Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 430732, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/430732
Research Article

Transforming a Course to Blended Learning for Student Engagement

1Operations Management and Information Systems Department, College of Business, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
2Office of Student Engagement & Experiential Learning, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA

Received 2 September 2014; Accepted 19 November 2014; Published 9 December 2014

Academic Editor: Cathy H. Qi

Copyright © 2014 Charles E. Downing et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. P. Turner and R. Carriveau, Next Generation Course Redesign, Peter Lang, 2010.
  2. C. Wieman, “Why not try a scientific approach to science education?” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 9–15, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  3. E. F. Barkley, Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
  4. D. W. Harward and A. P. Finley, Eds., Transforming Undergraduate Education: Theory That Compels and Practices That Succeed, Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.
  5. Hart Research Associates, “It takes more than a major: employer priorities for college learning and student success,” AAC&U, 2013.
  6. Association of American Colleges and Universities, The LEAP Vision for Learning: Outcomes, Practices, Impact and Employer’s Views, Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2011.
  7. S. L. Newstok, “A plea for ‘Close Learning’,” Liberal Education, vol. 99, no. 4, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  8. F. G. Martin, “Education will massive open online courses change how we teach,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 26–28, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. Y. Hill, L. Lomas, and J. MacGregor, “Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education,” Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 15–20, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  10. J. E. Zull, The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning, Stylus Publishing, 2002.
  11. S. A. Ambrose, M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett, and M. K. Norman, How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
  12. K. Taylor and D. Rohrer, “The effects of interleaved practice,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 837–848, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. J. Metcalfe and N. Kornell, “A region of proximal Learning model of study time allocation,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 463–477, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. K. Tallent-Runnels, J. A. Thomas, W. Y. Lan et al., “Teaching courses online: a review of the research,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 93–135, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. M. Smith and E. Vela, “Environmental context-dependent memory: a review and meta-analysis,” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 203–220, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. F. Concannon, A. Flynn, and M. Campbell, “What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 501–512, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. X. Yang, Y. Li, C.-H. Tan, and H.-H. Teo, “Students' participation intention in an online discussion forum: why is computer-mediated interaction attractive?” Information and Management, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 456–466, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. D. Roscoe and M. T. H. Chi, “Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions,” Instructional Science, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 321–350, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. T. D. Griffin, J. Wiley, and K. W. Thiede, “Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy,” Memory and Cognition, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 93–103, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. C. Bereiter and M. Scardamalia, “Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert” knowledge,” in Thinking and Learning Skills: Current Research and Open Questions, vol. 2, pp. 65–80, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  21. R. A. Bjork, Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge, 1998.
  22. R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, “Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. Larreamendy-Joerns and G. Leinhardt, “Going the distance with online education,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 567–605, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. J. Herrington, R. Oliver, and T. C. Reeves, “Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments,” Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 59–71, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  25. S. D. Wurdinger and J. A. Carlson, Teaching for Experiential Learning: Five Approaches That Work, R&L Education, Lanham, Md, USA, 2009.
  26. M. Miller and M. Y. Lu, “Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments: building successful communities in the virtual campus,” Educational Media International, vol. 40, no. 1-2, pp. 163–169, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  27. G. D. Kuh, T. M. Cruce, R. Shoup, J. Kinzie, and R. M. Gonyea, “Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 540–563, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. L. E. Swaner, “The theories, contexts, and multiple pedagogies of engaged learning: what succeeds and why,” in Transforming Undergraduate Education: Theories that Compel and Practices that Succeed, pp. 73–90, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md, USA, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  29. A. R. Trees and M. H. Jackson, “The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 21–40, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. S. A. Yourstone, H. S. Kraye, and G. Albaum, “Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: do clickers improve learning?” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 75–88, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  31. C. Downing and C. Liu, “Getting students to teach each other: doing more with less in IS education,” Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 195–206, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  32. J. Senese, “Teach to Learn,” Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 43–54, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  33. S. S. Erzurumlu and K. Rollag, “Increasing student interest and engagement with business cases by turning them into consulting exercises,” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 359–381, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. C. G. Cortese, “Learning through teaching,” Management Learning, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 87–115, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus