Utilizing two action research cycles to verify the learning performance and the Dramaturgy of learning framework to diagnose the problem and opportunity, the researcher tried to found principles for pedagogic
design of blended classroom. In spite of similar content and instruction by the same instructor, the classification of critical incidents in the e-learning variant of the target course was different from the F2F version. In the F2F classroom, teacher liked aprotagonist of a dram whose performance highly impact on learning presence.All elements, from the teacher’s positive attitude (such as enthusiasm), expressional skills, to professionalism, were critical to satisfaction with the learning presence and needed for an appropriate and considerate response to the students. Unsatisfactory learning could result from poor teaching presence. In the F2F class, some unsatisfactory learning performance was attributed to the teacher, such as the difficulty or understandability of the content. This was usually considered the result of issues with the teacher’s lack of professional ability, problems with the learning activity or problem with assessment designed by the teacher.
Advantages and disadvantages of learning presence created by e learning platform may opposite from those by F2F classroom. Separation of the front stage from back stage can avoid the unprofessional behavior of the teacher being seen by the students in e learning class, it also may mean the teacher loses the opportunity to display their capability of nonverbal communication. Besides, the opportunities for active learning
increased in the e-learning class environment. Students had more autonomy to arrange their study schedule or to browse the online content and do the homework. It became more difficult to let student follow the content arranged by teacher. Most students preferred to complete assignment as spent less time as possible. Therefore, teacher needed to recognize that the importance of teaching presence decreased and the importance of
cognitive presence increase in e learning classroom. Platform presence had a critical impact on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the learning presence. Creating benefits such as availability or flexibility by utilizing the e-learning system was the main source of a satisfying learning experience. On the other hand, problems with using the e-learning system such as can’t get help on-time or low transmission dissatisfied students.
The higher score of grade and student evaluation in the blended class indicates opportunity to combine the benefits of the F2F and e-learning classes. For example, in the target course, the lack of teacher’s
professional teaching skill was reduced by using online material. However, the difficulty of self-learning was partially reduced in the F2F classroom. Free choice between two available learning environments in a blended class might also increase student willingness to learn and student autonomy.
The researcher also investigated the influence from change of assignment to social presence and
learning presence based on the dramaturgy of learning framework. Social presence would have a significant impact on learning presence (either positive or negative) in the team project homework. The platform has an important impact on learning presence if students could negotiate and find better and more convenient channels to contact each other. In this situation, the better use of platform helped to avoid negative social presence. Critical incidents reported for the blended version of the target course indicated that the students tended to interact socially with their team members, demonstrating a good fit to higher education goals on collaboration. In other words, the increase in team work and lack of management experience in regulating student participation, combined to make social presence the most important dissatisfactory presence. The results showed that most students are still very reliant on face-to-face and synchronous discussion in team projects. The motivation for course involvement by some students needs to be improved.
7.2 Implications
Analyzing learning performance is often challenging because it is the product of complicated and
complex interactions among content, peers, teacher, and learning platform environment. This study proposes a
parsimonious framework of dramaturgy of learning that can be used for analysis of the above interactions and their impact to learning presence. The researcher used dramaturgy of learning framework to find the possible synergy of platform presence in blended classroom, develop several principles in pedagogic design, and verify the usage of both principles and framework.
The results described in this paper demonstrate the potential usage of this framework for understanding learning satisfaction and dissatisfaction not only in different platforms but also in pedagogic design. With the popularity of e-learning systems and web communication media such as Facebook, teachers have the
opportunity to leverage these emerging platforms to improve learning presence in their classrooms. Utilizing the dramaturgy of learning framework may decrease the complexity of developing the appropriate
pedagogical design for the teachers. Further studies can investigated more pedagogical design in F2F-e learning blended classrooms to guide for more good learning experiences and better performance.
References
Albirini., A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education, 47, 373-398.
Baskerville, R. L. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). “A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information System Research,” 11, 235-246
Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education, RoutledgeFalmer: New York, NY Baylor., A. L., & Ritchie., D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived
student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & education, 39, 395-414
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71-84
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounter: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.
Bloom, B. S. (1984).Bloom Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Pearson Education.
Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers
& education, 58(1), 154-161
Cho, V., Cheng, T. E., Lai, W.J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools, Computers & Education, 53 (2),216-227.
Davison, R. M., Martinson, M G., and kock, N. (2004). “Principle of Canonical Action Research,”
Information Systems Journal, 14, 65-86.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51( 4), 327-358.
Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M, Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi P. (2006). Evaluation of efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 163-176.
Freitas, S. D. & Olive, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computer & Education, 46, 249-264.
Fu, F., Su, R., & S Yu, Y. (2009) “EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners' enjoyment of e-learning games,”
Computers & Education, 52(1), 101-112
Fu, F., Chou, H., & Yu, S. (2007). Activate interaction relationships between student’s acceptance behavior and E-learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 4505, 600-677.
Garrison, D. R. & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: review, issues, and future direction, The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157-172
Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education, Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105
Garrison, D. R. & Anderson T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice, RoutledgeFalmer: New York, NY
Garrison, D. R., Anderson T. & Archer W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education, American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7 – 23
Garrison, D. R., Anderson T. & Archer W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 87-105
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, August, 7(1), 65-89
Grove, S. J. & Fisk, R. P. (1983). The dramaturgy of services exchange: an analytical framework for services marketing’, in L. L. Berry, and G. L. Shostack(eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
___, ___ , & Bitner M. J. (1992). Dramatizing the service experience: a Managerial approach. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 1, 91-121.
Guiry, M. (1992). Consumer and employee roles in service encounters. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 666-672.
Halliday, S. V., Davis, B. J., Ward, P., & Lim, M. (2008). A dramaturgical analysis of the service encounter in higher education, Journal of Marketing Management, 24.1,2008
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87-96.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an Understanding of How Threads Die in Asynchronous Computer Conferences.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567 - 589
Hwang., W., Chang., C., & Chen., G. (2004). The relationship of learning traits, motivation and performance-learning response dynamic. Computers & Education, 42(3), 267-287.
Kashy, D. A., Albertelli II, G., Bauer, W., Kashy, E. & Thoennessen, M. (2003). Influencing of non-moderated and moderated discussion sites on student success. JALN, 7(1), 31-36.
Kim, K., Bonk, C. J., & Teng, Y. (2009). The present state and future trends of blended learning in workplace learning setting across five countries. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., 10, 299-308.
Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512-1520
Lam,Y. & Wong, A. (1974). Attendance regularity of adult learners: an examination of content and structural
factors. Adult Education, 24( 2), 130-142.
Lin, C-H. (2002). Effects of computer graphics types and epistemological beliefs on students’ learning of mathematical concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27( 3), 265-274.
Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O. & Schultze, U. (2004). Design Principles for Competence Management Systems - A Synthesis of an Action Research Study. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 435-472.
Marjanovice, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assistance Learning, 15(2), 129-148.
Martens, R.L., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on E-learning in authentic computer tasks, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 368-376.
Moisio, R. & Arnould, E. J. (2005). Extending the dramaturgical framework in marketing: drama structure, drama interaction and drama content in shopping experience. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(4), 246-256.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: the case for personalized multimedia messages, Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724–733.
Myers, M. D. & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft.
Information and Organization, 17(1),2-26
Osguthorpe, R. T. & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: definitions and directions.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4 (3), 227-233
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321-1335.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Biderano, T., Pickett, A., Gozza-Cohen, M., Wiide, J., & Jian, S.
(2012). Learning presence: additional research on a new conceptual element within the community of inquiry (CoI) framework. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89-95.
Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers &
Education, 55(4), 1721-1731
Smith, R. A. & Houston M. J. (1985). A psychometric assessment of measures of scripts in consumer memory.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 214-224.
Suthers, D. D., Hundhausen, C. D., & Girardeau, L. E. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning, Computers & Education 41(4), 335-351.
Sun, P., Tsai, R. J., Finger, C., Chen, Y., Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction, Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202
Susman, G., and Evered, R. (1978). “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.
Swan, K. (2004 a). Relationships between Interactions and Learning in Online Environments.
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf
Swan, K. (2004 b). Learning online: current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and learner characteristics. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Into the Mainstream. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 63-79.
Wagner, N., Hassanein, K. & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education?
A stakeholders’ analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26-36.
Yang, Z., & Liu, Q. (2007). Research and development of web-based virtual online classroom. Computers &
education, 48(2), 171-184.
Table 1 Classification of incidents of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the “Introduction to Software” class
Classification Sub-classification
F2F (%) E-learning (%) Blended (%)
satisfy dissatisfy satisfy dissatisfy satisfy dissatisfy
platform