; Cao, Griffin, & Bai, 2009; Chao
et al., 2012; Francesucci & Foster, 2013; Jiang & Ting, 2000; Park & Bonk, 2007). A study by
Akarasriworn and Ku (2013) asked for participants’ favorable experiences in a synchronous
online class and found that a sense of community was important for collaborative small group
discussions through videoconferencing. The results from this study contributed to the larger
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
12
discussion of what is present in a synchronous online class that supports high levels of learning
from these activities, not only from the students’ point of view, but also from the instructor’s
point of view.
Rather than examining tools and suggested practice, this study dug deeper into what
students and their instructor believed was happening within a classroom’s activity system and
highlight specific and recurring interactions and activities that the instructor and students both
found beneficial and contributing to student learning. The participants, context, and elements of a
class undoubtedly affected the results of activities that take place in the synchronous online
course, but the study elevated the analysis of the perspective of active learning in the
synchronous online class from all participants (Gedera, 2014). This study sought to offer crucial
components of what encompassed an impactful online educational experience for students and
instructors and to add to the consideration of what best practices are with regard to the
organization and implementation of specific activities in a synchronous online classroom.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
As the number of online learning programs has increased in higher education, a variety of
online programs have begun to emerge and take on different blends of face-to-face and online
instruction delivery (Allen & Seaman, 2007). One of the most prevalent types of online learning
utilized at university campuses is synchronous online learning, due to its convenience and
benefits for both instructors and students (Falloon, 2011). Although synchronous online learning
is at the helm of burgeoning online learning proliferation, reports show flaws in the design and
delivery of the programs (Akarasriworn & Ku, 2013). In addition, researchers are calling for
further investigation and development into better assessment and accountability for student
learning as advancing technology continues to change the makeup of programs in synchronous
online classes (Chao et al., 2012).
In addition to the discussion around the general question of how student learning is
defined and how it is assessed in higher education, there is also the question of how students are
learning in online programs through adapted instruction and how these online programs and
online instruction are assessed and measured (Contreras-McGavin & Kezar, 2007). Research that
looks at K-12 education and its measurements of student learning and assessment standards
abounds in comparison to higher education research looking at the same issues (Ash, 2011).
With the addition of online programs at higher education institutions, the creation of new or
modified standards and measurement tools specific to online learning continues to fall behind K-
12 implementation of accountability tools and methods. Standards and assessment measures for
online learning currently tend to be derivatives of the standards that exist for conventional
classroom teaching (Kennedy, 2005).
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
14
Detailed and thorough studies that outline how online education can improve over time
are appearing more frequently in published literature (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Throughout this
chapter, there will be a review of such studies outlining the reported benefits and disadvantages
of online learning. But upon closer examination, the studies that explore synchronous online
learning specifically and the best practices to achieve the most meaningful and beneficial
methods of instruction that enhance student learning remain sparse.
The purpose of this literature review is to take a structured path to discover how online
education has emerged in higher education and where it brings us today in light of synchronous
online learning as well as what activities occurring in the cyber classroom are contributing to
student learning. The learning theories utilized to deconstruct and organize such a complex
dynamic in such particular sociocultural contexts are by Dewey (1933), Piaget (1963), Vygotsky
(1978), and Bruner (1986). The evolution of learning theories over time can be a valuable frame
in which to understand how synchronous online classrooms can enhance student learning and
how one can interpret the perceptions of learning from the testimonials of students and
instructors who participate in the same course (Bakhurst, 2009).
The Rise of Online Learning
The origin of online learning dates back to the 1980s and the 1990s when the world saw
an expansion of innovation in online education and networking in the general field of education
(Harasim, 2000). Distance learning first became widely accessible through legislation initiatives
created during the GI Bill in 1944 and later became a growing subsection of the education
industry when linked with the invention of e-mail in 1971, computer conferencing in 1972, and
the World Wide Web in 1989 (McMurray, 2007). Online education opened doors to new
pedagogical models and profoundly innovative programs that would continue to develop over
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
15
time (Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012). Collectively, educators and learners across the globe
responded to the emergence of online education by adopting and adapting to newer networked
styles and methods of collaborative learning (Harasim, 2000).
The first completely online course in adult education was created in 1981. The first
networked classroom model emerged in primary and secondary education in 1983 (Harasim,
2000). Ten years later, the first national education networks were established and the first large-
scale online education field trials began in 1996 by Virtual-U Research Project (Harasim, 2000).
The assumption that online education is a recent creation and came following the invention of
the World Wide Web is a misconception that remains (Harasim, 2000).
With the demand for information and its ever-growing presence, the demand for
education in a variety of platforms and delivery methods also increased (Allen & Seaman, 2007).
Higher education institutions have adapted to meet this demand by increasing their online
learning presence through online, distance, and hybrid courses as well as full degree programs
(Allen & Seaman, 2007; Ryan et al., 2015). Continuous technological advancements have
allowed for the creation of the new programs, devices, and technologies that support the growing
trend of online learning and have made online learning a viable reality for many students across
the globe (Fisher & Baird, 2005). For now, online learning has become a popular solution to the
problem of limited accessibility to higher education for stakeholders in higher education such as
students, instructors, and administrators (Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012). Although online learning
created a bridge for students looking for a more accessible and flexible program (Allen &
Seaman, 2007), the question remains as to how this growing trend has affected student learning
in synchronous online courses.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
16
Students have been responding positively to the availability of new online programs that
allow for personal choice and flexibility in their schedules; the statistics reflect this undeniable
trend (Picciano et al., 2010). In 2015, over 29% of all college students took at least one online
class. At that time, enrollment in online courses grew higher than the previous two years (Allen
& Seaman, 2017). Thirteen years ago in 2002, only 9.5% of college students were enrolled in at
least one online class. The enrollment growth of over 20% in 13 years shows what students
prefer in terms of the delivery method and modality of their instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2017).
About 17% of online students participated in graduate level courses with 83% working toward a
first professional degree or in other for-credit courses (Allen & Seaman, 2017). With the
substantial interest for online programs in higher education, students are now offered a variety of
online programs to choose from that range from blended to synchronous models to start (Allen &
Seaman, 2007).
Types of Online Learning
The development of online learning in higher education has led to a menu of different
programs offered to fit a student’s particular schedule and access to a program (Allen & Seaman,
2007, 2010; Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012; Gedera, 2014). The challenges that come with
providing an array of online programs include instructors and administrators wrestling with
selecting the best pedagogical strategies to meet the needs of students and also creating open
channels of communication and motivational support despite the format of the program
(Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012). Stakeholders created and categorically labeled the varying online
programs, which depict the percentage of instruction given by instructors online and the
percentage of instruction given by instructors face-to-face in-person. The following is a list of
common online learning terms and its definitions:
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
17
Blended learning: Blended learning is a course that blends online and face-to-face
delivery with a significant portion of the course content delivered online. Blended learning
typically consists of online discussions and a reduced number of face-to-face meetings. Blended
learning is sometimes called hybrid learning or instruction. The proportion of content delivered
online is 30% to 79% (Allen & Seaman, 2010).
Face-to-face instruction: Face-to-face instruction includes traditional on-ground learning
and web-facilitated courses in which up to 29% of the course content is delivered online (Allen
& Seaman, 2010; Ury & Ury, 2005).
Online learning: The term “online learning” can be substituted for “e-learning.” Online
learning is defined as the delivery of at least 80% of course content using electronic technologies
to create and administer content and learning at any given time and place (Gedera, 2014). Online
learning can also be defined as the delivery of course content using electronic media such as
online conferencing systems, e-mail, and a course management system (Cheawjindakarn et al.,
2012).
Distance learning: Distance learning occurs when instructors and students communicate
asynchronously. Instructors deliver content and instruction online and students are not required
to meet face-to-face (Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012; Krämer, Neugebauer, Magenheim, &
Huppertz, 2015).
Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning is usually where students are taking the
same course but accessing materials and interacting with their instructors individually and at
different times (Wallace, 2015). Asynchronous learning also includes interactions such as email
exchanges and discussion boards that can occur alongside synchronous learning experiences
(Hidden Curriculum, 2014).
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
18
Synchronous learning: In synchronous learning, all participating students receive
instruction simultaneously in real-time but not in person through tools such as video
conferencing and chat-based online discussions (Wallace, 2015); synchronous learning can
include a format that is a blend of virtual face-to-face instruction and curriculum accessible to
students in an online learning management system (Mayadas, 2006).
Blended synchronous learning: Blended synchronous learning is where remote students
learn and participate in face-to-face classes through the use of electronic technologies such as
video or web conferencing (Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kenney, 2015).
Information and communication technologies (ICT): ICTs include digital tools used to
create and administer information such as the Internet, the World Wide Web, teleconferencing,
and virtual realities (Kuo et al., 2014).
Online learning formats use a varying number of educational technologies to assist or
administer the management, design, and delivery of course content (Gedera, 2014). Through
these online programs, students are able to communicate with one another and the instructor
either formally or informally, at the same or different times, and places (Gedera, 2014). As
online learning programs continue to develop and spread, the need to check the occurrence and
effectiveness of student learning is needed (Bouhnik & Carmi, 2012). Synchronous online
learning in particular has spread due to its ability to enhance the teaching process through
engaging students and encouraging collaboration (Hannum, 2000; Insung, 2001). But as this type
of online learning gains momentum among universities and students, a critical investigation of
student learning as a result of the activities that take place within the virtual classroom, through
the lens of the instructor and students, will provide greater depth and understanding into the
contributions synchronous online learning makes in student learning at the college level.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
19
Synchronous Online Learning
Synchronous online learning continues to gain acceptance and favorability with students
in higher education as it possesses qualities that asynchronous programs and courses do not
(Warden, Stanworth, Ren, & Warden, 2013). Through web conferencing and other functions,
synchronous online learning allows for a reduction in the impersonality and sense of isolation
distance learners can experience in an asynchronous course (Fasso, 2013). Instructors are also
able to build trust and a sense of community amongst one another through this enhanced model
of online learning (Fasso, 2013). Synchronous online learning has its strengths and weaknesses
and through this review of the current literature on the topic, a greater understanding of the
systems at work within an online synchronous class will reveal if students are or are not learning
within this format of online learning.
Pedagogy of Synchronous Online Learning
The pedagogical justifications for incorporating the Internet in the traditional learning
and studying processes are clear (Beller & Or, 2001; Salomon, 2000; Salomon & Perkins, 1996).
Wise planning and strategic implementation of technological tools for studying, communicating,
and managing information in online courses add to the teaching process and contribute to
increased efficiency in student success (Bouhnik & Carmi, 2012; Hannum, 2000; Insung, 2001).
There are three components which drive the pedagogy of online learning: digital technological
tools for expression and creation, communication tools for forming relationships, and tools for
managing information and content (Beller & Or, 2001; Salomon, 2000; Salomon & Perkins,
1996). It is important to note the use of advanced teaching technologies per se does not guarantee
a positive effect on studying or achievement (Hannum, 2000; Insung, 2001). The strategic and
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
20
planned use of the available technological tools can however contribute to a more effective
teaching and learning environment (Bouhnik & Carmi, 2012).
The pedagogy of online learning continues to develop in response to the addition of
newer technological tools and applications available (Green, Edwards, Wolodko, Stewart,
Brooks, & Littledyke, 2010). As online pedagogy paved the way for a departure from traditional
instruction to teaching and learning online, a new sociocultural-historical approach to teaching
and learning emerged (Green et al., 2010). The pedagogy of online teaching includes the familiar
and traditional process of assessing students to understand where knowledge must be created. In
addition, the pedagogy of online teaching highlights the importance of understanding and paying
attention to how students adapt to, interpret, and carry out instruction in their own unique space.
Online teaching and learning are both context-dependent, and researchers have repeatedly stated
the importance of engaging students in the online community through interactive tasks,
communication, and collaboration (Bouhnik & Carmi, 2012; Green et al., 2010; Hong &
Sullivan, 2009). Students’ participation in adding to the knowledge of the classroom community,
while adapting to the elements that may arise and interfere in an online classroom, gives the
instructor and peers context for how individual sociocultural differences exist within the
classroom (Green et al., 2010). Synchronous online courses that include regular assessments
throughout provide student information that instructors need in order to adapt the curriculum to
align with the sociocultural-historical context and needs of the community of diverse learners
(Green et al., 2010).
With the application of online pedagogy, a tool such as a learning management system
allows instructors to have a dedicated space where students can collaborate and share knowledge,
resources, and their personal experiences and reflections (Loewen, Lester, & Duncanson-Hales,
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
21
2015). In addition, technology that is available today also allows for the intentional selection of
specific tools and capabilities in synchronous online classrooms such as social networking, file
and image sharing, and collaborative authoring (Alfuqaha, 2013). With the strategic use of the
available tools at select times, instructors and peers can identify their online community’s
capacity by focusing on what specific knowledge and experiences students bring to the table and
can further develop in and outside the virtual classroom (Green et al., 2010).
Online pedagogy has a foundation which includes the three components and justifications
for combining online tools with learning: to enhance expression and creation, communication
and creating relationships, and managing information and content within an online platform and
classroom (Bouhnik, & Carmi, 2012). Embedded within the pedagogy is an understanding that
the context of a given online classroom is uniquely created by the members within the specific
online community. Therefore, the activities which take place within the online community vary
from class to class and the perspectives instructors and students may have in regard to whether
student learning is nurtured in these online classrooms are unique to their individual experiences
and perspectives within these virtual communities (Bakhurst, 2009).
Synchronous vs. Asynchronous
Online learning models can be classified as being asynchronous or synchronous: different
but serving complementary purposes (Falloon, 2011). Asynchronous online learning includes
materials being delivered to learners anytime and anywhere thus allowing the interaction
between a student and teacher to happen at different times (Wallace, 2015). This communication
can take place via a uniform medium that is accessible to all. Although asynchronous online
learning has its strengths, researchers have identified the limitations of this model of online
learning to include a lack of real-time interaction between students and instructors, a difficulty in
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
22
supplementing lessons with additional material, and a general lack of tailoring to the needs of
individual learners (Falloon, 2011; Fisher & Baird, 2005; Gedera, 2014; Huang, Kuo, Lin, &
Cheng, 2008). In addition, researchers looking at student learning in asynchronous online classes
cite a need for tools and functions that allow for synchronous communication between peers and
their instructors (HotComm, 2003). Although online technologies allow students the flexibility to
take courses at times that are convenient, students still assert that they want significant face-to-
face interaction that is purposeful and meaningful (Falloon, 2011; Picciano, Seaman & Allen,
2010; Stewart, Harlow, & DeBacco, 2011).
Synchronous learning, however, requires teachers and students to be present online
simultaneously for a specific time mimicking the traditional lecture and discussion style teaching
environment in order for instruction and learning to happen (Yang & Liu, 2007). Although the
demand of meeting online in real-time limits access to these types of programs, the benefits of
direct engagement, community building, and faster feedback stand out as great advantages to the
synchronous online learning model (Huang et al., 2008). For even greater flexibility, a blended
adaptive model of both synchronous and asynchronous delivery is trending, but this model could
not exist without the use of the synchronous model (Chen, Ko, Kinshuk, & Lin, 2005; Hastie,
Hung, Chen, & Kinshuk, 2010).
Data that shows the participation in online learning in higher education show that the
traditional text-based asynchronous online learning programs are now losing momentum as the
prevalent platform and format for online learning continues to lean towards synchronous learning
(Kuo et al., 2014). Research also shows synchronous learning as more acceptable than
asynchronous learning in supporting the pedagogical aims of instructors, students, and the
institution (Falloon, 2011; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). The immediacy of access to instructors for
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
23
questions, a decrease in traveling time, and the feeling of an authentic classroom with real-time
interaction all attribute to this rise in preference for a synchronous program (Giesbers, Rienties,
Tempelaar, & Gijselaers, 2014). Studies have shown the benefits of participating in a
synchronous versus an asynchronous learning environment with data that reflects students
having a more consistent means of communicating, greater focus on the task at hand, a sense of
community and an overall better experience with course completion (Chen & You, 2007;
Hrastinski, 2010; Mabrito, 2006).
The Start of Synchronous Models
In recent years, administrators in higher education institutions were pushed to provide a
new online experience for students that combined the benefits of having face-to-face instruction
and communication with an ease of access and flexibility for the students (Stewart et al., 2011).
While confronted with the advent of a variety of online learning programs and platforms to
support them, synchronous and blended synchronous learning models have been some of the
more ubiquitous models that are gaining recognition and traction (Szeto & Cheng, 2014). A
blended synchronous learning program typically goes beyond the conventional face-to-face
teaching. Blended may very well include meetings in person while also facilitating online
interactions between peers and instructors (Szeto & Cheng, 2014).
Technology’s Hand in Synchronous Online Learning
With the introduction of ICTs involving a combination of video, audio, and chat
technologies, synchronous online learning has been elevated (Hrastinski, Keller, & Carlsson,
2010; Kuo et al., 2014; Pfaffmann, 2007). Video conferencing widened the path of exchange of
information and communication by enabling students and instructors to participate on a platform
where body language was visible and enhanced the overall communication in the online
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
24
classroom (Wang, 2005). Students are also now able to interact synchronously in break out
groups and in meeting rooms while having discussions and collaborating on assignments
together (Stewart et al., 2011).
Students report video conferencing as particularly useful and exciting since, even with
limited video, communication levels do increase as opposed to asynchronous classes
(Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012; Falloon, 2011; Wang, 2005; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). Han (2013)
examined the effects of instructors’ video conferencing in synchronous online learning in
comparison to those who did not use video conferencing in synchronous online learning and
found students felt a closer connection to their instructor and peers when utilizing video
conferencing, which is key to developing a sense of community and belonging. However, in
order for video conferencing technologies to be effective, they must allow opportunities for
students to interact directly with the learning materials and with one another (Stewart et al.,
2011). Through assessing how students feel about specific uses of tools, administrators and
designers of synchronous online courses may be able to improve how these programs can
maximize student learning (Alquraan, 2012).
Advantages of Synchronous Online Learning
There are three major advantages to the delivery and framework of a synchronous online
program: logistics, instruction, and economics (Chen et al., 2005). The flexibility and easily
distributed delivery make the logistical advantage of synchronous online learning obvious.
Instructors are able to engage learners with multimedia resources that would be a challenge even
in face-to-face interaction. Economically, students and instructors both benefit by avoiding the
unnecessary costs of having to travel to a school site combined with the time they spend to be
away from home or work (Hannum, 2000).
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
25
Additionally, the two most important advantages of synchronous learning as compared to
asynchronous learning are the immediacy in communication and increased motivation that
comes from the need to participate and to be present in a community of learners (Chen et al.,
2005). When students are working in groups or are brainstorming, immediate feedback would
allow for students to reiterate important points or to quickly learn from mistakes pointed out
instantly. Higher levels of motivation increase student engagement and involvement resulting in
better learning experiences in synchronous online programs (Chen et al., 2005).
With these advantages appropriately placed and in action, students who use electronic
technologies that allow for synchronous face-to-face communication alongside teachers who
provide direct instruction have outperformed students who participate in other modes of online
instruction (Chen & Wang, 2007; Lakhal & Kehchine, 2016). Specifically, when instructors state
their expectations of their learning outcomes and provide for appropriate performance and
achievement of those goals in documents and policies within the synchronous online classroom,
students have performed better than students in asynchronous programs (Chen & Wang, 2007;
Lakahl & Kehchine, 2016).
Although the advantages of synchronous online learning have been recorded over the
years, the data gathered by researchers Allen and Seaman (2017) show only 14.3% of college
students enrolled in at least one class in an exclusively online program in the fall of 2015. Six
million college students were enrolled in an online course in either an undergraduate or graduate
program in 2015 which showed an increase of 3.9 percent over the prior year (Allen & Seaman,
2017). The steady increase in student enrollment in online learning shows that in higher
education institutes, both synchronous and asynchronous online learning, has slowly begun to
replace the traditional face-to-face meetings (Yamagata-Lynch, 2014).
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
26
Obstacles in Synchronous Learning
Although interest in online learning has increased, it has not always met a correlating
acceptance and implementation by higher education institutes due to a variety of obstacles and
hurdles (Orr, Williams, & Pennington, 2009). The reasons for low implementation of online
delivery by administrators and faculty center on the perception of the quality of online programs
when compared to face to face, in-person instruction (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Falloon, 2011;
Noble, 2001; Power & Gould-Morven, 2011). In addition, many times, online students feel
isolated and alone which is linked to an undeniable high rate of withdrawal and drop-out (Berge
& Huang, 2004; Morgan & Tam, 1999).
When it comes to synchronous online learning, students often lack experience in a
synchronous online classroom and therefore experience difficulties when implementing
technological tools (Cole, 2009; Warden et al., 2013). Additional obstacles participants face in a
synchronous online classroom are delays in transmission of video and audio which result in
disruptive interruptions and overlaps in dialogue between students and instructors (Akarasriworn
& Ku, 2013). Although much of the research available uses the student lens as a means of
understanding the online learning experience, a noticeable absence of the instructor’s perspective
remains (Fasso, 2013). Professors also face problems in their synchronous online classrooms that
involve a lack of technological literacy, a lack of procedural knowledge, and a distance gap that
is apparent in both verbal and nonverbal communication with students (Fasso, 2013; Lahaie,
2007).
With these obstacles and perceptions of both students and instructors in mind, the
question as to how best support meaningful student learning in synchronous online learning
environments still remains. Every synchronous online class is qualitatively unique and varies in
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
27
its composition making it difficult to find a solution that supports all synchronous online courses
(Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). Research continues to grow and support the well-structured and robust
online programs created by and functioning in higher education institutions across the nation.
However, negative and wary perceptions of the validity and quality of what an online program
can provide and deliver to its students still hovers as a dark cloud over synchronous learning
programs (Gedera, 2014). A wealth of data presenting the frameworks that support student
learning in synchronous online learning would help forge a path of unquestionable assurance in
the field of online synchronous learning, but the results of current studies lack the overwhelming
evidence needed to make meaningful and widely accepted generalizations about the benefits and
contributions synchronous online learning makes to student learning (Szeto, 2014).
Effectiveness of Online Learning
As society continues to change dynamically with the growing presence of innovative
products and services throughout various industries worldwide, students must now compete
globally and become rapid problem solvers with a wide breadth of knowledge of many fields
(Bogdanović, Obadović, Cvjetićanin, Segedinac, & Budić, 2015; Kolfschoten, Lukosch,
Verbraeck, Valentin, & Vreede, 2010). But in order to do so, students must now construct and
obtain knowledge in a way that allows them to be competitive in today’s market. In order to meet
these evolving expectations, online education programs are seen as a possible solution to a more
effective and accessible method of learning (Bogdanović et al., 2015; Kolfschoten et al., 2010).
Learning is defined as an occurrence when an experience changes an individual’s knowledge or
behavior for better or worse, correct or incorrect (Woolfolk, 2004). Effective learning is when
the outcomes of student assessments or surveys meet the standards and goals outlined by a
school or institution (Johnes, Portela, & Thanassoulis, 2017). As online programs continue to
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
28
proliferate, understanding exactly how quality online learning programs are fostering student
learning is key to articulating best online learning practices and understanding how to properly
manage such programs at an administrative level.
For this study, I looked into the perceived effectiveness of higher education defined as
meeting goals that define the cultural, social, and economic objectives of the university (Johnes
et al., 2017; Sadlak, 1978). If the objectives of the higher education system are to assist in the
process of students growing into and becoming educated people (Hanson, 2014), then the
effectiveness of a university can be based on ensuring students learn and thrive.
Since the birth of online learning, barriers to its perceived effectiveness have been well
documented. From perceived barriers to research-driven reported challenges, the general scope
of online learning faces an array of obstacles that will require the attention and focus of those
involved in maintaining and improving the quality of online learning (Lloyd et al., 2012).
Although institutional and political plans have been devised over the years to remedy
shortcomings expressed in faculty and student dissatisfaction with online learning programs,
significant turnaround in the negative perception of online learning has yet to be seen (Goktas,
Gedik, & Baydas, 2013).
Obstacles within online learning are present inside and outside the online classroom with
existing external barriers ranging from problems related to troubleshooting equipment to the
absence of tech support. Whereas internal barriers include negative attitudes and beliefs toward
the use of technology in education and teaching techniques and approaches used by instructors
and schools (Goktas et al., 2013). The rapid influx of technology and tools without
accompanying tech support and appropriate training for students, instructors, and administrators
also contribute to the most common barriers. These are identified as, “lack of hardware,
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
29
software, instructional content, support, basic knowledge and skills, time, and physical
environment” (Goktas et al., 2013, p. 211).
The wide range of barriers within online learning ultimately stands in the way of the
perceived effectiveness of online programs in higher education and a general lack of
accountability (Goktas et al., 2013). In addition to the negative external and internal factors of
online learning, there is an influential negative perception of online learning among many
university faculty members who are reluctant to teach courses online due to their perception of
its decreased value and legitimacy compared to a traditional class setting (Ward, Peters, &
Shelley, 2010). Select higher education institutions actively work toward changing the
perceptions of instructors against online teaching by providing greater in-depth support, training,
fiscal support, and developed technology plans as remedies (Goktas et al., 2013).
Despite the increase in literature that focuses on online learning, there remains an absence
of specific research that evaluates the effectiveness of synchronous online technologies in higher
education institutions. As students continue to enroll in synchronous online classes, institutions
must prioritize the adaptation and improvement of its synchronous online model to better serve
students as its popularity continues to increase (Ward et al., 2010). Perception of effectiveness
through the lenses of instructors and students remain prevalent in the literature when it comes to
the general topic of online learning as a whole (Falloon, 2011; Gedera, 2014; Picciano et al.,
2010). However, there remains a significant category of research that is missing from the
conversation that examines synchronous online learning programs and classes specifically.
Without a foundational study and reliable data to base the quality of synchronous online learning
upon, the question as to how to remedy its shortcomings to alleviate negative perceptions
remains.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
30
Accountability of Online Learning
In 2005, the future of higher education was placed in the national spotlight as the U.S.
Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings initiated a call to assess and report
student learning outcomes (Malandra, 2008). Since then, there has been a greater emphasis on
assessing student learning in higher education associations and systems. Results from
international comparisons have further propelled governments to push the need for an assessment
and accountability system in their higher education institutions (Klenowski, 2011). In addition,
assessment measures are now required to be in place for any institution that seeks to receive
regional accreditation (Malandra, 2008). Assessment and accountability factors such as
improving student preparation and access, cost, transparency, innovation, and global leadership
were all actively pursued as part of the action agenda of the U.S. Department of Education
beginning in the fall of 2006 (Malandra, 2008).
As online education has shown tremendous growth, stakeholders are demanding proof of
the effectiveness of this sector of education, with a significant focus on whether online education
programs are truly holding their students and instructors accountable to learning (Robinson &
Hullinger, 2008). Another big question that continues to surface when discussing online learning
is whether online learning is just as effective as traditional education models (Picciano et al.,
2010). Quantitative data from research studies that compare student outcomes from traditional
face to face, in-person, and on campus classes to synchronous and asynchronous online courses
reflect similar results in student performance (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008). Additional studies
that dig deeper into the disparity in perception have investigated the effectiveness of online
programs from the student’s perspective. Students were asked about their attitudes about online
learning and the student’s satisfaction overall with online learning and results show complex data
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
31
that vary depending on the student’s course, field of study, type of online program, and
sociocultural background (Fisher & Baird, 2005; Picciano et al., 2010; Robinson & Hullinger,
2008).
Assessments are used to determine if a student has acquired a set of knowledge and skills
(Schuwirth & Vleuten, 2011). Many view assessment as the endpoint for learning (Green et al.,
2010). An effective assessment of learning measures the evaluation and benefits of a program.
Online learning assessments examine the method of implementation and whether the chosen
methods are valid, reliable, flexible, and fair (Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012; Perry & Pilati, 2011).
The largest survey of online learning quality was conducted by researchers Allen and
Seaman (2005) who defined the foundation for assessing quality of online learning based on five
factors: access, learning and effectiveness, student support, cost effectiveness, and faculty
satisfaction. Their survey was utilized to further understand the growth of online learning in
higher education while tracking the changing perception of online instruction by top university
administrators (Allen & Seaman, 2017).
Results from surveys and assessments from online learners and instructors continue to
pour in every year and are analyzed by researchers to give feedback to institutions about the
quality of the online programs they are offering (Allen & Seaman, 2017). Despite varying
results, the question that persists is whether online learning is as effective as face to face learning
in achieving learning objectives when adding technologies such as video conferencing to
enhance the experience and add to the richness of the course (Cheawjindakarn et al., 2012; Perry
& Pilati, 2011). The complex and varied definitions of accountability and assessment in online
education is further complicated by each institution’s methods of measuring the results and
analyzing the data.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
32
Synchronous online programs are spreading across higher education institutions,
therefore understanding more precisely how synchronous online programs are measured for their
effectiveness is key to ensuring accountability, quality assurance and refinement, and a continued
evolution of online learning (Fisher & Baird, 2005). In order to better understand the chasm
between the quantifiable data which shows student learning and the perception of the
effectiveness of student learning in synchronous online classes, students and instructors were
asked to share their perceptions and thoughts on when, where, and how learning takes places in
their synchronous online class. Each synchronous online classroom stands as its own unique
sociocultural community. In order to gain a deeper understanding of how and why activities take
place and contribute to student learning, the perceptions of the instructor and students can
provide additional information to the wider conversation of what contributes to student learning
in a synchronous online environment. The results gathered from this study can provide
institutions with suggestions to improve its synchronous online programs in order to best serve
its participating instructors, students, and administrators.
Grounded Theories and Frameworks
A synchronous online classroom contains a unique set of participants and moving parts to
note, observe, and analyze. Each synchronous online classroom is comprised of its own makeup
of information and communications technology, as well as a community of diverse learners, and
the instructor. This study focused on one particular classroom and community of synchronous
online participants and gathered the perspectives of the participants to better understand what
they identify as enhancing the cognitive learning experience in their synchronous online
classroom.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
33
A series of cognitive learning theories served as a framework for this study that supported
the explanation and understanding of what learning looks like in the synchronous online
classroom. Participants described specific activities and strategies that take place in the
synchronous online course and explain their interpretations of how these instructional strategies
and activities in their course attributed to their learning. These examples of learning were
grounded with learning theories that include constructivism by John Dewey (1933), cognitive
theory by Jean Piaget (1963), sociocultural theory by Lev Vygotsky (1978), and sociocultural
theory by Jerome Bruner (1986).
Rather than looking at the quantitative competencies of students through assessments in
alignment with learning objectives, this study instead looked at the instructional strategies
employed and the corresponding perspectives of the instructor and students to better understand
when and how meaningful learning took place in their synchronous online class. Each activity
and interaction that takes place in the context of the specific synchronous online class can be
categorized by a type of cognitive learning within a grounded learning theory. Further analysis
looked at whether the learning outlined by the participants can be identified along a spectrum of
independent construction and co-construction of new knowledge through experiences that spark
prior knowledge while building on new ideas for long-term memory (Dewey, 1938).
The perspectives of the participants in the synchronous online classes either challenged or
confirmed existing cognitive learning theories. The framework of constructivist learning theories
served as the validation and connection to grounded and meaningful learning occurring in the
synchronous online classes and represent instructional strategies and activities that can be
utilized as best practice procedures. In order to analyze the responses from the participants
through interviews, the learning theories must serve as the framework that already takes into
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
34
account and recognizes the varying factors involved in a complex synchronous online system
that is not uniform in its composition such as background of learners and online teaching
experience of the instructor to name a few. The framework provided by the cognitive learning
theories allow the researcher to dig deeper into the human practices reported and analyze the
attempt to reach the desired goal (Bakhurst, 2009). The learning theories take into account both
the individual and social levels that can intersect or merge in respects to different contexts of the
online classroom (Appiah & Cronjé, 2013).
To better understand what is meant by cognitive learning in the context of this study and
review of literature, it is important to highlight what the cognitive view of learning is. The
cognitive view of learning considers learning as “transforming significant understanding we
have, rather than simple acquisitions written on blank slates” (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996,
p. 18). Rather than being passively affected by experiences, cognitive learning emphasizes the
importance of an active learner who makes decisions to best meet his goals. Earlier view of
cognitive learning focused on the acquisition of knowledge, but more recent interpretations of
cognitive learning theories stress the construction of knowledge (Woolfolk, 2004).
Dewey’s Constructivist Theory
Education psychologists categorize learning theories as focusing on behaviorism,
learning as changes in behavior, and constructivism, learning as changes in results of thinking
(Seifert & Sutton, 2009). Constructivism is also categorized in two forms: psychological and
social construction. For this study, both forms of constructivism were recognized as types of
learning theories that can be applied to the appropriate research data that identifies as such and
the analysis of the units of study that aligns itself closest to either psychological or social
constructivism.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
35
Psychological constructivism can be summarized as the meaningful learning that takes
place when a person organizes and reorganizes new information or experiences themselves
(Seifert & Sutton, 2009). Psychological constructivism is a term used by philosophers, educators,
and psychologists with variations in its definition, but all center on the idea of the individual
constructing cognitive structures through their experiences in particular situations (Woolfolk,
2004). Or simply, constructivism can be defined as, “…attempting to explain how people come
to know what they know” (Krahenbuhl, 2016, p. 97). This is a focus on how individuals are
constructing their own beliefs, knowledge, self-concept, and identity (Woolfolk, 2004).
Dewey was one of the earlier educational philosophers who emphasized psychological
constructivism as the need for instructors to be flexible with their curriculum in order to adjust to
a student’s prior knowledge and interests (Seifert & Sutton, 2009). Dewey further suggested
curriculum design was justified when activities and responsibilities of students would be
meaningful and applicable both inside and outside the classroom (1933, 1944). This was a
departure from the traditional model and consideration of student learning that was represented
through repetitive rote-memorization. Although this may seem obvious today, in Dewey’s time,
this was innovative and progressive thinking about how to define and better understand how
students learn and the methods by which it was measured and evaluated (Seifert & Sutton, 2009).
Students became a part of the learning process and Dewey’s learning theory focused on the
learner thinking about their learning.
Dewey focused on the intellectual, moral, and emotional growth of the individual as it
pertained to their learning and education (Rodgers, 2002). Learning was “that reconstruction or
reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of the experience, and which increases
[one’s] ability to direct the course of subsequent experiences” (Dewey, 1944, p. 74). In this
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
36
definition of learning, Dewey is also describing the process of reflection. Dewey claimed that
through reflection, students can move from a state of confusion or perplexity to a state of
equilibrium (Dewey, 1944). Learners reach confusion when the meaning of what they have
experienced is not fully clear yet. Therefore, the learner is unsettled and seeking understanding
through the exercise or practice of reflection. Dewey further explained that the thought process
of reflection itself is not enough and that rather, sharing your thoughts and actualizing it with
words to a community is what completes the learning activity of reflection (Dewey, 1944).
Dewey believed we used our past experiences and what meaning we applied to them in
conjunction with our prior knowledge to build this new knowledge and skill. Through the
applied practice of reflection, learning continues as the process of reflection and the interaction
of sharing new thoughts with a community continues on (Rodgers, 2002).
Piaget’s Cognitive Theory of Constructivism
Piaget’s cognitive theory of constructivism put the student at the center of their own
learning (Halpenny & Pettersen, 2013). He described learning as the interplay between
assimilation, the interpretation of new information based on prior knowledge, and
accommodation, modifying prior knowledge in terms of new experiences or ideas (Siefert &
Sutton, 2009). Piaget believed assimilation and accommodation worked together to create a
cognitive equilibrium for students where there would be a reliance on prior knowledge but also
an openness to new ideas and information. This would result in a new schema for students that
included a mixture of vocabulary, actions, and experiences related to a particular concept (Piaget,
1963).
A common critique of Piaget’s cognitive theory of constructivism is the missing role of
the instructor and community of experts or peers that may influence the learning process of a
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
37
student. Piaget’s focus on the student independently constructing knowledge leaves out the
significant impact that the environment can make on a student’s construction and interpretation
of new knowledge (Siefert & Sutton, 2009). The individual was the focus of Piaget’s
constructivism theory and although Piaget recognized the importance of the social environment
surrounding the learner, he did not believe that social interaction was the key to changing how
students think or how students learn (Woolfolk, 2004). Piaget believed that the active role a
student takes on in his own learning, and the connections and interactions a student makes with
the world around him is how he progresses in his thinking and learning (Halpenny & Pettersen,
2013, Piaget, 1963). Action and self-directed problem-solving are central to Piaget’s
constructivism theory but later, theorists would add to Piaget’s theory to incorporate more of the
interactions and individuals within the social environment of the student as being part of the
impact on the learning process of the student.
Bruner’s Sociocultural Theory
American psychologist, Jerome Bruner, focused on a sociocultural cognitive learning
theory and framework that is often called social constructivism (Seifert & Sutton, 2009). This
was a departure from Piaget’s individualistic learning theory that instead emphasized the
relationships and interactions students have with others who may be more knowledgeable or
experienced. Bruner believed students could learn more when given appropriate guidance and
resources, rather than the traditional model of instruction that leaves students as passive
participants in the learning process (Bruner, 1986). Bruner introduced the strategy of using
scaffolding through language, a temporary framework to help systematically construct
knowledge and build understanding so students can eventually problem solve independently
(Seiffert & Sutton, 2009). Scaffolding can include interactions, instruction, and questions that
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
38
help set up a concept that will help the student gradually take control of an activity when he is
skilled enough to do so on his own (Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014). Scaffolding is not
intended to make the given task easier for a student, but rather, to support the student to complete
the task. Instruction without scaffolding in place results in direct instruction which does not
create space for co-construction of knowledge through interaction with peers and experts
(Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014).
Bruner’s earlier research on thinking sparked an interest in instructional strategies that
would encourage concept learning and development of thinking (Woolfolk, 2004). Through
active learning, Bruner believed that learning would be more meaningful, useful, and memorable
for students if they were to discover key principles rather than simply accepting what was
explained to them by instructors (Woolfolk, 2004). The instructional strategy of scaffolding
builds a self-regulated student after he has gone through the give and take process of initiating
knowledge and awareness by peers or experts who may have more knowledge and expertise of
the given subject (Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014). Bruner believed students would be
more successful in constructing knowledge when they were aware of their role in the
construction of their own knowledge. Through the participation in scaffolds, Bruner believed that
the construction of knowledge and the process of learning was one that was inclusive to the
social environment and community of individuals around the student, “I have come increasingly
to recognize that learning in most settings is a communal activity, a sharing of culture” (Bruner,
1986, p. 27).
Vygotsky’s Learning Theory
Bruner’s sociocultural theory was influenced by Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s
earlier cognitive learning theory that was grounded in the understanding that the social
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
39
environment and interactions students participated in were key to the learning process. Vygotsky
believed learners are influenced by the relationships they have with peers and experts and
through these relationships, students are more capable of constructing more permanent
knowledge (Seiffert & Sutton, 2009). Learning then is not an individual experience a student has
but rather is heavily affected by the interactions and relationships a student has with those in his
community or classroom. Vygotsky introduced the construct called the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) which highlights the difference between an independent learning experience
and what he called an assisted performance through scaffolding. The ZPD is the area of change,
where the change in understanding occurs when a student is assisted in the learning process by
someone more knowledgeable than him, and not so much taught, but simply allowed to learn
through guidance and support (Seiffert & Sutton, 2009). The focus of the ZPD is not so much the
result of the learning, but a focus on the process of learning and development. At the start of a
task when a student requires significant assistance to learn a new concept, the ZPD is vast.
However, with the assistance of an expert or more knowledgeable peer, the ZPD decreases and
the learner requires less assistance as he moves toward independence (Albert, 2012).
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory puts a heavier responsibility in the hands of the expert in
this teaching relationship. The expert is expected to make learning possible for a student. Not
only must the expert then have the knowledge of the subject matter, but the expert must also
know the strategies that are necessary to create a safe learning environment for learners, and
further plan and implement them in a sequence for a successful experience in meaningful
knowledge and skill building (Seiffert & Sutton, 2009). The constructivist learning and the
cognitive development of the student would be made possible through the interactions and
conversations a student has with more capable members of the community and culture that can
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
40
include adults, instructors, and more able peers (Woolfolk, 2004). The verbal and nonverbal
interactions students have with their peers and instructors also equate to the active learning
needed for students to construct new knowledge and express their thoughts (Amerian, Ahmadian,
& Mehri, 2014).
Vygotsky not only highlighted the social interactions that take place in the social
constructivism of learning, but he also claimed that learning happens when students participate in
cultural experiences as well (Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014). Since every human activity
takes place within a unique setting that is deeply embedded in one’s culture, Vygotsky believed
that the mental structures and processes we examine cannot be looked at apart from the cultural
settings of the individual (Woolfolk, 2004). The cognitive structures and thinking processes one
develops is largely created by the cultural background of an individual (Palincsar, 1998).
Therefore, when one looks at student learning in the context of a community or class of learners,
Vygotsky’s learning theory supports the idea that the development of knowledge comes from the
processes of transforming “socially shared activities into internalized processes” (John-Steiner &
Mahn, 1996, p. 192).
Vygotsky acknowledged that learning does not happen independently with an individual,
but rather learning is a social interaction that occurs in meaningful and guided contexts through
dialogue with a community, “The distance between the actual development level as determined
by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 86). According to Vygotsky, higher mental processes appear when individuals are co-
constructing knowledge through shared activities. These higher-order mental processes include
reasoning and problem solving that are designed to be completed with psychological tools such
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
41
as language and signs. Students internalize these higher-order processes and later these processes
become part of the cognitive development of the learner (Woolfolk, 2004).
In Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory, understanding is built within a community
that includes the instructors and students together. The role of the teacher is not one where the
instructor simply transmits information and knowledge to passive learners. Rather, Vygotsky
claims students develop and learn from dialogue and experiences with the social world around
them. Prior knowledge in students is activated throughout these interactions and with scaffolding
processes in place, students can develop and construct meaningful knowledge (Amerian,
Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014). It is important to note that Vygotsky stresses that scaffolding
activities alone cannot be attributed to constructing knowledge. Rather, meaningful learning
takes place through the social and cultural interactions and collaboration within the scaffolds
(Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014). In an ideal social environment, rich with opportunities for
true student learning, both the instructor and students are participating actively, building on prior
knowledge, and developing new knowledge through the assistance of the instructor or more
knowledgeable peer (Vygotsky, 1978).
Perspectives of Student Learning as the Unit of Analysis
In a synchronous online class, the makeup of the participants includes the instructor and
his students. In the current body of literature, there is a notable absence of studies that look at the
perspectives of both the instructor and the students in a synchronous online course. More
specifically, there is a lack of literature that can describe what student learning looks like in a
synchronous online environment from the perspective of all the participants in the course. In this
study, the unit of analysis was the perspectives of participants in a synchronous online course
and the learning through resources and support that was present in the synchronous online class.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
42
The research question that is driving this case study is how do the instructor and
students in a synchronous online class identify and describe the affordances for learning in their
synchronous online course? The data gathered from the interviews varies on a wide spectrum of
responses that include activities, interactions, and conversations that can be grounded in a variety
of learning theories and categorized into types of student learning based on the descriptions
provided through the lens of a student or instructor.
Learning theories have evolved over time and have taken into account the growing
complexities of a classroom, of the participants, and of the modern culture and societal norms
that now shape what one may identify as the idea or concept of what learning is. To best
understand how learning is taking place in a synchronous online classroom, a closer analysis of
the perspectives and responses from active participants in a synchronous online class serve as the
ideal unit of analysis to answer the research question for this given case study.
The understanding of student learning can be subjective and varies due to the
sociocultural context of the class, the cultural background of the participants, and perhaps the
preconceived biases the student and instructor possess (Woolfolk, 2004). Therefore, analyzing
the responses to questions about when and how student learning is supported in the synchronous
online classes of participants is key to better understanding how instructors can best plan,
prepare, and practice instructional strategies for synchronous online classes. The inclusion of
perspectives from both the instructor and his students is also key in the analysis of data as the
current body of literature shows an overwhelming number of studies conducted with looking at
just the perspectives of either the student participants or the instructor. A more well-rounded and
accountable report of whether student learning was supported in alignment with the goals
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
43
prepared by the instructor is unique to the conversation of what is adding to student learning in
synchronous online learning.
Implications for the Future of Synchronous Online Learning
Technology has been touted as the solution for fast-tracking problems and allowing
people to arrive at their goals quickly and efficiently (Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). Although this
may be true for other industries, the question as to whether technology has truly positively
affected the field of education, specifically through synchronous online programs and courses,
remains in question (Gedera, 2014). The amount of research and data exploring online learning is
continuously accumulating and at unprecedented levels (Allen & Seaman, 2010). But with the
influx of the latest technological tools advancing the online learning industry, the makeup and
functions of synchronous online classes also continue to change. The research that examines the
developing and dynamic landscape of synchronous online learning shows both advantages and
obstacles that affect administration, instructors, and students (Power & Gould-Morven, 2011).
A closer look into the question as to whether synchronous online learning classes are
designed and conducted with instructional strategies and activities in place in order to contribute
to meaningful student learning becomes layered and nuanced. The sociocultural-historical
context of how students use the language, resources, and tools within a synchronous online class
to communicate, collaborate, and complete activities is what shapes the outcomes and
perspectives of those who participate (Appiah & Cronjé, 2013). Understanding what students and
instructors perceive to be adding to meaningful student learning in a synchronous online class
provides a significant sample of the broad view for how this genre of online learning is being
rated.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
44
As online learning continues to spread across college campuses, and accountability
measures are required to ensure the effectiveness of the programs administered, understanding
the function and added value of particular types of online programs will be critical for higher
education institutions (Alquraan, 2012). This study sought to provide a window into a section of
online learning that is gaining momentum (Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). Synchronous online
learning is a unique type of online learning that requires the knowledge, awareness, and
consideration of what students come into a classroom already knowing and anticipating. The
analysis of the perceived purpose and goal of activities that take place within said classroom, and
the consideration of the community, and the specific nuances in the environment are vital to the
conversation around synchronous online learning today (Green et al., 2010). Each synchronous
online classroom provides a specific explanation of what occurs within its own unique context
and merits its own study that cannot later be generalized as representing synchronous online
learning as a whole (Appiah & Cronjé, 2013). However, the perspectives of the students and
instructor in these synchronous online classes, and their conclusions about what adds to their
learning was the focus of this qualitative study. The purpose of this study was to provide
important research to the larger discussion and evaluation of student learning in synchronous
online learning.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
45
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Online learning, with its 42-year history, is no longer considered new (Allen & Seaman,
2010; Kennedy, 2005). During its steady ascent and prevalence, organizations were created to
develop and implement standards that address and assure the quality of online teaching and
learning in higher education (Kennedy, 2005). However, the standards for online learning tend to
be derivatives of the standards for conventional teaching, and thus, lead us to the question as to
how online learning is supporting student learning (Kennedy, 2005). This study sought to answer
the question as to how participants in a synchronous online class perceived learning to be
supported within the environment of their synchronous online class. Each synchronous online
classroom is unique due to the context-sensitive nature of the class and the individual
participants who bring their interpretations through the lens of their own historical cultural
background (Darhower, 2002). In order to best understand how students were learning in such a
unique environment, a perception lens was required to collect such context rich data (Darhower,
2002).
The design of the research followed the case study model as it allowed for different social
science methods to account for the different needs and situations for investigating topics (Yin,
2009). This case study involved gathering the perceptions of an instructor and his or her students
in order to gain a wider understanding of whether the synchronous online classroom was a model
of online learning that can truly nurture student learning. The roles of the instructor and student
differed and therefore, both perspectives were collected in order to provide a thorough
understanding of how student learning was perceived to be supported and nurtured in the
classroom.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
46
The study was conducted using two classes taught by a single instructor in a higher
education institution, and the data collection method was in two parts. First, the instructor of a
single online synchronous class was interviewed. Then, students participating in the instructor’s
two synchronous online classes were interviewed as well. The participants in the study were
asked to answer questions (see Appendix A) framed by the learning theories of Dewey (1933),
Piaget (1963), Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner (1986). The questions inquired as to when and how
participants believed their learning was supported in their synchronous online class and how
participants were able to show evidence of these affordances in their class. The research question
that guided this case study was:
How do the instructor and students in a synchronous online class identify and describe
the affordances for learning taking place in their synchronous online course?
Sample
Settings
The case study for this dissertation took place at a private university with a student
population of about 44,000; 19,000 of whom are undergraduates and 25,000 are graduate and
professional students (Facts & Figures, n.d.). This university was selected due to its growing
catalog of more than 85 online programs at the graduate level and over 7,700 students
participating in these programs (About Online, n.d.). One of the 85 synchronous online programs
was selected for the study. By focusing the study in one university, and specifically one
voluntary instructor’s classes, I was able to provide a more in-depth investigation of the
perspectives of participants in the classes of a single instructor. In order to recognize the specific
sociocultural-historical context of the class and its participants, both instructor and students, it
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
47
was important to focus on just a single instructor’s classes in order to keep the data from
becoming too vague and disconnected from the tight-knit communities in which it was pulled.
Specifically, this study examined the perspectives of the instructor and her
students and what they found to be the attributing to their learning in their online synchronous
online course. I contacted instructors and students participating in the same synchronous online
course within the catalog of online courses offered at the university. Prior to contacting
participants in the study, an Institutional Review Board submission was reviewed and approved
before making any contact with research participants. The criteria used to select a university for
the study was:
1. A university (public or private) with a growing and well-received online program at
the graduate level.
2. A university whose mission statement communicates that its online programs
prioritize maintaining academic rigor and quality while providing greater access to
students.
With online learning growing rapidly at a three percent growth rate for enrollment each
year while overall enrollment in higher education is decreasing (Allen & Seaman, 2017),
selecting a school site that maintained its academic integrity while currently pushing forward to
expand its presence in online education was vital in the selection process of this case study.
Participants
This study examined the perceptions of a single instructor and her students in terms of the
affordances for learning in their synchronous online classroom. The online courses at the
university selected for the study were listed on the school’s website under Online Graduate
Program (“Western State University,” n.d.). From the list of departments and specific courses
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
48
that were conducted online, the instructors of the online Education, Teaching, and Leadership
programs were selected and invited to participate in this study. The Education, Teaching, and
Leadership programs were selected due to the familiarity I had with the content the instructor
and students spoke of throughout the study. By being familiar with the content and activities
taking place in the synchronous online class, I avoided confusion with the course content
terminology and colloquial terms used in interviews when analyzing data.
Through contacting the Education department to gather the emails of the instructors of
the online Education, Teaching, and Leadership programs at the university, I emailed all
instructors who fit my criteria and invited them to participate in this study. I invited as many
instructors as possible in order to gain a wider chance at receiving an acceptance from a
voluntary participant. In the invitation, I requested instructors who were teaching synchronous
online courses to respond to the invitation since the distinction between synchronous and
asynchronous courses were not listed on the university’s catalogue. The duration of the teaching
experience of the instructors was relevant to this study as the familiarity, or lack of, with the
technology added to the context of the classroom and the analysis of the data. The study looked
at which activities and interactions taken place within the synchronous online classroom were
identified as adding to meaningful and attributing to student learning. Therefore the teaching
experience of instructors was directly relevant to the design of curriculum and instruction of the
synchronous online course.
In the email invitation to the selected instructors, I outlined the purpose of the study and
informed the instructors that their students’ participation would be needed for the case study as
well. Of the acceptances to the invitations that I gathered, I purposefully selected one instructor
as the participant of the study using the number of years of experience the instructor had teaching
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
49
a synchronous online course as the deciding factor. The instructor who responded with the
greatest number of years of experience with online instruction was selected for the study.
After an instructor was selected and committed to the study with the understanding that I
would request her students’ participation as well, I invited all the students in the instructor’s
classes to participate in the study. Since this study was only looking at one instructor to narrow
the scope of the data, it was beneficial to the study to gather as much data from as many students
the instructor was responsible for teaching as possible. The ideal goal was to have at least five
students participate in order to gain a variety of perspectives from participants in the class. In
total, ten students participated in interviews providing a wider breadth of data to analyze.
Interviews were conducted in order to give a variety of responses to gather repetitive
patterns or themes from the responses. Students did not need to possess a certain number of
months or years in a synchronous online learning environment since this study was only
examining the particular class the students were in with their instructor while keeping in mind
the sociocultural context of that particular class and classroom. The added experience or
inexperience with the technology and tools gave depth and context to the data analysis portion of
the study. The duration of this research took place over a two-month period with at least 10
interviews of students and one interview of the instructor.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
The goal of this study was to understand how participants in a synchronous online class
identify and describe the learning taking place in their course. I collected the perspectives
participants provided through individual interviews I conducted over the phone. Interviews
probed into which interactions and activities taking place within the classroom contributed to
meaningful learning and why instructors and students thought that was the case. The data was
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
50
then collected, transcribed, coded, and tied to constructivist learning theories. The design of the
interview questions for the instructor and students provided the triangulation of data which came
from the instructor’s responses, the students’ responses, and the analysis of both sets of data I
conducted.
Interviews
Of the structured, semi-structured, and unstructured interviews (Gill, Stewart, Treasure,
& Chadwick, 2008), the interview type chosen for this case study was the semi-structured
interview. The semi-structured interview was selected in order to create and utilize key questions
to frame the areas explored in this study. At the same time, the semi-structured interview allowed
for deeper probing and gathering of details (Gill et al., 2008). I prepared the open-response
questions for the semi-structured interviews and conducted the interviews over phone calls. All
11 participants were asked to partake in an interview at least once.
After the interviews were completed, I transcribed all 11 interview responses and drew
familiar patterns or themes that emerged throughout the varied responses from the participants.
Each interview was projected to last from 20 to 30 minutes for each participant and was
conducted at the end of the academic term.
The interview questions (Appendix A) focused first on asking the participating instructor
and his or her students what their backgrounds were in regard to their student or instructor
profile, such as why they chose to teach or participate in a synchronous online class rather than
an in-person on-the-ground class on campus. Participants were asked to explain their past
experiences with online courses, both asynchronous and synchronous, to give insight to their
level of expertise in utilizing the tools and navigating the nuances of an online community.
Participants were asked questions that added richness to understanding the sociocultural-
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
51
historical context to their position in the class and what their understanding of the synchronous
online classroom elements were.
Furthermore, participants were asked to describe how specific interactions and activities
that took place in their synchronous online classroom added to their learning and why. The
participants were asked to reflect on which activities in their class were meaningful and why they
believed that to be so. Although I understood the dynamics of a classroom to take place within an
activity system from the literature, the participants were not prompted throughout the interview
to respond using the learning theory elements as a framework to all of their responses. Rather,
the analysis of the data I conducted used the learning theory frameworks of Dewey (1933),
Piaget (1963), Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner (1986) to draw conclusions and implications for
what participants perceived to be supporting and contributing to meaningful student learning in
their online synchronous classroom.
The interview questions were worded in an open-ended fashion to allow participants to
explain and go in detail as deeply as they desired. I was the sole manager of all recorded
responses from the interviews that were transcribed on a Google Document, collected, and stored
in a password-protected folder in secure online cloud storage.
Data Analysis
After the sample selection and data collection, a thorough analysis of the data gathered
was required to draw inferences and themes from the research collected. Learning theories from
Dewey (1933), Piaget (1963), Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner (1986) were utilized to ground,
frame, and clarify the analysis of the data collected.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
52
Interviews
The documentation of the interviews was first coded to identify recurring themes and to
draw conclusions as to how the instructor and students in the synchronous online classes felt
about the elements of their course that supported and allowed for meaningful student learning to
take place. The interview questions examined which activities and interactions the instructor and
students found to be affordances for student learning in the classroom. By using the foundational
learning theories that include the consideration of the sociocultural context of each participant’s
background and the context of the online classroom community as well, the activities and
interactions reported in the interviews conducted were coded to draw any major themes or
implications (Darhower, 2002).
Interview transcripts were recorded, transcribed, and then printed to begin the coding
process. I read through each transcript once through without coding, and then a second time to
begin coding on a hardcopy of the interview transcript along the margins. The coding that was
utilized for the analysis of the interview transcripts was a combination of predetermined and
emergent codes that aligned with learning theories of Dewey (1933), Piaget (1963), Vygotsky
(1978), and Bruner (1986). The predetermined codes were elements of a synchronous online
class: discussions, breakout groups, community building, student learning, critical thinking,
reflection, organization of activities, role of the instructor, and access to the instructor. Over 10
emergent codes were recorded throughout the transcription and coding of the data.
This study sought to understand the perceptions of the participants within a synchronous
online class, have the participants’ views analyzed to understand the dynamics of their class, and
understand which practices are highlighted and noted as being conductive to meaningful
learning. The interview responses from the instructor were compared to the responses from
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
53
students, and I then analyzed which similar themes emerged in alignment with the instructor’s
learning goals and objectives. The triangulation of the data was between the instructor’s
responses, the students’ responses, and my analysis of their responses. If a description of an
activity or synchronous online classroom element did not fall into the pre-defined set of codes, I
applied a new set of codes for further use if the same description of classroom elements was
mentioned repeatedly in the transcripts of interviews.
Limitations
Although measures were taken to maximize the potential of this case study, limitations to
the study remained. I took a deeper look at one university and two classes due to the schedule of
time allotted for the study. A collection of case studies across a wider network of universities
could have possibly been retrieved and analyzed if time permitted.
An additional limitation was the lack of in-person, face-to-face contact, and interaction
with me and the participants of the study. Although the subject of synchronous online learning is
what is being studied, and also simultaneously being used in this research, the interviews were
limited as it could have possibly provided indirect information filtered through the views and
lens of interviewees. Additionally, in this particular study, the fact that the interviews took place
in phone format, rather than natural face-to-face interaction, this could have presented barriers to
comfort and organic responses as well (Creswell, 2014).
Participants in the study were geographically unable to meet for an on campus, in-person,
and face-to-face interview so alternative methods of interviewing participants needed to be
utilized. After participants were asked for appointments to meet for interviews, my availability
and the availability of participants prohibited the use of video conferencing for the interviews
due to the nature of interview times and locations. Participants were able to commit to an
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
54
interview while at work, driving, or at home, so phone calls were selected as the most convenient
interview instrument. If there was more time to arrange for an interview where using a video
conferencing tool for the interview would not be an impediment to a participant volunteering for
an interview, that would have been considered over a telephone call. However, the time
constraint in the turnaround time from the acceptance of participation in the interview, to setting
up an appointment for an interview with me, was enough to push the decision from interviewing
over a video conferencing tool to using a telephone for the interview. The limitations to this
method of data collection have been noted and weighed.
Delimitations
In this case study, I looked at the perspectives of the participants in a synchronous online
classroom. The perspectives and responses to interview questions were the unit of data analysis
for this study. Therefore, the triangulation of interviews, observations, and document analysis
was not utilized for this study as the rich data gathered from the design of the open-ended
probing interview questions sufficed. This study was not looking at whether or not particular
activities occurred or what my perspective was given any observations. The study design was to
analyze the perspectives of the participants of the study, therefore my voice was not needed in
the triangulation of the data.
In addition to the absence of observations, documents were not gathered and analyzed as
part of the triangulation of data as well. This study was looking at what the instructor of a
synchronous online class was trying to teach and whether or not the students in the instructor’s
classes felt that resources and strategies were in place to support high-level learning. This does
not require an analysis or gathering of any documents. Rather, the design of the interview
questions focused on whether particular activities or elements engaged students and enhanced
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
55
their learning. This qualitative study looked at the perspectives of learning from the eyes of the
instructor and students, and not a quantitative measure of whether documents were turned in or
occurrences of activities took place.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In any research project, accuracy and credibility of a study are key to ensuring its
trustworthiness (Creswell, 2014). I planned strategic methods to ensure this particular study was
both accurate and credible.
To answer the research questions of what resources were in place to promote learning in
the context of a synchronous online classroom, this study was organized to consider all
participants relevant to a synchronous online class: the instructor and his or her students. By
adding both perspectives of the instructor and the students, this eliminated any narrow and
limited data and only added more validity to the study (Creswell, 2014).
I also prioritized the honesty and transparency of the report of data gathered and included
any negative or discrepant information that may be in direct opposition to the theme of this
study. I reported and described each emerging theme or pattern and any contradictory evidence
that may have been discovered throughout the course of the study. I included the contradictory
data in the data collection and analysis portion of the case study. In order to achieve credibility
and trustworthiness throughout the study, I noted and reported the reality of the existence of
contradictory information throughout the study.
In addition to the transparency of the data, I also noted the potential for researcher bias
given my experience teaching online and my perspective of online learning as well. My
background included almost ten years of teaching in an online and hybrid environment. Despite
my experience and bias toward all modalities of online learning, I made a successful concerted
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
56
effort to uphold credibility and trustworthiness by asking the research questions already drafted
in advance (Appendix A), and also recording and analyzing the data as it was relayed through the
interviews. There was no personal commentary added nor was there a slant in the reporting of
the data gathered through the interviews with the instructor and her students.
Ethics
Throughout this case study, I took into account the core ethical principles that need to be
considered when conducting this research. The recognition to do no harm to participants was in
practice, through obtaining informed consent from all participants prior to interviews and data
collection. This minimized the risk of harm to participants by protecting their anonymity and
confidentiality as well. If participants wished to withdraw from the research, they had the right to
do so and were given the option at the start of the interview.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
57
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Chapter Four details the data collected through interviews. I conducted a total of 11
interviews, one with the instructor of a graduate online program and a combined 10 students
from a Masters level and Doctoral level course taught separately by the instructor interviewed.
The interviews were conducted in a uniform manner using the questions found in Appendix A
that sought to answer the research question:
How do the instructor and students in a synchronous online class identify and describe
the affordances for learning in their synchronous online course?
The data collected from the interviews were recorded, transcribed, reviewed, analyzed,
and triangulated to best understand how participants of a synchronous online course identify and
describe presence of learning activities and support that promoted learning in the sociocultural
context of a synchronous online class. The themes and patterns gathered from the interviews of
students were compared to the themes and codes from the interview data collected from their
instructor. After identifying which themes and codes were aligned between the instructor and
students, those same themes and codes were then connected to the descriptions of learning found
and defined in grounded learning theories by prominent education psychologists and
philosophers such as Dewey (1933), Piaget (1963), Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner (1986). This
triangulation of data showed the perceived learning that takes place in synchronous online
classes from the perspective of the instructor, the students, and the analysis of the presence and
practice of established learning supports and activities that supported higher level cognitive
learning.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
58
The findings follow the learning theories established by Dewey (1933), Piaget (1963),
Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner (1986) and are organized accordingly into sections:
• descriptions of instructor and reasons for teaching synchronous online courses;
• description of students and reasons for enrolling in synchronous online courses;
• description of typical session and organization of activities;
• findings of perceived student learning through scaffolding;
• findings of perceived student learning through engagement in discourse;
• findings of perceived student learning through critical thinking and reflective practice.
Each section excluding the first includes the combined interview data from students in
both synchronous online courses taught by the instructor. Outlier responses that may not align
with the majority of the data reported by participants were included in each section to provide a
transparent review of the diverse perspectives of students participating in the synchronous online
courses. A summary of the most prominent and frequent cases of identifiable student learning
experiences in the two synchronous online classes informed the recommended best practices
suggested in the following chapter.
Instructor of the Synchronous Online Courses
The instructor who volunteered to participate in this study possessed significant
experience teaching both asynchronous and synchronous online courses. At the time of the
interview for this study, the instructor had taught about 30 online courses total throughout her
career. The instructor stated how much she enjoyed teaching both online and face to face in
person courses. However, the idea of a no back row, according to the 2U learning platform she
used, meaning no student can hide or be invisible in this synchronous online format, was a
contributing factor to her favoring teaching in a synchronous online format. In addition, the
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
59
ability to quickly transition between activities such as grouping students together and later
bringing them back to whole class discussions was mentioned as an advantage to teaching
synchronous online courses.
Previously, the instructor had experience teaching asynchronous online courses and was
pleasantly surprised with the new program and platform for teaching synchronous online courses
at the university and described the online platform as “interactive and dynamic. It was really a
fresh and new program.” The instructor did not report having any preconceived biases either
against or for online instruction before teaching the courses at the center of this study. The
classes taught by the instructor were both graduate level courses in the School of Education at
Western State University. One course was a Masters of Arts in Teaching and the second was a
course in the Doctoral Program in Education in Organizational Change and Leadership.
Students of the Synchronous Online Courses
All participating students from the two graduate courses taught by the instructor have had
prior experience with online learning, whether in a synchronous or asynchronous format.
Students ranged in experience from participating in at least one or two online courses aside from
the current one the instructor taught, to having participated in over 20 online courses throughout
the academic career of the student. When asked why they have chosen to participate in this
particular synchronous online course at Western State University, students responded with the
most common reasons for attending synchronous online classes rather than an in-person face to
face class: in order to balance work and family life, less commuting, and overall flexibility and
convenience for working professionals who require a more accommodating schedule.
Ten students from two of the synchronous online courses taught by the instructor
volunteered to participate in this case study. Students in the Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT)
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
60
programs were all student teachers in classrooms while they were participating in this online
course. Students in the Educational Leadership Doctoral program were all professionals working
in a variety of fields that ranged from K-12 education to the private sector. There were four
student participants from the MAT program and six student participants from the Educational
Leadership Doctoral program (Table 1). Students in the MAT program were on their second or
third term meaning they had prior experience taking classes synchronously online through this
program. Whereas students in the Educational Leadership Doctoral program who were
interviewed were in their first term and first course of their synchronous online program at
Western State University. Although there were student populations from two different programs,
all students in the instructor’s courses were participating in a synchronous online course with the
instructor at the time of the study.
Table 1
Student Participants by Program
Masters of Arts in
Teaching Program
Educational Leadership
Doctoral Program
Number of Student
Participants
4 6
Of the 10 students interviewed for this study, 8 of the 10 students stated having a
preference for synchronous online learning over asynchronous or in-person face to face
instruction. Students stressed the importance of flexibility and the instant communication and
feedback they received from the instructor in the synchronous online classroom. In addition to
those perks of a synchronous online class, students expressed the importance of being able to
participate in a program that would not require them to take time off or away from work in order
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
61
to pursue their graduate degree. In response to the interview question (Appendix A) that asked
students,
Why have you chosen to take this particular course knowing it was a synchronous online
course?
Aaron from the doctoral program described his reasoning,
Just not having to drive logistically to campus makes it easier to manage my personal and
professional life. It’s more convenient, and I still got what I needed from the class. It
would be the same as if it were a brick and mortar class.
Grace from the same doctoral program also responded to the same interview question,
…Just to do a synchronous online program in general was best suited for my work
situation. It is just more convenient, lifestyle-wise and time-wise between my work and
family commitments.
Despite the common perception that synchronous online learning can be too removed and
distant for students who later feel isolated (Allen & Seaman, 2010), interviews with the students
in this instructor’s courses revealed the opposite sentiment. In the student interviews (Appendix
A), a question students were asked was,
Are there elements in the makeup of a synchronous online course that are important
and/or necessary to your ability to learn?
A student in the Masters of Arts program, Mary explained how connecting with fellow
students was important to her, “You can create personal connections and develop relationships
with people in this course that may continue even after the program ends.”
The meaningful relationships students built with their instructor and peers through their
synchronous online platform formed despite the hurdle of the geographic distance between the
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
62
participants. Peers in the courses built relationships with colleagues living in different countries
and continents and maintained that this was a valuable piece of their learning experience in a
synchronous online format. The students interviewed in this study also provided reassurance of
their knowledge that synchronous online class participants would be successful if students
remained self-motivated, flexible, and open to new ways of learning.
Although the majority of students stated their preference for synchronous online learning
over the traditional model of face to face and in-person classroom, one student shared the aspects
of a face to face and in-person course that cannot be replicated in a synchronous online course. A
question from the student interviews asked participants,
If this course was offered in-person and on-campus, would you choose to enroll in the
course over this current synchronous online one?
Denise from the Masters of Arts program explained her decision to go on campus if given
the choice and opportunity,
I would go on campus… I just think it adds another level of communication and
personalizing that relationship and the teacher-student, the facilitation and the interaction.
I think it adds another dimension to it. Not that the online course necessarily takes away,
and that it impedes my learning in any way, but I just think face to face adds another
level which maybe could enrich in other ways. But I think this course is amazing and
comes across amazing regardless of the format of learning.
The opinions and perspectives students had about their experience with synchronous
online learning with the instructor can also be attributed to biases students may have had prior to
enrolling in their synchronous online course. The past experiences of students in online
education and settings was brought up frequently in the interviews conducted as students shared
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
63
stories of contrasting experiences at various universities for different stages in their academic
careers. One question in the student interview (Appendix A) asked students,
Did you have any preconceived biases toward synchronous online learning prior to this
course?
Shawn from the doctoral program shared that the positive learning experience he had in
previous online courses was what made the decision to enroll in this particular course that much
easier,
I was very open-minded actually going into this course. It’s a lot like I expected… When
I was earning my Bachelor’s degree, I had to work full time. I actually worked for a
school district during the day, so I could not go and take those classes. I talked to my
professors and explained my situation and asked if I could take it like an independent
study. I had two friends who would go to all the classes, and they would record them for
me, and I would go home and listen to them. I would take notes. So in a lot of ways, it
was like an online course back then. And because of that, it kind of changed my learning
style. Even when I read a book, I have to take notes as I read the book. So being online
really suits the learning style I’ve developed over the years.
Although Shawn recalled a transformative experience with online learning and attributed
that to his biases in taking this synchronous online course, Matt from the Masters of Arts course
came into the program with a negative past experience and some consequent wariness,
I thought that synchronous online learning would be kind of negative. Because I had
taken some online courses at a state university and some community college courses. And
each one of those was more of a ‘get it done at your own pace’ and so I was not sure how,
for lack of better words, bumbling it might be to get everyone situated in the class. I
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
64
thought it might be easy to derail conversations with everyone sort of dealing with each
other that way.
Elizabeth from the doctoral course also signed up for the instructor’s course with her own
biases from past experiences in a professional context,
I definitely had some questions as to whether or not we’d be able to achieve the same
type of community feeling in this type of environment or if the rigor would be as high as
it could be being in a synchronous environment. I think yeah, I guess those were some of
my biases. I previously worked on a virtual team and so I had seen some of the merits of
online work and my manager was based out of a completely different region than I was.
So I was exposed to facilitating relationships virtually, but also, all of those included
some sort of in-person component. And this program only offered a very small amount of
in-person learning.
Shawn from the doctoral course spoke about his experience with synchronous online
learning given his biases he came into the course with,
I thought I wasn’t going to get the value of a brick and mortar class if that makes sense.
Walking on campus, getting the feel of the four walls surrounding you, and the open
forum discussion. But after completing this course, I have a different opinion. But that
was my bias, that I was going to miss something. But I really don’t think I did. And I
think a part of it is because the classmates, we’re all working professionals and carry a
number of responsibilities. And we’ve kind of taken this program with a lot of
commitment so it really didn’t matter if it was brick and mortar or online. We got what
we needed out of it, especially myself. But instructors do make a difference.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
65
The role of the instructor was brought up often as one of the important elements to a
successful synchronous online course. Shawn from the doctoral course even insisted on
switching instructors and classes upon realizing the teaching strategies of this instructor did not
match his expectations,
I actually had a different professor for this same course originally. We were three weeks
in and we hadn’t covered anything in writing, and this was supposed to be a beginning
writing course. However, I had heard this instructor explain her teaching strategies and I
flat out said I wanted her as a teacher and why. She went over to the Dean and got her to
approve for me to make the switch. So it was listening to her not only be tough, but it was
listening to that caring concern she has for others and wanting others to be the best that
they can, and she’s going to push and she’s going to drive them to get there, I wanted
that. And I knew I wanted it because it was going to benefit me down the road.
Despite the hesitation, mixed feelings from prior experiences, and preconceived biases,
students still committed to participate in this professor’s courses. All 10 students committed to
participating in their semester long graduate course where they would only meet with peers in a
virtual classroom using videoconferencing tools and communication applications built in the
virtual platform and learning management system.
Organization of Class and Activities
The instructor of both graduate classes described the structure of each course and further
explained the justification for the design of the class time spent synchronously online. Since the
two classes had different learning objectives, the design of the course and the selection of
activities varied in order to support the students and their learning. Both the MAT and
Educational Leadership Doctoral program were hosted on a learning platform called 2U, and
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
66
classes were administered through a conferencing program called Adobe Connect, a website and
application for hosting virtual meetings or classes through videoconferencing. Students attended
their classes with the instructor synchronously online, at the same time, and in person virtually.
In this Adobe Connect classroom, students had the ability to utilize a variety of communication
applications embedded into the Adobe Connect program such as a pod for chatting, video and
audio connection to talk, and an alert to raise their hands. The instructor could adjust the size of
the widgets in the classroom to present content through a number of methods such as viewing a
file, poll, slide deck, and more. Students logged into the virtual Adobe Connect classroom from
their computers and also dialed in using phones or computer devices to hear and speak into an
audio line.
Masters of Arts in Teaching
In the interview with the instructor (Appendix A), the instructor was asked to describe
her course with the question “How is class time typically set up for this course?”
The instructor shared how in Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) class student
discussions was prioritized as one of the main activities conducted in each class session. Due to
the nature of the course, where student teachers spent a majority of their time in dialogue about
their observations and experiences in the classroom, the instructor purposefully did not lecture
for the majority of class sessions in order for students to have more time to share and learn from
one another’s experiences. Instead, meaningful discussions were held with the whole class and in
breakout groups where students would be placed into small groups in their own individual online
classrooms to follow discussion topics or guided questions. The instructor also provided
opportunities for students to participate in discussions throughout the class by encouraging them
to use the chat pod while also participating orally. Breakout groups would last for an average of
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
67
20 to 30 minutes and the instructor would go into each virtual breakout room to listen to student
discussions, at times engage with students, and answer any questions they may have had.
Educational Leadership Doctoral Program
In addition to describing the Masters of Arts in Teaching course, the instructor also added
a rich description of the Educational Leadership Doctoral program to the response. The students
from the Educational Leadership Doctoral program experienced a different structure of class
activities due to the content of their course. The first course in the Educational Leadership
Doctoral program was an academic writing class. The doctoral students spent a significant
amount of time working on developing academic writing skills independently, in small groups,
and at times with just a partner, for the purpose of giving and receiving feedback to improve their
writing skills. The instructor explained how this doctoral class had more flexibility since students
were spending their time in this course trying to formulate their dissertation topic. More so than
the MAT program students, the doctoral students were able to receive more one on one time with
the instructor to go over their specific needs in regard to their dissertation. The instructor shared
that the doctoral students had more individual engagement than the MAT class.
According to the instructor, the makeup of the student population in each class also
played a role in the way the instruction and activities of each class was designed. The MAT
students were typically younger than the doctoral students. Doctoral students were all working
professionals in their prospective fields. Although both graduate classes were taught
synchronously online, the instructor of both these classes insisted that a customized approach to
teaching each course was necessary:
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
68
When I look at all my students, I think of them as clients. They are paying for this service
so you want to provide the best product possible for their investment. The approach to
teaching has to be different.
Throughout the explanation of the findings in this study, it was important to consider
whether the learning taking place through the eyes of the instructor and students aligned with the
goals and objectives the instructor had for each course. The instructor shared detailed learning
goals of each course accordingly:
For the MAT program, the goal for the course is for my teacher candidates to become
effective teachers and get hired when they graduate from the MAT program. They need
to effectively write a lesson plan. Effectively assess students and effectively instruct. For
my doctoral students, they need to develop a dissertation topic and improve their
academic writing. These students need to learn how to write and be critical in terms of
research.
In addition to the specific learning goals for each course, the instructor expressed a key
objective for both courses was for students to learn the skills that are necessary for them to be
successful in their field. In the findings, the instructor and her students showed recurring themes
of evidence of affordances for higher levels of student learning from the perspectives of both the
instructor and students throughout the interviews conducted.
Student Learning Through Scaffolding
Bruner’s theory of sociocultural cognitive learning theory centered on social
constructivism: when students learn with temporary support systems in place to build and guide
understanding until students can problem solve independently (Seifert & Sutton, 2009). This
strategy of scaffolding was used as an instructional strategy in the form of activities and practices
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
69
such as story maps, inferences, directed reading and thinking, visual imagery, concept sorts, and
jigsaw reading to name a few. When used effectively, instructors can support students in the
process of knowledge construction and encourage development in a meaningful and memorable
way (Woolfolk, 2004).
Instructor
The instructor of both courses laid out a general idea of strategized progress over the span
of a 15-week semester. She stated that her mindset with learning in her courses was such that a
particular goal was set and by the end of 15 weeks, despite there being possible struggles with a
certain concept, at the end the student would have made gains. Providing support for students
was key to her instructional strategies and the students interviewed provided many examples of
the instructor’s scaffolding activities and strategies in the methods which they say they learned
from.
In the interview (Appendix A), the instructor was asked,
What kind of learning are you expecting students to experience most often in your
course? What does that look like?
In response to the interview question, the instructor stated,
I want them to learn about their own strengths, that they can contribute to their
organization, whether they’re a classroom teacher or if they’re in the private sector. So I
really want them ultimately to recognize their strengths, and to develop a goal and work
towards that goal. So for my teacher candidates, their goal is to become an effective
teacher and to get hired when they graduate from their MAT program. So I want to help
them achieve that goal. In any way possible.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
70
I want them to learn skills they’ll need to be successful in their field. So for MAT
students, they need to learn how to effectively write a lesson plan, to effectively assess
students, and to effectively instruct. So they need to plan, instruct, and assess. That’s
what they’re going to be learning in my class. For my doctoral students, they need to
learn how to write. They need to learn to be critical in terms of research. They really need
to look through research articles now with a critical lens. So that’s the kind of learning I
want for my students. And I want it to be authentic, I want it to be meaningful and real to
them.
The instructor explained her learning goals for each course and throughout the interviews
with participants, the learning goals were met through the support of instructional strategies and
scaffolding activities in both programs.
Students
A key to constructivist thinking is to design instructional strategies that will encourage
the consistent learning and development of thinking (Woolfolk, 2004). During the student
interviews, examples of scaffolding were mentioned as memorable moments when students
recall meaningful learning taking place. From the student perspectives, they were able to learn
best through the scaffolding activities the professor planned throughout the course.
Denise, from the MAT program, shared teaching strategies that were modeled by the
instructor and similarly taught to students to also mirror and exercise in their own classrooms,
For example, we were working with multi-modal text. It was a unit where we did two to
three weeks on multi-modal text. We were supposed to read this poem, and the poem had
dual meanings. And using more than one mode, we had to present our interpretation to
the class. So we were studying the text about how to incorporate multi-modal text into
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
71
your classroom, and then we ourselves, as students, had to do it in our class. We want our
own students to do that in our classroom. We were the students doing it in the instructor’s
class. So that’s how she puts a spin on it. We’re reading all this material as preservice
educators and we’re going to use these tools. But we have to use the tools also. And she
always makes that a point. Before we expect anybody to do it with our students, we have
to do it beforehand. We have to know what that learning experience is like. So we can
relate to it for our students’ sake.
Scaffolding exercises such as applying texts and tools, applying a jigsaw activity to
model its usefulness, and using think-pair-share were exercised in the instructor’s master’s level
course with student teachers. A jigsaw activity is when each member of a group is given a part of
the learning material to be learned by the whole group (Woolfolk, 2004). The instructor used a
metacognitive approach to teaching students in the MAT course what scaffolding looked like.
The student teachers in the MAT course were taught how to jigsaw with their young students at
their school sites. But in order to teach the MAT students how to jigsaw, the instructor used the
jigsaw method itself to teach the concept as the student teachers experienced it. Denise, from the
MAT course, shared more of her experiences with the instructor’s scaffolding in response to the
interview question (Appendix A) “What types of activities in your course help you make sense
of the course material?”
Denise responded to the interview question by describing the jigsaw activity she
participated in,
We get these tools, we get these strategies, and all this research to back up what we
should be doing in the classroom, but then she makes us do it ourselves. What we’re
studying. There was one time where she broke up our readings. One was on post-
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
72
colonialism, one was on gender theory, and another was social class theory. So she gave
different groups different readings and we all go to share our knowledge about what our
text meant, how they were similar, and how they were dissimilar. And that’s one of the
things that she was telling us to do in our own classrooms. Don’t be afraid to give
different groups different readings. If they’re all synthesized and have a common goal or
theme, we’re all going to be able to share about it. That knowledge is going to reach. So
she has a way of doing that. Where that’s our goal in the classroom, so let’s do it now.
Let’s make a point of it to know why it’s so important while we’re students ourselves
right now. She just maps things out so different where you’re just like ‘Omigosh, I’m
finally having this ah ha moment’ you know?
Students from the Educational Leadership doctoral program also shared key moments of
learning when scaffolds were in place to help guide their learning and understanding. Academic
writing was a new way of writing for the students interviewed; support in the process of writing
paragraphs and drafts of academic writing was essential to the students who were learning
academic writing at the doctoral level for the first time.
In each student interview (Appendix A), participants were asked “What types of activities
in your course help you make sense of the course material?”
Shawn, from the doctoral program, expressed his appreciation for sentence starters to
help him in the beginning stages of learning how to write rigorous academic text for the
instructor,
Definitely the outline she’s given us. She gave us the first paragraph with the sentence
starters in it. That was extremely useful because it was literally just plug in. She gave us
three different outlines for our first five-page paper. There was a simple generic outline.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
73
And what she shared with us had so much information in it. It was in outline form. And I
think that sentence starter paragraph she gave us and the outline had been extremely
important. And also, just how she breaks down every term, outlines what’s going to be
due, and what we should be working on.
Students in the doctoral program expressed the importance of these scaffolds as key to
their learning when it came to academic writing in the instructor’s course. In addition to the
sentence starters, students were taught how to create and effectively utilize a note taking matrix
to organize their research for future use in the dissertation writing process. In response to the
same question about which activities helped her make sense of the course material, Elizabeth,
from the doctoral program, shared,
The activities that involved some sort of scaffold around how to make sense of the
materials on our own, so the note-taking matrix or a topic sentence outline, and then
getting feedback from peers, I found to be really helpful. And then also reading what they
were doing kind of gave me a window into different ways that I could approach my work.
Student participants expressed how meaningful the scaffolding activities were to their
learning and described how the scaffolding supported their learning in both programs.
Student Learning Through Engagement in Discourse
Vygotsky believed that student learning, in the form of knowledge construction, happens
through the interactions and relationships students have with their community (Seiffert & Sutton,
2009). Conversations students have with able peers and experts equate to the active learning
students need in order to construct new longer lasting knowledge. This sociocultural
constructivist theory of learning not only includes the dialogue participants in a community have
with one another, but also the cultural experiences they engage in with fellow students and the
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
74
instructor (Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014). When prompted to explain examples of the
most prominent learning experiences students recall having in the instructor’s course, the theme
of learning through meaningful discussions repeatedly surfaced as a significant finding. These
discussions took place in either whole class settings or through small breakout groups on the
online platform.
In the interview with the instructor, she continued to describe her classroom activities and
included the heavy presence of discussions in both courses. Discussions would be an activity for
students in breakout groups or for a whole class activity. The instructor provided guiding
questions to frame the discussions or assigned specific tasks such as picking out one or two
quotes from the reading and sharing why those quotes were meaningful. In other discussions, the
instructor would have students work on writing projects or pair with a fellow student for peer
review activities. The instructor stated that discussions would take up about 75 percent of class
time while the remaining 25 percent was dedicated to a form of direct instruction.
The breakout groups would be arranged in a variety of ways throughout the course. When
the instructor felt it was appropriate for students to have discussions with those in similar fields,
the groups were purposefully organized so students could discuss and share similar experiences.
Other times, the instructor found it would be more fruitful and necessary for students to be
grouped with peers who may be in a different field or sector of education in order to bring forth
the different perspectives and cultural experiences that would promote the learning taking place
in the discussions. The discussions and organization of them as a significant activity in the
instructor’s lessons proved to be a thoughtful and organized method of supporting student
learning by engaging students in meaningful guided discourse. The instructor also remained
flexible to student requests for changes in the arrangement of breakout groups for discussion.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
75
Instructor
The instructor found that discussions were meaningful in her MAT program when
students were able to take what they learned from their discussions and directly apply it to what
they were experiencing in the classroom as student teachers. She stated, “If we can bring back
the conversation to the experiences and observations they’ve had, it makes the discussions far
more meaningful.” Throughout this master’s course, students learned about literary theories, but
the instructor stated that learning could happen when students were able to discuss how they
could apply this theory in their own instructional strategies. An important goal of the discussions
was to bring students back to think reflectively about what they were doing in the classroom as
instructors.
In the doctoral program, the instructor used discussions in this academic writing class to
encourage students to make connections in conversation with the readings they were required to
complete and their work experiences. In this program, students in the cohort were located in
different states, countries, and continents. The instructor highlighted the value in students
learning from the different cultural and professional experiences peers were having in their fields
that were brought to light during these discussions. The instructor stated the importance of
alignment through these discussions and made sure that the conversations taking place remained
aligned to the learning objectives and goals for that class and for the program as well. The
discussions were made in a flexible format to accommodate any teaching moments that might
have occurred when rigorous content and important conversation took the discussion in an
unexpected direction or the duration of the discussion lasted longer than planned, “Sometimes
students make unpredictable connections because of their own experiences and perspectives.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
76
Then I just make modifications and continue with the content we didn’t cover into the next
week.”
Students
The findings from the interviews conducted with students showed all 10 interview
participants mentioning discussions as one of the course activities that enhanced their learning in
both the MAT and doctoral programs. In particular, the majority of students interviewed found
the discussions held in small breakout groups to be a vital part of their synchronous online
learning experience.
The descriptions of the type of discussions students engaged in were strikingly similar in
responses from students in the interviews. Students described the discussions as being student
led, prompted with guiding questions, open ended questions, and leading questions that invited
an organic and lively discussion to take place. One student shared that he experienced high levels
of engagement and learning by listening to the instructor ask students questions. The quality of
the questions asked by the professor was mentioned frequently throughout the student interviews
as being key to what made the discussions essential to their learning in this synchronous online
class.
In response to the interview question, “In what ways are the discussions meaningful?”
Elizabeth from the doctoral course responded with,
I find the discussions to be meaningful for a number of reasons. One, is it helps you
process what’s going on in the learning. It breaks up the structure of the course and so it
kind of gives you the changing into a different room. Or breaking up into small groups in
a physical sense. You feel that same effect online. I think that it helps sometimes to get
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
77
some work done. It can help you get to know other people in the cohort and to continue
building that sense of community.
Students reported high levels of authentic engagement in discussions not just by speaking
and participating in the discussions but also through listening and utilizing other methods of
communication available on the online platform Adobe Connect. Three students reported using
the chat pod during discussions and found that option engaging and important to their learning.
They could ask questions and talk to other students while at the same time, not disrupting the
class discussion in order to do so as Elizabeth from the doctoral program explained,
There are different methods of engaging in discussions. There’s the chat pod if you’re
tired, you can always just text. There’s always communication options available so that’s
why everyone’s engaged. Since there is a high level of ability to fully interact with each
other, everyone does. And it’s engaging to hear others’ experiences and being able to
hear them share what they’re seeing in their practice. It’s also about hearing what you
shouldn’t be doing in the field too.
Students repeatedly highlighted the discussions as being an integral support for their
learning in this instructor’s course in both the MAT program and the doctoral program. The
structure and questions asked were key facets to the discussions that students found rewarding
and contributing to their learning. However, the most frequently quoted element of the
discussions taking place in the course was the importance of being able to hear and share one
another’s perspectives of topics and readings and the experiences and observations students had
while in the field. Mary from the MAT course further explained,
It’s helpful because you get different perspectives from the other students about what
you’ve read. Everyone can read the same thing, but you get a different interpretation. I
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
78
just really like it when people share their thoughts and interpret a text. To me, it keeps my
brain fresh and I’m not stagnant with what I know and what I think.
Students found listening to their peers’ experiences and stories of what they were seeing
in their practice to be an engaging piece of the discussions held in class. Through these anecdotal
stories, students reported learning about what one should and should not do in the field of
education or organizational leadership. Edward from the MAT program also responded to the
interview question asking how discussions were meaningful with,
I think our discussions are meaningful because I get to hear from other real life
experiences, teachers who are going through what I’m going through. It especially helps
because like the instructor could tell you, hey here’s what I did 10 years ago, or when I
was a near teacher 20 years ago, but it helps to hear from students about what exactly
they’re going through in real time. That sort of thing. There’s definitely value in that and
I appreciate that more than anything really.
Grace from the doctoral course believed listening to others’ perspectives and experiences
was an essential contribution to her learning because peers valued the stories told and actively
applied what they had heard and learned to their own practice immediately,
Usually students will talk about their personal experiences that are related to the course
material. You know, that’s relevant. Whether they had an opportunity to apply what they
learned in real life. We’ll talk about our take aways from what we read or discussed in
our small groups. It’s just a good way to synthesize the information and the content we
read on our own and to share the experiences we had related to the materials.
Elizabeth used the discussions as a way to further understand her own learning processes
as she took into consideration what her peers and instructor were discussing about the teaching
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
79
practice. Edward further explained the importance of bringing different perspectives forward to
challenge one’s own thinking and using it as an opportunity to learn something new together:
Students like to talk about what’s going on with them. They share personal things in
discussions and it’s usually more helpful than other stuff we do in the class. Hearing from
their personal experiences, hearing what they’re sharing, you realize your experiences are
not necessarily that different. It’s more of a different approach.
Aaron from the doctoral program agreed with Edward’s sentiment:
The discussions were meaningful due to the different perspectives you hear. There’s a
good mix of classmates from different backgrounds. You have public, private, K-12
sectors. And you receive different perspectives from classmates depending on the
discussion topic.
The discussions in the course challenged the way students traditionally thought about a
variety of education topics. Through the instructional strategy of sharing and listening, which
took the majority of the discussion time in both the MAT and doctoral programs, students
reported constructing new knowledge and new perspectives and approaches to thinking and the
teaching or writing practice. Students in the doctoral program repeatedly mentioned the
importance of being able to hear about the experiences of students who live outside of the United
States and learning from how the culture of the different countries affect what the student sees
and experiences. This new perspective into the cultural impact of students across the world
affected students in a positive way in their perspectives. There was a “breeding of new ideas”
according to Denise and Tracy found the discussions to be “powerful when you get to see what
everyone else is doing.” Grace added, “these discussions can really challenge the old or original
frames of thought you may have had.”
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
80
Student Learning Through Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice
One aspect of Dewey’s constructivism learning theory focused on learners constructing a
new set of knowledge and beliefs while reflecting on past experiences combined with prior
knowledge (Seiffert & Sutton, 2009). Sharing these reflections and continuing the building of
new knowledge with a community of peers and experts furthered the reflective practice that is
ongoing when applied appropriately (Rodgers, 2002). Piaget (1963) further developed this
learning theory of constructivism with his idea of the student being self-directed in his problem-
solving. Critical thinking and reflective practices can be linked to these learning theories by both
Dewey (1933) and Piaget (1963), noting the importance of the individual student and the thought
processes that happen when learning occurs. But with the development of Bruner (1986) and
Vygotsky’s (1978) learning theories which consider the sociocultural communities around
students and the effect peers and instructors undoubtedly bring to an individual’s learning
process, the interconnectedness of all grounded learning theories to the critical thinking and
reflective practices in place in synchronous online courses was evident.
Instructor
The instructor of both the MAT and doctoral courses laid out her goals for each class in
the interview. The instructor wanted her MAT student teacher candidates to exit her course
becoming an effective teacher who can write lesson plans, assess students, and effectively
instruct. The instructor’s course goals for the doctoral cohort were to develop quality academic
writers who could develop a dissertation topic, learn how to write, and learn to be more critical
of research by using a critical lens. The instructor further explained her goals, and expressed how
a more reflective and critical thinking student would develop over the course of her synchronous
online class:
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
81
Well I want them to learn about their own strengths, that they can contribute to their
organization, whether they’re a classroom teacher or if they’re in the private sector. So, I
really want them ultimately to recognize their strengths, and to develop a goal and work
toward that goal… And I want it to be authentic, I want it to be meaningful and real to
them.
Students
An emergent theme throughout the findings was the mention of reflective practice
embedded into the activities throughout the instructor’s MAT and doctoral class. Although the
instructor did not mention reflective practice and critical thinking as an explicitly stated course
goal or objective, the students interviewed show that reflective practice and critical thinking
activities were key to their learning. Students in the interviews frequently mentioned the
presence of reflective practice in their assignments and projects and also through the discussions
held in whole class discussions and small breakout groups as well. Students were asked to reflect
on their preconceived notions and opinions of course related topics and field related topics as
well. In addition, students were asked to think critically of their own experiences while reflecting
on the content from the course.
An example used frequently by the MAT students interviewed was an activity where
students were asked to create a lesson plan and reflect on what worked, what did not work, and
what students thought about what they would do to improve their practice as a result of the
reflection. Another opportunity for reflective practice and critical thinking in the MAT program
was when students were required to create a video for guided practice to watch and reflect on
how they could become a better teacher while using strategies they learned from the class.
Edward explained after he reflected, he clearly saw what he did incorrectly and benefitted greatly
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
82
from the opportunity to take the time to do this reflection. Mary from the MAT course explained
how she refined her practice and learned how to further her teaching skillset with the instructor’s
reflective practice strategy:
I have learned to be more thorough and creating my lessons and being more logical with
them. Like, why am I doing what I’m doing? Why did I put that activity in there? Is it
going toward my student’s learning? …Being more purposeful and methodical with
everything I do as a teacher. No busy work. That’s the greatest thing I’ve learned, the
greatest takeaway.
Denise had a similar takeaway from the course, and the questions she continued to ask
herself showed the reflective practice and critical thinking lens the instructor wished to impart on
her students, “I learned how crucial it is to have reflection and to be able to look at moments and
ask, how can I amplify that? How can I take that learning to another level? Even in a single
moment.”
For students in the instructor’s doctoral academic writing course, learners also responded
to interview questions by stating that reflective practices contributed to their learning in the
synchronous online course. Students in the doctoral program went into great detail in the
interviews and discussed how their writing improved after completing the writing exercises the
instructor provided them. They also reported how the instructor taught them how to think more
critically of word choice and to reflect on what they could do to improve their writing while also
maintaining a research perspective.
A strategy three of the doctoral students interviewed picked up on was the way the
instructor provided feedback on their academic writing assignments. Students noted the way the
instructor would layer her comments and critique of the academic writing assignments with
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
83
questions that forced the students to think, reflect, and with a critical eye go back to edit their
writing. The students reported how the questions the instructor posed in writing editing guided
their thinking and supported their learning until they were able to gradually master the skill
independently. Using questions and initiating a reflective frame of mind for students through
scaffolding provided students with the tools necessary to become successful academic writers by
the end of the instructor’s course.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
84
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In the latest publication of distance education enrollment (Allen & Seaman, 2017), data
shows the increasing enrollment of online learning with over six million students in higher
education taking at least one online course as of 2016. Online education enrollment continues to
rise despite a recent decrease in overall enrollment in higher education. This speaks to a growing
trend of students participating in online learning due to the convenience and flexibility it allows
for adult learners who may have time, financial, and geographic constraints. With the growth of
online enrollment continuing for the foreseeable future, the question as to how quality programs
are being rolled out and what a successful online class looks like and means remains.
Specifically, at the graduate level, we are seeing more students participating in
synchronous online courses where students interface with one another through a
videoconferencing tool at the same time. Students in synchronous online classes also have access
to the instructor and content at the same time as well. With synchronous online courses, a
prescribed best practice resource or a set of standards that dictate effective instruction in a
medium that has many variables, simply does not exist. But with the rapid influx of students
participating in synchronous online learning, a deeper dive into what student learning support
looks like from the perspectives of all its participants, including the instructor and his students, is
necessary to start understanding what instructional strategies are working to enhance student
learning from the perspectives of those actively participating in it.
The research question that framed and drove this study was:
How do the instructor and students in a synchronous online class identify and describe
the affordances for learning in their synchronous online course?
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
85
Discussion of Findings
This study focused on understanding how student learning was supported in synchronous
online classes taught by a single instructor, and what that looks like from the perspectives of both
the instructor and the students in the courses. After interviewing 10 students between a single
instructor’s two synchronous online courses, the data from the interviews show that students
found learning to be meaningful and to mean constructing new knowledge together through the
presence and implementation of scaffolding, discussions in whole group and small breakout
groups, and through critical thinking and reflective practice.
Student Learning Through Scaffolding
American psychologist Jerome Bruner first brought the idea of scaffolding to the theories
of learning and cognitive development. Psychologist Lev Vygotsky took this theory further and
applied his idea of the zone of proximal development as the moment and space when
development takes place (Seiffert & Sutton, 2009). This is when a learner is aided by scaffolding
and support provided by an expert and later led to self-guided learning and independent thinking
(Woolfolk, 2004).
Students in both the MAT and doctoral courses described how their learning was
promoted in their synchronous online course through the presence and support of scaffolds
provided by the instructor. Although this was a synchronous online course, the instructor was
able to utilize and implement scaffolding strategies to help build her students’ knowledge and
confidence to later take on assignments to complete on their own without as much support.
Students participated in scaffolding activities facilitated by the instructor that included
modeling learning strategies they would later use in their own classrooms with their students.
MAT students were asked to engage in jigsaw discussions to help make meaning of the readings
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
86
assigned as homework or classwork. Students in the doctoral program used sentence starters to
help build out the structure and framework of academic writing pieces. They also participated in
think-pair-share activities with peers in small breakout groups administered through the Adobe
Connect platform. Doctoral students were also provided with the resource of a note taking matrix
to help organize and structure their research for future dissertation centered writing activities.
Scaffolding is typically discussed in physical, face to face, and in person classes where teachers
can practice providing these guiding activities to allow students to build knowledge themselves
through their interactions with their learning community (Woolfolk, 2004). The same type of
support was present in this instructor’s courses as she organized her courses to incorporate these
scaffolds to help build student knowledge and confidence to independently take on their charge
as student teachers and industry professionals with new skillsets constructed through and with a
community of synchronous online learners.
Student Learning Through Engagement in Discourse
Sociocultural cognitive development theories supported the idea of co-construction of
knowledge at the community level where individuals would learn from the interactions that take
place with more able peers and experts around them (Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014). In
the instructor’s courses, discussions dominated the majority of the class time activities when
students would gather synchronously online through videoconferencing. The instructor stated
that she dedicated 75 percent of her class time to discussions in both whole class and small
breakout groups for students.
The intentional and meaningful organization of the discussion types and groups
reverberated with students as every interviewee recalled the discussions with peers and with the
instructor as a valuable affordance for student learning in the synchronous online course they
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
87
participated in. When students were asked how these discussions promoted learning and what
their evidence was for it, the majority of students interviewed stated how importance it was for
them to hear the different perspectives, influences of culture, and personal experiences of their
peers in the professional field. All of the interviewees discussed how valuable they found what
their colleagues shared about either their first-hand experiences or observations of good and bad
practice in their field. In the interviews conducted in this case study, all student participants say
they found the conversations with peers to be engaging and meaningful to their learning when it
tied to the instructor’s lesson and content.
Although Dewey began his learning theory with the idea of the learner building
knowledge independently, the learning theory we can see reflected in the overwhelming response
from student participants about the value of their discourse comes from the sociocultural learning
theory developed by Vygotsky. When students are able to build knowledge with one another and
learn through the experiences and expertise of their colleagues, there is a greater chance of
longer lasting learning taking place (Amerian, Ahmadian, & Mehri, 2014).
To further this point, the instructor purposefully arranged the class activities to allow for
these discussions to take between students and to allow for one on one time with her students as
well. The goals of the instructor thus aligned with the outcomes of what students say helped
them learn most from during her courses.
Student Learning Through Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice
The practice of reflection and its impact to learning in education has been noted since
Dewey’s publishing in the early 1930’s. Today, reflective practice in education is still seen as a
vital method for ensuring practitioners and students are thinking in a metacognitive way about
their learning and practice. When the instructor of both graduate courses was interviewed, she
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
88
stated that teaching the student teachers and professionals to be reflective practitioners was a
goal of hers for the courses. Through the formatting of the class, the guiding questions in
discussions, and the method of editing student papers to provide effective feedback, students
interviewed in this case study report taking steps back to reflect on the readings, the homework,
their work that week, and the overall goal and purpose behind even the programs they are
enrolled in.
Reflective practice and the critical thinking involved with the reflections were a
meaningful resource for building student knowledge with the support of their instructor and their
fellow peers. Using scaffolding and encouraging dynamic conversation between peers, the
instructor organized her class activities and prepared questions that spurred more meaningful
conversations through reflection questions that ask the how and the why. Student interviews
showed a majority of students pointed out that they have become better practitioners since
learning reflective practice from the instructor and her course.
Student teachers report reevaluating their lesson plans or recording themselves teaching
so they can take the time to go back and reflect on what they did well and what needs more
focus. This aligns with the goals the instructor had for the courses and the instructional strategies
the instructor had in place and implemented worked to bring students to a place where they felt
they were gaining significant new knowledge while discussing and reflecting in small groups
with their peers and occasionally the professor as well. The interaction students have with their
community and the reflection piece tie in the major learning frameworks from Dewey, Piaget,
and Vygotsky to name a few and support the instructional strategy as a meaningful and effective
method to form organic discussions students report feeling fully engaged with.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
89
Implications for Practice
Through this case study of synchronous online learning, three major implications
emerged from the data collected. According to the perspectives and experiences of an instructor
and her students, the affordances for student learning in synchronous online learning comes from
appropriate scaffolds in place, opportunities for engaging and meaningful discussions with peers,
and activities that call for reflective practice and critical thinking. These implications can affect
three groups of stakeholders in higher education: administrators who create the infrastructure and
processes for ensuring quality online learning, instructors who are trained with instructional
design foundations that tailor to a promising and effective synchronous online program, and
students who are at the receiving end of a synchronous online program or course that may or
may not be strategically designed to create meaningful opportunities for higher level learning.
With over 30 percent of college students taking at least one online course (Allen & Seaman,
2017), a deeper dive into understanding what students are experiencing and learning from
specific activities or organization of course work is key to ensuring synchronous online learning
is on its way to a pedagogically sound and effective format for students who continue to enroll.
In 2016, public institutions saw the greatest increase in their online student enrollment,
up 7.3 percent which amounts to nearly 300,000 students (Allen & Seaman, 2017). Online
learning programs are developing at a rapid speed across universities as the interest and demand
for more convenient and flexible courses appeal to more college students. There are
recommended frameworks and standards for online instruction, however there was not a uniform
standard for what universities and instructors should and should not do when teaching online.
The implications of this study show there is potential for administrators to use the data and
surveys from students in their universities to understand how learning is best nurtured, and
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
90
through what methods, given the technological tools available to administer a synchronous
online program and class. The interview data shows what specific activities and preparations
were considered to promote high level thinking and learning for students participating in a
synchronous online course. In addition, the instructor of these courses also contributed her input
reflecting similar concerns and joys over the medium of videoconferencing to hold a virtual
class. There are more technologies that add to the teaching and quite possibly the students’
experiences, but for the purpose of this study, we focused on the three major findings from the
interviews.
The first implication of best synchronous online practice is to utilize scaffolds within
lesson plans and to provide flexible curriculum structure and guidance for students when they are
presented with new information or tasks. In a synchronous online class, instructors can
incorporate scaffolds into lesson plans or units of study to ensure students are supported while
they are reaching their learning objectives for the course. One of the misconceptions of online
education was that all online students are required to be self-guided and self-motivated learners
who do not require ongoing support while working through the curriculum. However, in a
synchronous online learning environment, there are opportunities for instructors to provide
scaffolding activities during class hours embedded into the design and preparation of a lesson so
students have the time to work through guided practice with peers and the instructor.
Even at the higher education level, students are still working toward building knowledge
both independently and through their interactions with their learning community. With scaffolds
placed purposefully and meaningfully into lessons to provide students with support, instructors
in synchronous online programs and courses can enhance their student’s learning opportunities
by doing so.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
91
In online education, discussions can be a tricky teaching strategy to implement with many
variables to consider such as the technology involved, the sociocultural make up of your
students, and their comfortability with being open to discourse with one another in an online
space, where body language and cues are difficult to communicate and receive to name a few.
However, with a synchronous online format, there are ample opportunities to engage the entire
class in rich dialogue with one another, in smaller intimate groups, and with the instructor as
well. These discussions allow for the students to build relationships with one another, learn from
each other’s’ experiences and perspectives, understand and be exposed to new cultures, all of
which only enhance their learning. Instructors can utilize web conferencing tools which come
with capabilities to enhance communication in whole class settings in multiple formats such as
video, audio, chat pods, and more.
In addition to the technology that support the whole class discussions, many video
conferencing platforms also come with the technology to break students out into small meetings
or breakout groups. This allows for students to talk in more intimate settings and may help
students who are reluctant to speak up in larger virtual group settings to be more comfortable
opening up and engaging in conversation with peers. The makeup of the breakout groups can
also be a meaningful opportunity to provide students with either professionals or experts in their
fields, or to mix up groups with students from different backgrounds in order to see the contrast
in experiences and perspectives. The advantage of a synchronous online class was the presence
of students all together online in a virtual environment that was ripe for a variety of discussion
activities. The added bonus of being able to simply press a button to conveniently send students
into small breakout groups without the time needed to physically move chairs, tables, and
location. The ease of breaking students out into small group discussions and bringing them back
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
92
in to the whole class environment again was a simple click. If instructors are given the
appropriate training and support to understand and manage their technological tools, discussions
can be an asset to the synchronous online class and for engaging students with each other to co-
construct knowledge and learn from each other and with each other.
In this study, students reported how they were supported and provided with resources to
promote learning by being constructive, building knowledge, and creating new knowledge
through activities and opportunities such as scaffolding and discussions with peers. The two
implications prior to this focus on students doing, either through an activity prepared by the
instructor or through engaging in an activity, such as a discussion, prompted by the instructor or
peers. This third implication of practice focuses on an activity that was not so overtly active in
the classes that participated in this study nor was it front loaded by the design of the course, class
time, or curriculum. Rather, the practice of reflection was embedded into the assignments and
themes of the units of learning in both the MAT and the doctoral program.
In the interviews for this case study, students recalled assignments and observations that
sparked meaningful reflection about their own practice and experiences. In addition to
assignments that prompted reflection, students also recalled significant moments in receiving
feedback on assignments or writing that would challenge their frames of thinking or practice.
The feedback was described by most students as being a series of questions, not critique, that
would force the students to ask themselves why they chose to write something the way they did,
or ask why they chose to write or say what they did. This reflection mechanism through the form
of questions was a powerful moment of discovering new ideas and constructing new knowledge
for students and was a key finding in the data as experiences of student learning identified by the
students themselves.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
93
Dewey defined education as the reconstruction and reorganization of one’s experiences
for a potentially positive redirection of the subsequent experience (1944). Reflection was the key
to education but there was not a prescribed way of prompting reflection in the way synchronous
online courses are typically designed or carried out. However, through the findings in this study,
there are techniques and methods one can use in future opportunities to prompt reflective
practice and education through reflection. Instructors can ask students to perform assessment
tasks that have reflection as part of the assignment. Instructors can prompt students to ask
themselves critical questions through discussions in whole group or breakout groups. Lastly,
instructors can open opportunities of reflection by providing feedback that is not overt but rather
ask questions to help guide students to a direction of reflective thinking where students can
construct this knowledge through reflection either independently or with their peers.
The implications for practice are drawn directly from the data gathered in this case study
of two synchronous online courses. The research question that drove this study asked students
and the instructor to identify when and how student learning takes place in their synchronous
online class. Not only did the data tie with the learning objectives and goals the instructor had
planned for the course, but the identification of affordances for student learning opportunities
were aligned with both responses from the instructor and the student. The opportunities the
instructor created for students to promote the building of knowledge through guided learning
with scaffolds, co-construction of knowledge through discussions with peers, and reconstruction
of experiences through reflective thinking are examples of best practice in synchronous online
learning that can be applied directly to any synchronous online class to maximize opportunities
for supporting student learning.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
94
Future Research
This case study was conducted at a private university. The instructors who were asked to
participate in this study were all instructors of synchronous online courses at a graduate level in
the School of Education at this private university. The particular selection of participants was
purposeful in order to do a deeper dive into the perspectives of an instructor’s particular methods
of instruction and the students’ experiences in the synchronous online classroom. Although this
selection of participants and particular environment was key to answering the research question
driving this study, there remains an abundance of alternative recommendations for future studies
that may answer pertinent related research questions about the quality and design of online
learning.
In 2016, there were one million less students who attended a physical campus for their
college education in comparison to the year 2012. On the other hand, 6.4 million college students
took at least one online course during the 2015-2016 academic year (Allen & Seaman, 2017). Of
these over six million students, there are students taking synchronous, asynchronous, and hybrid
online courses through private, public, non-profit, and for-profit colleges and universities. A
significant recommendation for future research would be to better understand how student
learning is being identified and described through the perspectives of both student and teacher
participants in other sectors of online education. Having a deeper understanding of how learning
is happening and how knowledge is being constructed through different modes of online delivery
and at different types of college campuses would be relevant and imperative to know as online
learning continues to draw more students each year.
The case study performed also looked at graduate students at the university level who
were already in the School of Education and familiar with the terms and definitions of learning,
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
95
and had prior knowledge of learning theories and effective instructional strategies that they could
easily identify. Performing a similar study in a different college on campus would also be salient
to understanding how students across campus are understanding how their knowledge is being
formed through the medium of synchronous online classes and the instructional strategies in
place. The way in which technology is utilized in classes will differ based on the content of each
program. For example, an engineering course at the undergraduate level that may have 50
students as opposed to a smaller 20 student class in the School of Education, which may result in
a different data set and different perspectives of synchronous online learning. In addition, a study
focusing on students at the undergraduate level of colleges and universities may also produce
contrasting data that may raise important questions as to what best practices are for different
groups of students even within the same university using the same technology in a synchronous
online class.
Vygotsky’s sociocultural constructivist learning theory was a key framework to this study
and continues to be necessary to the bigger conversation of studying online learning. Each class
and learning community has such a wide spectrum of variables that influence the outcome of
understanding and alters the perspectives of each individual that creating a study that generalizes
student perspectives of such a wide topic of online learning can be troublesome to making any
declarative statements of best practice. An additional recommendation for future research would
be unpacking the complexities of the numerous variables that impact a single online class and
community and perhaps finding methods to gather relevant data that can lend itself to a more
generalized data set of best practices for the different subsets of online learning. This study could
be enhanced by such a study that could draw comparisons or contrasts to the data gathered in this
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
96
study and add to the wider conversation of best practice to enhance student learning through
online learning.
Conclusions
Online learning is no longer a new trend. In fact, for the first time in history, higher
education institutes saw a drop in their student enrollment in traditional face to face on-campus
enrollment and an increase instead in online education enrollment in 2016 (Allen & Seaman
2017). Universities are scaling their online education programs and courses as stakeholders are
noting the shift in enrollment trends. However, online education has always had a perception
problem associated with it and this problem still remains prevalent as many find online learning
to be inferior or of less quality than the traditional in-person brick and mortar classroom (Carr-
Chellman, 2005; Falloon, 2011; Noble, 2001; Power & Gould-Morven, 2011).
Many universities battle this perception problem and continue to work toward building up
quality online programs, but in recent years, the need to justify and be held accountable to
owning what a quality online programs looks like has increased. Students at universities across
the United States have filed lawsuits against established universities claiming they were not
given the quality education they were promised through the online programs offered.
Stakeholders at universities are now taking a closer look at how the infrastructure at universities
are handling the boom in online education program development and trying to better understand
how to assess the quality of instruction to ensure students are receiving the education they are
expecting.
This study investigated the larger question of how higher education institutions are
assessing online education and what types of best practices in place can ensure students are
receiving a quality education in a variety of delivery formats. With technology rapidly
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
97
developing and college students opting for alternative methods of instruction, understanding on a
granular level what happens in an online classroom that enhances student learning is the
beginning of the conversation. A top down approach to creating quality online programs can be
productive and positive for a university but this study was created to look at concrete methods of
best practice that can be shared among faculty and students as a starting point or a continuation
of resources that can be applied directly and immediately into practice.
The nature of a synchronous online class is that it is hinged on the technology and its
capabilities in delivering a smooth and undisruptive experience. However, if we can take what is
already present in the technological systems utilized in synchronous online classes and leverage
the technology with the pedagogically sound instructional strategies that work within the context
of an online class, we have the starting point to understanding how we can reach students where
they are in the course and providing them with ample opportunities to learn through a variety of
methods and experiences.
This study is a small fraction of what is now a growing menu of online education delivery
methods. Taking a step back and trying to reach an even wider population of participants would
be valuable for future research to continue this important conversation. With the majority of
literature on online education centered on asynchronous online learning and the perspectives
being that of just the instructor or the students, we are missing opportunities of understanding
how an instructor and his or her students are experiencing a class similarly or differently. Taking
a single lens of one side of participants limits our understanding of what is really happening in an
online classroom and in today’s diverse classroom, taking into consideration the sociocultural
variables when assessing data and organizing research strategies remains key to ensuring quality
data is being gathered and analyzed.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
98
References
Akarasriworn C., & Ku, H. Y. (2013). Graduate students’ knowledge construction and attitudes
toward online synchronous videoconferencing collaborative learning environments. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 35-48.
Albert, L. R. (2012). Rhetorical ways of thinking: Vygotskian theory and mathematical learning.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Alfuqaha, I. N. (2013). Pedagogy redefined: frameworks of learning approaches prevalent in the
current digital information age. Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 36-43.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States.
The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/growing_by_degrees_2005.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Changing the landscape: More institutions pursue online
offerings. On the Horizon, 15(3), 130-139.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: online education in the United States.
Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment
report 2017. Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Alquraan, M. (2012). Methods of assessing students’ learning in higher education. Education,
Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 7, 293-315.
Amerian, M., Ahmadian, M., & Mehri, E. (2014). Sociocultural theory in practice: The effect of
teacher, class, and peer scaffolding on the writing development of EFL learners.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(5), 1-12.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
99
Appiah, E., & Cronjé, J. C. (2013). Exploring information and communication theory in graphic
design education with activity theory. International Journal of Computer Applications,
84(12), 15-22.
Ash, K. (2011, January 12). Group outlines K-12 online course standards. Retrieved from
http://www2.edweek.org.
Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review, 61(20), 197-210.
Beller, M., & Or, A. (2001). Virtual learning is Exists reality. Academia: Journal of the
University Heads Committee, 9, 27-34.
Berge, Z., & Huang, Y. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: A holistic perspective
on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-learning. DEOSNEWS, 13(5).
Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews13_5.pdf.
Bogdanović, I., Obadović, D., Cvjetićanin, S., Segedinac, M., & Budić, S. (2015). Students’
metacognitive awareness and physics learning efficiency and correlation between them.
European Journal of Physics Education, 6(2), 18-30.
Bouhnik, D., & Carmi, G. (2012). E-learning environments in academy: Technology, pedagogy,
and thinking dispositions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11,
201-219.
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and
implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a
cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cao, Q., Griffin, T. E., & Bai, X. (2009). The importance of synchronous interaction for student
satisfaction with course websites. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 331-338.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
100
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (Ed.). (2005). Global perspectives on e-learning: Rhetoric and reality.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chao, K. J., Hung, I. C., & Chen, N.S. (2012). On the design of online synchronous assessments
in a synchronous cyber classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 379-395.
Cheawjindakarn, B., Suwannatthachote, P., & Theeraroungchaisri, A. (2012). Critical success
factors for online distance learning in higher education: a review of the literature.
Creative Education, 3, 61-66.
Chen, N., Ko, H., Kinshuk & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the
Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 181-194.
Chen, C., & Shaw, R. S. (2006). Online synchronous vs. asynchronous software training through
the behavioral modeling approach: A longitudinal field experiment. International Journal
of Distance Education Technologies, 4(4), 88-102.
Chen, N., & Wang, Y. (2007). Online synchronous language learning: SLMS over the Internet.
Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(3),.
Chen, W., & You, M. (2007). The differences between the influences of synchronous and
asynchronous modes on collaborative learning project of industrial design. In D. Schuler
(Ed.), Online communities and social computing (pp. 275-283). Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-73257-
0_31.
Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: lessons from the
trenches. Computers & Education, 52, 141-146.
Contreras-McGavin, M., & Kezar, A. (2007). Using qualitative methods to assess student
learning in higher education. Wiley InterScience, 136, 69-79.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
101
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication
in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-277.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. New York: D.C. Heath and Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books, Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. (Original work published in
1916).
Falloon, G. (2011). Exploring the virtual classroom: what students need to know (and teachers
should consider). Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7, 439-451.
Fasso, W. (2013). First year distance transition pedagogy: Synchronous online classrooms. The
International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4(1), 33-45.
Finkelstein, J. (2006). Learning in real time: Synchronous teaching and learning online. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, M. & Baird, D. (2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-
regulation, and retention. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88-107.
Francescucci, A., & Foster, M. (2013). The VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-
Led) Classroom: The impact of blended synchronous online courses on student
performance, engagement, and satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
43(3), 78-91.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
102
Gedera, D. (2014). Students’ experience of learning in a virtual classroom. International Journal
of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology,
10(4), 93-101.
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the
interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The
impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 30-50.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in
qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291-
295.
Goktas, Y., Gedik, N., & Baydas, O. (2013). Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in primary
schools in Turkey: A comparative study of 2005-2011. Computers & Education, 68, 211-
222.
Green, N., Edwards, H., Wolodko, B., Stewart, C., Brooks, M., & Littledyke, R. (2010).
Reconceptualising higher education pedagogy in online learning. Distance Education, 31,
257-273.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner &
R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York:
Macmillan.
Halpenny, A.M. & Pettersen, J. (2013). Introducing Piaget: A guide for practitioners and
students in early years education introducing early years thinkers. Wales, England:
Routledge.
Han, H. (2013). Do nonverbal emotional cues matter? Effects of video casting in synchronous
virtual classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 253-264.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
103
Hannum, W. (2000). Web-based instruction lessons. Carolina: University of North Carolina.
Retrieved from http://www.soe.unc.edu/edci111/8-98/index_wbi2.htm.
Hanson, C. (2014). Changing how we think about the goals of higher education. New Directions
for Higher Education, 166, 7-13.
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet and
Higher Education, 3, 41-61.
Hastie, M., Hung, I. C., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning
model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24.
Hidden Curriculum (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform.
Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum.
Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design
approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 57, 613-627. doi:10.1007/x11423-009-9122-0
HotComm. (2003). Synchronous tools and the emerging online learning model. Retrieved from
http://www.hotcomm.com/tec/dlwp.pdf.
Hrastinski, S. (2010). How do e-learners participate in synchronous online discussions?
Evolutionary and social psychological perspectives. In N. Kock (Ed.), Evolutionary
psychology and information systems research (pp. 119-147). New York, New York:
Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-6139-6.
Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for synchronous e-
learning: A design theory approach. Computers and Education, 55, 652-662.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
104
Huang, Y. M., Kuo, Y. H., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (2008). Toward interactive mobile
synchronous learning environment with context-awareness service. Computers &
Education, 51, 1205-1226.
Insung, J. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of
distance education. British Journal of Educational Technologies, 32, 525-534.
Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a
web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 6, 317-338.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 196-206.
Johnes, J., Portela, M., & Thanassoulis, E. (2017). Efficiency in education. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 68, 331-338.
Kennedy, D. (2005). Standards for online teaching: lessons from the education, health and IT
sectors. Nurse Education Today, 25, 23-30.
Klenowski, V. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era: Queensland, Australia.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 78-83.
Kolfschoten, G., Lukosch, S., Verbraeck, A., Valentin, E., & De Vreede, G. (2010). Cognitive
learning efficacy through the use of design patterns in teaching. Computers & Education,
54, 652-660.
Krahenbuhl, K. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns,
and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 89(3) 97-105.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
105
Krämer, B., Neugebauer, J., Magenheim, J., & Huppertz, H. (2015). New ways of learning:
Comparing the effectiveness of interactive online media in distance education with the
European textbook tradition. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 965-971.
Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B., Schroder, K. E., & Kuo, Y. T. (2014). A case study of
integrating interwise: Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and satisfaction in synchronous
online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 15, 161-181.
Lahaie, U. (2007). Strategies for creating social presence online. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 100-
101.
Lakhal, S. & Khechine, H. (2016). Student intention to use desktop web-conferencing according
to course delivery modes in higher education. The International Journal of Management
Education, 14(2016), 146-160.
Lloyd, S., Byrne, M., & McCoy, T. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online education.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1-12.
Loewen, N., Lester, G. B., & Duncanson-Hales, C. (2015). Effective social learning: A
collaborative, globally-networked pedagogy. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg
Fortress.
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online
business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93-107.
doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_4
Malandra, G. H. (2008). Accountability and learning assessment in the future of higher
education. On the Horizon, 16(2), 57-71.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
106
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), Art. 8.
Mayadas, A. G. (2006). Blended, ALN and localness initiative (Unpublished paper). New York,
NY: The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
McMurray, A. (2007). College students, the GI bill, and the proliferation of online learning: A
history of learning and contemporary challenges. Internet and Higher Education, 10,
143-150.
Means, B., Toyoma, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended
learning: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Online and Blended Learning, 115,
1-47.
Mergendoller, J., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2000). Comparing problem-based learning
and traditional instruction in high school economics. Journal of Educational Research,
93, 374-382.
Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student
attrition. Distance Education, 20, 96-108.
Noble, D. F. (2001). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in
online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 257-268.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. In J.T.
Spence, J.M. Darley, & D.J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 345-375).
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
107
Park Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential
learners’ perspectives on a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 6, 245-264.
Perry, E. H., & Pilati, M. L. (2011). Online learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
2011(128), 95-104.
Piaget, J. (1963). Origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.
Picciano, A., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010). Educational transformation through online
learning: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 17-35.
Pfaffmann, J. (2007). Computer-mediated communications technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (Vol. 3, pp. 225-231). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Power, M., & Gould-Morven, A. (2011). Head of gold, feet of clay: The online learning paradox.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 20-39.
Robinson, C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student
engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Ryan, S., Kaufman, J., Greenhouse, J., She, R., & Shi, J. (2015). The effectiveness of blended
online learning courses at the community college level. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 40, 285-298.
Sadlak, J. (1978). Efficiency in higher education: Concepts and problems. Higher Education, 7,
213-220.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
108
Schuwirth, L. W., & Van Der Vleuten, C. (2011). Programmatic assessment: From assessment of
learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher, 33, 478-485.
Seifert, K. & Sutton, R. (2009). Education psychology. Washington, DC: Saylor Foundation.
Stewart, A., Harlow, D., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students’ experience of synchronous learning in
distributed environments. Distance Education, 32, 357-381.
Szeto, E. (2014). A comparison of online/face-to-face students’ and instructors’ experiences:
Examining blended synchronous learning effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 116, 4,250-4,254.
Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. (2014). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous
learning environment: What effects are there on students’ social presence experience?
Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 487-503.
University of Southern California. (2017). About. Retrieved from http://www.about.usc.edu.
University of Southern California. (2017). Facts and figures. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/facts/
University of Southern California. (2017). USC online. Retrieved from [Insert URL]
Ury, G., & Ury, C. (2005). Online, on-ground: What’s the difference. In The 21
st
Annual
Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning.
Wallace, S. (2015). A dictionary of education (2
nd
ed.). Oxford, Ohio: Oxford University Press.
Wang, C. H. (2005). Questioning skills facilitate online synchronous discussions. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 303-313.
Ward, M., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of
online learning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 11(3), 57-77.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
109
Warden, C., Stanworth, J., Ren, J., & Warden, A. (2013). Synchronous learning best practices:
An action research study. Computers & Education, 63, 197-207.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2014). Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15, 189-212.
Yang, Z. & Liu, Q. (2007). Research and development of web-based virtual online classroom.
Computers & Educators, 48, 171-184.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
110
Appendix A
Interview Questions for Instructor
A. Background Questions
1. How many synchronous online courses have you taught in higher education, including
the current course?
2. Why have you chosen to teach this course knowing it was a synchronous online course?
a. If this course was offered in-person and on-campus, would you choose to teach
the on-campus and in-person course over this current synchronous online one?
i. Why or why not?
3. Did you have any preconceived biases toward synchronous online learning prior to
teaching this course?
a. Could you describe an example of a course or experience that further explains
your perspective?
4. Are there elements in the makeup of a synchronous online course that are important
and/or necessary to your ability to teach effectively?
a. If so, could you describe how these elements are of value to you and your
instruction and in what way?
5. Are there elements in the makeup of a synchronous online course that interfere with your
students’ learning?
a. If so, could you describe how these elements hinder students’ learning?
B. Learning in Synchronous Online Course Questions
1. How is class time typically set up in this course?
a. Is your course designed as a flipped classroom?
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
111
2. How and when are content or course materials taught?
3. How much time is typically given to discussions among peers (estimate)?
a. How are those discussions organized and set up in the classroom?
b. What kind of discussions are typical in your course?
i. What do your students talk about?
ii. Are you present for these conversations? Break out rooms?
c. In what ways do you find the discussions meaningful (or not)?
4. Could you describe the interactions students have in this class that are most meaningful?
a. What do students talk about?
b. Why are these interactions meaningful?
c. In what ways are these interactions meaningful?
5. What planned activities in your course are administered in order to help students make
sense of the course material?
a. How are the activities organized throughout your course?
b. Do the activities help students learn?
i. How do you know this is helping students learn?
ii. What does that look like?
iii. What does that sound like?
6. What kinds of questions do you ask your students during class?
a. How would you describe the level of engagement you have when questions are
asked?
i. Why do you think that is?
7. What type of feedback do you give to your students?
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
112
a. Is this feedback meaningful to you?
b. Is this feedback meaningful to your students?
8. What kind of learning are you expecting students to experience most often in your
course?
a. What does that look like?
9. What do you want your students to take with them after class is over?
10. How do you support student learning in your classroom?
a. What does that look like?
b. Could you describe an example?
c. How do students respond?
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
113
Interview Questions for Students
A. Background Questions
1. How many synchronous online courses have you taken in higher education, including the
current course?
2. Why have you chosen to take this particular course knowing it was a synchronous online
course?
a. If this course was offered in-person and on-campus, would you choose to enroll in
the course over this current synchronous online one?
i. Why or why not?
3. Did you have any preconceived biases toward synchronous online learning prior to this
course?
a. Could you describe an example of a course or experience that further explains
your perspective?
4. Are there elements in the makeup of a synchronous online course that are important
and/or necessary to your ability to learn?
a. If so, could you describe how these elements are of value to you and your learning
and in what way?
5. Are there elements in the makeup of a synchronous online course that interfere with your
learning?
a. If so, could you describe how these elements hinder your learning?
B. Learning in Synchronous Online Course Questions
1. How is class time typically set up in this course?
a. Is your course designed as a flipped classroom?
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
114
2. How and when are content or course materials taught?
3. How much time is typically given to discussions among peers (estimate)?
a. What kind of discussions are typical in your course?
i. What do you talk about?
b. How are those discussions organized and set up in the classroom?
c. In what ways are the discussions meaningful (or not)?
4. Could you describe the interactions you have in this class that are most meaningful to
you?
a. What do you talk about?
b. Why are these interactions meaningful?
c. In what way are these interactions meaningful?
5. What type of activities in your course (if any) help you make sense of the course
material?
a. How are the activities organized throughout your course?
b. Do the activities help you learn?
c. Could you describe what you like about specific activities?
d. Could you describe what you did not like about the activities?
6. What kinds of questions does your instructor ask the class?
a. How would you describe the level of engagement you have when questions are
asked?
i. Why do you think that is?
7. What type of feedback do you receive from the instructor?
a. Is this feedback meaningful to you?
PERSPECTIVES OF LEARNING
115
8. What kind of learning are you experiencing most often?
9. What did you learn?
a. What does that look like?
10. What did you take with you after class?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Online learning is on the rise, and synchronous online learning in particular is gaining traction in the higher education field. To better understand how instructional strategies and technology are leveraged to maximize opportunities for meaningful and higher-level student learning, a deeper dive into what happens in a synchronous online class from the perspectives of all of its participants is necessary to best understand how to synthesize and apply best practices. The purpose of this study is to understand from the instructor’s and students’ perspectives what learning looks like in a synchronous online class and how it contributes to student learning. The research question is answered through a case study that included interviews with a single instructor and students from multiple courses she taught. Based on the data gathered and analyzed from the study, responses showed students identified key learning opportunities when they were provided scaffolding activities, when given opportunities to engage in meaningful guided discussions with peers, and when asked to reflect and think critically about their practice. On this basis, it is recommended that instructors of synchronous online learning courses provide ample opportunities for students to participate in instructional scaffolds to build their knowledge, participate in dialogue with peers through whole class discussions and smaller break out groups facilitated by the videoconferencing technology provided, and to embed activities that require students to reflect on their practice.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A qualitative analysis of student-athletes' engagement in synchronous, virtual learning environments at the secondary level
PDF
What are teacher beliefs about social emotional learning in a synchronous webcam-enabled online higher education learning environment?
PDF
The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color
PDF
Reducing statistics anxiety among learners in online graduate research methods courses
PDF
African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college
PDF
Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten
PDF
An investigation of the way instructors’ approaches to the curriculum shape undergraduate students’ opportunities to engage in higher levels of thinking in the United States
PDF
Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers
PDF
Examining how faculty educators believed they supported faculty in higher education institutions
PDF
How service-learning educators help students learn: master teachers’ perspectives
PDF
Critical thinking development in the 21st century college classroom
PDF
An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system
PDF
Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect
PDF
Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study
PDF
Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction
PDF
Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies
PDF
Multimodal composing and teacher preparation
PDF
Authentic professional learning: a case study
PDF
Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application
PDF
Investigating differences in online & traditional student perceptions of value and satisfaction with five key educational elements
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lee, Jessica Miyun
(author)
Core Title
Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/11/2018
Defense Date
02/28/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
constructivist learning theory,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning,student learning,synchronous online learning
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hyde, Corinne (
committee chair
), Crawford, Jenifer (
committee member
), Slayton, Julie (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jessicamiyunlee@gmail.com,lee466@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-8382
Unique identifier
UC11671076
Identifier
etd-LeeJessica-6206.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-8382 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LeeJessica-6206.pdf
Dmrecord
8382
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Lee, Jessica Miyun
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
constructivist learning theory
online learning
student learning
synchronous online learning