SHAPING vs SCAFFOLDING

Your supervisor has asked you to support the professional development of your online instructor colleagues. She would you like you to create a presentation that will help the online instructors better understand shaping learner behavior and scaffolding students’ learning. Complete the following two parts:

Part A: Calling on the Learning Resources and other outside research you conduct, construct a 500-word analysis of shaping and scaffolding students’ learning. Take a comparative approach, and identify the benefits and limitations of each.
Part B: Create a presentation with a minimum of six slides that illustrates the key similarities and differences of shaping and scaffolding. Include specific examples of how each approach can be used effectively with online learners.

Scaffolding in e‐Learning Environment 

Antonín Jančařík 
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic 
antonin.jancarik@pedf.cuni.cz 
 
Abstract: The paper focuses on the potential and possibilities of use of scaffolding in e‐learning courses. One of the key 
concepts the author works with and builds upon is the concept of zone of proximal development, which was introduced by 
Vygotsky.  One  of  the  key  questions  every  teacher  must  ask  is  how  to  state  the  border  between  the  current  pupil’s 
knowledge and the horizon where it can be developed. Needless to say that determination of these limits may be of crucial 
importance for the educational process. The question becomes even more important in work with gifted pupils, in whose 
case the  limit of what they can achieve under convenient guidance  is very  individual, as well as the teacher’s role very 
specific.  The  author  presents  various  forms  of  scaffolding  based  on  his  longitudinal  experience  from  work  with 
mathematically gifted pupils in an e‐learning course Combinatorial Game Theory. This course is organized within the frame 
of the Talent project which is designated for gifted Czech upper secondary school students from all over the country. This 
course has been designed with respect to the principles of the method of problem‐based learning. Students are assigned 
problems that they solve either collaboratively or individually. Some of the problems are intentionally designed in such a 
way to bring students to situations in which they must overcome epistemological obstacles. In these situations scaffolding 
proves to be a very efficient method. However, its implementation in the environment of internet is specific and differs 
from its use in ordinary classrooms. As there is no face to face contact with the student, it is much harder to determine 
his/her real state of knowledge. Also the time lag in off‐line communication makes the process harder. The paper discusses 
different aspects of use of scaffolding in the internet environment in detail. This all is illustrated on specific examples of its 
use. The paper presents four forms of scaffolding realised by specific instructions. The aim of the paper is to illustrate by 
and demonstrate on concrete examples the benefits of the use of scaffolding in an e‐learning course for gifted students.  
 
Keywords: scaffolding, game theory, e‐learning, mathematical education 

1. Introduction 
The concept of zone of proximal development, introduced by L. Vygotsky (1978), is defined as “the distance 
between  the  actual  developmental  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.” However, this guidance does not have to be personified, it may also be provided e.g. by 
an e‐learning system. That is why Vygotsky introduced also the concept of “more knowledgeable other”. 

1.1 Scaffolding 
The  concept  of  scaffolding  is  close  to  the  concept  of  zone  of  proximal  development  but  is  not  used  by 
Vygotsky. The concept refers to the help and support provided to a pupil or student while solving problems in 
order to allow him/her to achieve the desired goals (German, 2011, Saffkova, 2011). The methods of providing 
scaffolding are manifold. Saye and Brush distinguish between soft and hard methods (Saye and Brush, 2002). 
Soft, or also contingent scaffolding is based on a teacher’s discussion with their pupils, their reactions to the 
pupils’ needs and on offer of support and guidance with respect to the momentary needs (Simons and Klein, 
2007). In contrast, in hard scaffolding the teacher analyses the problems that can be come across in advance, 
already when planning the lesson (Nováková and Novotná, 2011) and prepares supporting problems or hints 
to offer to the pupils or students when needed. Scaffolding can also be provided automatically (e.g. Wood, 
2011) by the e‐learning system. However, this paper focuses predominantly on situations when guidance and 
support is provided by the course teacher, or more specifically the lecturer.  
 
Wood and Middleton (1975) define three categories of support that can be provided to pupils: 

General encouragement  

Specific instructions 

Direct demonstration  

The following text demonstrates and specifies the use of all these three categories of support within e‐learning 
courses.    When  introducing  the  category  “Specific  instructions”,  four  different  forms  of  its  use  are 
distinguished: 

Pushing the limits 

149

mailto:antonin.jancarik@pedf.cuni.cz

 
Antonín Jančařík 

Confronting a counterexample  

Providing the right answer but not the solving procedure  

Experimenting using Trial and Error method  

The advantages of each of the methods is classified with respect to the anticipated benefits of scaffolding into 
the following five categories (Wood et al., 1976): 

Gaining and maintaining the learner’s interest in the task. 

Making the task simple. 

Emphasizing certain aspects that will help with the solution. 

Controlling the level of frustration. 

Demonstrating the task. 

1.2 Course description  
The paper presents methods of scaffolding used by the author in e‐learning courses for mathematically gifted 
students.  These  courses  for  gifted  students  are  opened  repeatedly  and  the  here  reported  research  on 
scaffolding  is  still  in  progress.  The  paper  therefore  presents  its  interim  findings  and  work  in  process.  The 
courses are organized for small groups of students (5‐10 persons) from selected upper secondary schools from 
all over the Czech Republic. The syllabus of the course is Combinatorial Game Theory (Berlekamp, Conway and 
Guy,  2001,  Nowakowski,  1998).  The  course  is  designed  as  assisted  problem‐solving.  There  is  almost  no 
instruction, students are assigned a series of graded problems which they solve  in open discussion forums. 
Students may also enter private discussion with the teacher but this option is seldom selected. The lecturer’s 
guidance  has  the  form  of  his  intervention  into  the  discussion.  This  intervention  has  different  forms,  the 
lecturer uses both soft and hard scaffolding.  
 
The course is divided into two parts. In the first part students are introduced to different variants of the NIM 
game. The goal of this activity is to guide students to discovery of the winning strategy (Bouton, 1901). In the 
second part students get to know the game hackenbush. Their task is to find the value of given positions. The 
key  moment  of  the  course  is  discovery  of  positions  with  surreal  values  ,    a  .  Pupils  must  overcome 

epistemological  obstacles  (Bachelard,  1940)  connected  to  their  existing  understanding  of  real  numbers, 
number line and the concept of infinity (Cihlár, Eisenmann, Krátká and Vopenka, 2008). 

2. General encouragement in e‐learning courses 
It is often the case of e‐learning courses that pupils and students who find the presented problems too difficult 
stop being active. That is why the lecturer must observe activity of different participants of the course carefully 
and encourage the pupils and students as needed. It  is much easier for a teacher to see that a pupil  is not 
paying attention in the classroom – he/she starts disturbing, stares out of the window, reads something else. 
These evident signals are not present in e‐learning courses and the lecturer’s position is much more difficult. 
He/she may notice a participant’s lack of activity but may fail to interpret the reasons for this drop‐out. He 
must then carefully think what and how to do to encourage and motivate the student to get involved again. 
Sometimes it is very hard to discover the true reason of a student’s drop‐out. 

2.1 First example 
A student ceased to be active for several weeks during the course and did not even answer the  lecturer’s 
messages. Only later was he able to find out that she had had a serious injury and had spent some time in 
hospital where she could not participate in the course. Having recovered she got involved in the course again 
and completed it successfully.   

2.2 Second example  
The lecturer was facing the situation when several students fell silent for a longer period of time. He addressed 
them  by  personal  e‐mails  asking  for  reasons  of  their  inactivity  and  offered  help  with  difficult  problems, 
including organizing a videoconference. The following are some of the replies he received: 

150

 
Antonín Jančařík 

Student 1: I find the course very interesting and enjoy solving the problems. However, I’ve been a 
bit too busy recently and haven’t managed to do all the work in time. I apologize. Sorry.  

My plan is to join in again at the end of the week. As soon as I finish other things that kept me 
occupied. I hope I will catch up on coursework. 🙂 

Student 2: Hello, sorry for my activity but I have too many courses and am getting short of time. 
As it is I only have time to look at it at the weekend. But now I’ve been offered two scholarships 😛 
so I won’t get to the coursework before the weekend. Honza 

After the lecturer’s encouraging intervention the students joint in actively again.  

Soft scaffolding in the form of general encouragement helps to gain and maintain the learner’s interest in the 
task.  In  some  cases  it  may  also  help  to  control  the  level  of  frustration.  It  is  advisable  to  make  this 
encouragement very personal and to combine it with offer to help. This eliminates the potential risk of the 
student’s dropping out of the course for its difficulty.  

2.3 Comparison to the situation when no scaffolding was offered  
In the first course, the teacher repeatedly used mail merge to alert to deadlines. Despite these alerts, some 
students did not join in and often sent excuses for having dropped out of the course. An analysis of individual 
cases showed that these students’ drop‐out was most often the consequence of a sudden increase in difficulty 
of the tasks and problems. Having discovered this, the lecturer now informs students in advance that they are 
about to proceed to a more difficult level and offers them additional help if they fall silent at this point.  

3. Specific instructions – pushing the limits 
Pushing the limits is one of the forms of soft scaffolding. It may be in the form of lecturer’s reactions to the 
limiting conditions in a pupil’s or student’s reasoning and thinking. The lecturer tries to encourage the pupil or 
student to broaden and generalize his/her considerations. The aim of this type of guidance is predominantly to 
turn  the  student’s  attention  to  those  aspects  of  the  assigned  problem  that  he/she  failed  to  notice  or  to 
deduction of consequences the pupil or student has been not aware of.   

3.1 Example 
Lecturer: What is the relation between won and lost fields? 

Student: Is their structure always regular? 

Lecturer: A good question, but what do you mean by a “regular structure”? Try to find an answer, 
it is connected to the previous question. 

Student: With the exception of the fields before finish, won and lost positions always repeat in the 
same numbers. In case one cannot use a move by one field they are always two blue and four red 
fields.  

Lecturer: I thought you were asking whether a situation must necessarily have a regular structure 
regardless of the rules of the game. Is this not a more interesting question :‐)? 

This  example  shows  that  the  student  uses  the  concept  of  “regular  structure”  spontaneously.  This  enables 
introduction of the general topic of periodicity of a solution to a problem. The  lecturer takes the student’s 
concept which is yet not developed and hands it back to the student for further development. As the initial 
initiative was on the student’s part, the problem seems more real to the student and he/she is much more 
motivated to be solving it.  

3.2 Comparison to direct task assignment  
Tasks in which students are asked to find a regular structure of won and lost positions can also be come across 
in the course but only if they follow a series of lead‐in tasks. In this case, reaction to the student’s spontaneous 
idea  made  it  possible  to  skip  these  exercises  and  start  solving  a  more  demanding  task  before  the  student 
would have done if proceeding along the standard course trajectory. The idea of a regular structure had just 
moved into the particular student’s zone of proximal development, thus allowing the lecturer to make use of 
it.   

151

 
Antonín Jančařík 

4. Specific instructions – confronting a counter example 
Another example of soft scaffolding is providing a counterexample to the presented hypothesis. Confrontation 
of  the  student’s  strategy  with  a  situation  in  which  it  does  not  work  makes  him/her  reconsider  the  whole 
situation. Moreover, a conveniently selected counterexample may guide the student to the correct solution. 

4.1 Example 
One of the games solved by the pupils in the discussed course is the game TIC‐TAC‐TOE (see fig. 1). In some 
cases students assess the game as won by the first player even though  it  is a draw. The counterexample  is 
offered by playing the game with teacher.  

Figure 1: TIC‐TAC‐TOE game (from Jancarik, 2007) 

Providing a well‐chosen counterexample to the presented hypothesis helps to emphasise some aspects of the 
problem  and may  help  with  the  solution. A counterexample  may  help  the  student  realize  where  he/she  is 
making a mistake and to correct his/her solution.  

4.2 Analysis of use of counterexamples  
Providing a counterexample is in some cases far more efficient than looking for and uncovering of mistakes in 
students’ logical reasoning. The reasons are: 

A student’s  justification may be  long and complicated.  In some cases explanation of different separate 
ideas  and  deductions  may  require  a  lot  of  time.  This  of  course  implies  that  in  an  e‐learning  course 
environment the effort to pinpoint the source of a mistake  in reasoning  is extremely difficult and time 
demanding. On the other hand, without any doubt  in some cases this time and effort are worthwhile, 
especially in case of complex problems.  

If a teacher or a lecturer points out a pupil’s or student’s mistake, it might demotivate the pupil or the 
student. In contrast providing a convenient counterexample enables the pupil or the student to succeed 
by discovering the source of his/her mistake in reasoning on his/her own. 

5. Specific instructions – providing the right answer but not the solving procedure 
This form of help is based on the teacher’s provision of correct answer and student’s search for justification or 
explanation  of  this  answer.  This  form  of  scaffolding  may  be  situation  based  or  planned  in  advance  by  the 
lecturer. It means this is a form of hard scaffolding.  

5.1 Example 
The example comes from a discussion forum about the Cat and Mouse Game (Tapson, 1977, see fig. 2). The 
goal of the game is to have the cat capture the mouse. The game has a very simple winning strategy but every 
time most students defend the possibility that the mouse can always escape.  

152

 
Antonín Jančařík 

Figure 2: Cat and mouse game (from Jancarik, 2007) 

Student: Each hole neighbours at least with other two holes which means the mouse can never 
“be cornered”. The mouse can be escaping for ever. (This is the last of a number of comments 
expressing the same idea.)  

Teacher: You all agree here that the mouse can be running away as long as it wants, you present 
supporting arguments, but are you sure about this? Are you sure there are not any mistakes in 
your considerations? 

Teacher (after 4 days with no reaction): Well, nobody replied to my comment. So I am giving the 
right answer now: The cat, if it uses the right strategy, will catch the mouse quite fast, regardless 
of the mouse’s strategy. Will you find how the cat can do it? 

Another student: Yes, this is a real Cat and Mouse game. The cat must not attack, it must lurk.  If 
it wants to win, it must get the advantage of one move by cutting across the triangle. (If we leave 
any field A in a move, we get back to it by an even number of moves but if we take a shortcut via 
triangle, an odd number of moves will do.) So the position changes, the cat and the mouse can 
e.g. again get to the same position, but now the mouse will be in a trap as it is its move this time. 
Similarly the cat may get this advantage in a corner.  

This  example  illustrates  the  use  of  this  method  in  a  situation  when  students  “got  stuck”  while  solving  the 
problem and got lost what solution to be actually looking for. Once they were told the right answer they were 
able to justify the solution and find the correct solution of the whole problem.  

6. Specific instructions – experimenting using trial and error method 
This form of support is also hard scaffolding. It is used for difficult problems where pupils and students can be 
expected  to  propose  erroneous  solutions.  Scaffolding  in  this  case  is  not  provided  by  the  lecturer.  It  is  an 
automatic element which is integrated in the e‐learning course (see Wood, 2001). This enables the pupils and 
students to confront repeatedly their strategies with counterexamples, to test them and modify them. 

6.1 Example 
The students’ task in the course was to find the winning strategy to a three‐pile NIM game. An automatic script 
was programmed in the game which runs according to the winning strategy. If a player makes a mistake in 
his/her solution, the computer wins. The game has the form of a car race. The player can select a car he/she 
wants to ace in and the number of fields (in accordance with the rules) by which he/she wants to approach the 
finish. The script enables setting different rules  in respect to the needs of a given game. The winner  is the 
player who first crosses the finish line (see Fig. 3) 

153

 
Antonín Jančařík 

Figure 3: 3 heap NIM game with cars 

The  difference  of  this  form  of  scaffolding  and  of  providing  one  counterexample  is  that  in  case  of  one 
counterexample pupils and students cannot usually find the winning strategy. This form, in contrast, combines 
the advantages of confronting a counterexample and giving the right answer but not the procedure. The pupil 
or student sees the mistake he/she has made and the move he/she must make in the situation but does not 
know the reasons why it is so and must discover them.   

6.2 Discussion of the problem  
In  the  first  course,  every  single  situation was  discussed  with  the  lecturer.  This  was  unnecessarily  too  long. 
Automation using script made the process faster and more efficient. Students can now verify (or confront) 
their hypotheses before presenting them in public.  

7. Direct demonstration  
Direct demonstration is the form of hard scaffolding which is used in this e‐learning course least often, which is 
the consequence of its focus. The goal of the course is not to introduce students to winning strategies but to 
teach  them  to  look  for  them  on  their  own.  That  is  why  they  are  expected  to  be  looking  for  all  solutions 
individually and none of the solutions is disclosed or directly demonstrated to them. Direct demonstration is 
used to make students familiar with a method they are subsequently expected to generalize and apply. 

7.1 Example 
Students are expected to learn to use NIM numbers in order to employ them in search for strategies in other 
games. The lecturer demonstrates their application in the game The Silver Dollar Game With No Silver Dollar 
(Bogus Nim,  see  fig. 4).  Subsequently  students  are  asked  to  find  the winning  strategy  for  The  Silver  Dollar 
Game. 

Figure 4: Bogus NIM game (http://www.cut‐the‐knot.org/, © 1996‐2013 Alexander Bogomolny) 

Direct demonstration is very convenient when teaching algorithms. Its use in constructivist approaches is more 
problematic as it offers students very little space for their own observation, reasoning and deductions.  

7.2 Discussion of direct demonstration  
Application of knowledge in new contexts is known to be very difficult in the long run. At the same time it is 
crucial. Students  usually  link  their  knowledge  to  knowledge  from concrete  situations  they have  experience 
with. Preceding full‐time courses showed that students had problems to apply NIM strategy in new situations 
unless they had had prior experience with this approach. That is why one sample of such use was presented to 
students in the e‐learning course. The lecturer’s experience shows that students then find it much easier to 
modify the winning strategy to other, more or less similar games.   

154

 
Antonín Jančařík 

8. Conclusion 
Scaffolding is an important tool a teacher can use in their work. Scaffolding enables to push the limit of what 
pupils are able to achieve in their solving procedures. This implies that scaffolding is well justified not only in 
the classroom but also in virtual environment. E‐learning environments allow the use of most methods that a 
teacher would employ when working in the traditional classroom. However, it must be born in mind that work 
in a virtual environment rules out personal contact and face to face  interaction between the pupil and the 
teacher. This may make it hard to predict the pupil’s reaction. Scaffolding, especially in the form of general 
encouragement, becomes increasingly more important. It can help the pupil overcome obstacles that would 
otherwise put them off from further work and would result in frustration and failure. However, students must 
not only be encouraged, they must also be offered stimuli and additional information needed for solution of 
the assigned problems and for drawing general conclusions.  
 
The paper presented and illustrated four forms of this support. The author presented concrete examples to 
demonstrate what forms scaffolding can take. As the same time he described his motivation for having used 
the described methods, or what their benefits were. The presented list is far from exhaustive. The aim of this 
paper is to document the chosen methods. Taking into account the course specialization and small number of 
respondents,  the  author  decided  to  present  his  findings  in  the  form  of  description  of  concrete  examples. 
However, it does not mean the paper cannot be a source of inspiration for other authors of e‐learning courses. 
The presented methods can be applied in a variety of other contexts.  

References 

Bachelard, G. (1940) La philosophie du non. Essai d’une philosophie du nouvel esprit scientifique. PUF, Paris. 
Berlekamp, E. R., Conway, J. H. and Guy, R. K. (2001) Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays, AK Peters, Ltd. 
Bouton, C. L. (1901) “Nim, a game with a complete mathematical theory”, Annals of Mathematics, Vol 3, pp 35–39. 
Brush, T. A. and Saye, J. W. (2002) “A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students 

using a multimedia supported learning environment”, The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Vol 1, No. 2,pp 1‐
12. 

Cihlár, J., Eisenmann, P., Krátká, M. and Vopenka P. (2008) “Cognitive conflict as a tool of overcoming obstacles in 
understanding infinity”, Teaching mathematics: innovation, new trends, research, Vol 47. 

German, D.A. (2011) “Extreme Scaffolding in the Teaching and Learning of Programming Languages”, Proceedings of the 
10th European Conference on E‐Learning, pp 978‐981. 

Jancarik, A (2007) Algorithms and Solving Strategies. PedF UK, Prague.  
Nováková, H. and Novotná, J. (2011) “A priori analysis in theory and teachers’ practice”, International Symposium 

Elementary Maths Teaching SEMT ’11 Proceedings, pp. 252‐260. 
Nowakowski, R. J. (Ed.) (1998) Games of no chance, Cambridge University Press. 
Saffkova, Z.(2011) “Using Blended Learning to Develop Critical Reading Skills”, Proceedings of the 10th European 

Conference on E‐Learning, pp 705‐715. 
Simons, Krista D. and Klein, James D. (2007) “The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem‐based 

learning environment”, Instructional Science, Vol 35, pp 41‐72. 
Tapson, F. (1977) Take two – 32 board games for 2 players. A & C Black limited, Berkshire. 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, MA: Harvard University Press, 

Cambridge. 
Wood, D. (2001) “Scaffolding, contingent tutoring, and computer‐supported learning”, International Journal of Artificial 

Intelligence in Education, Vol 12, No. 3, pp 280‐293. 
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S. and Ross, G. (1976) “The role of tutoring in problem solving”, Journal of Child Psychiatry and 

Psychology, Vol 17, No. 2, pp 89‐100. 
Wood, D. and Middleton, D. (1975) “A study of assisted problem‐solving”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol 66, No. 2, pp 

181−191. 
Wood, D., Bruner, J. and Ross, G. (1976) “The role of tutoring in problem solving”, Journal of Child Psychology and Child 

Psychiatry, Vol 17, pp 89−100. 

155

Veronika Havelková is a PhD Student at Charles University in Prague and lecturer of seminars ‘Use the GeoGebra in the
Teaching of Mathematics’, ‘Mathematical Software‘, ‘Computer as an Assistant (not only) in the Teaching of Mathematics’.
Dissertation topic is The Phenomena Influencing the Efficiency of the Use of Dynamic Mathematics.

Michael A. Herzog is full professor for Business Management and IT at Magdeburg-Stendal University. His research is con-
cerned with mobile systems, RFID-technology, knowledge management and e-learning. He founded several international
operating IT-enterprises concerning media technology and software development. Michael holds a PhD in information sys-
tems and master’s degree in computer science from Technische Universität Berlin.

Jiri Hoffmann is currently in his second year as a PhD candidate at the Department of Information and Communication Tech-
nologies at the University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. His main research activity is focused on technological competencies
and out of school activities.

Jozef Hvorecky graduated PhD. in Computer Programming at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow. He is Professor of Com-
puter and Information Sciences at School of Management in Bratislava, Slovakia. He is also Honorary Lecturer of the Universi-
ty of Liverpool. His research interests cover introductory programming courses, university management, and knowledge
management.

Gloria Otito Izu holds a Bachelor Degree in Biology Education, a Researcher with Colleges of Education Academic Staff Union,
Nigeria. Her research focuses on e-learning and science teaching methodologies.

Antonin Jancarik works as a senior lecturer in the Department of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Educa-
tion, Charles University in Prague. He is working in the areas of algebra, use of ICT in mathematics education and game theo-
ry.

Amanda Jefferies is a Reader in Technology Enhanced Learning at the University of Hertfordshire, where she leads the Tech-
nology Supported Learning Research group. Her interests relate to students’ experiences of using technology to support their
learning and the development of supportive pedagogies. She was awarded a UK National Teaching Fellowship in 2011.

Cristian Jimenez Romero has a Degree in computer science and data systematization, University Antonio Nariño, Colombia.
Further BSc-Honours degree with emphasis in biological psychology and artificial intelligence from the Open University, UK.
Cristian has worked as software engineer at Nokia-Siemens-Networks. He is currently doing PhD, at the Complexity science
department, faculty of computing and mathematics, OU. Thesis “Intelligent assessment systems applied to massive open
online education”

Olga Kandinskaia is Assistant Professor of Finance and Director of Blended Learning at the CIIM (Cyprus International Insti-
tute of Management). She has 20 years of experience in teaching F2F courses in Cyprus, UK and Russia, and 3 years of experi-
ence with online/blended courses. Olga has an extensive record of publications, which include two books.

Elisabeth Katzlinger is assistant professor at the Department of Data Processing in Social Sciences, Economics and Business,
Johannes Kepler University Linz (JKU), Austria. She has degrees in business administration and business education. Her re-
search focus is in business education and technology enhanced learning. Early childhood education and game-based learning
are another research interests

Carolyn King is the Understanding Dementia Massive Open Online Course co-ordinator, a lecturer in the School of Medicine
at the University of Tasmania, and a Wicking Centre Research Associate. She has a PhD in Neuroscience and her research
interests include the biology of dementia, therapeutic approaches in dementia, as well as the scholarship of learning.

Tomoko Kojiri received the B.E., M.E., and Ph.D. degrees from Nagoya University, Japan, in 1998, 2000, and 2003, respective-
ly. From 2003 to 2007, she was a research associate at Nagoya University. From 2007 to 2011, she was an assistant professor
in Nagoya University. Since 2011, she has been an associate professor at Kansai University, Japan.

Katerina Kostolanyova works in the Faculty of Education, Institute of Information and Communication Technologies, Ostrava
in Czech Republic. She specializes in eLearning technology, especially adaptive eLearning. Her further professional growth
focuses on students’ learning styles in the e-Learning environment. She is an author and co-author of almost forty profes-
sional articles and ten e-contents.

Blair Kuntz has been the near and Middle Eastern Studies librarian at the University of Toronto library since 2003. Before
this, he studied Arabic for Foreigners at the Balamand University in Lebanon and Birzeit University in Ramallah, Palestine. He
has also studied Farsi and Turkish at the School of Continuing Studies of the University of Toronto.

xiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

The Art of Teaching Online: Darci Harland – “Shaping” Student Learning

The Art of Teaching Online: Darci Harland – “Shaping” Student
Learning
Program Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]

DARCI HARLAND: I have had the best success with shaping in a public setting
rather than individual. Public shaping occurs for me during discussions.
Remember that shaping has to do with wanting to change behaviors. And so you
can do this in an online discussion by how you respond to students.

So for example, one of the things I like to do that influences how the students will
behave in the future, and when I say behave in this case, I’m talking about how
they will post responses to their peers, by modeling. But I have found that
modeling in and of itself is not usually enough. They just think, well the teacher’s
smarter. Her responses are going to be different than mine.

And in actuality what I’m doing is I’m saying, the way I am posting my responses
to students is modeling what I expect you to do. And I overtly tell them this or
else it’s just lost on them. So I set the requirements for how I want them to
respond in the discussions. I tell them that I will be modeling them, and that they
should be using my responses to their peers as good examples, exemplars, of
how they also can be responding to their peers.

I also then remind them that if I respond to a student, I do kind of expect
everyone to be reading my responses, particularly early in the quarter, just so
that they can get a feel for– get insight on the content, and also how to behave
on the discussion boards.

Another thing I do in shaping, on the discussion boards, is when someone does a
really, really good job, you compliment them. You have to be careful because
you don’t want to isolate people, either really good or really bad, publicly. You
need to be careful about that. But when a student nails it, you want to make sure
that the student who wrote it knows it’s good, and that all the students who are
reading it knows it’s good.

And so you would put a post– a reply post to what they said and say, this is
exactly the kind of post that I am expecting in this course. Great job. Thanks for
your hard work in sharing this, and thank you for writing it so well. Something like
that.

Nearer to the middle and the end of the course, I expect my students to become
more autonomous. So I back off. I don’t reply as much. And I give them more
ownership of what it is that they’re doing. What I feel is very, very dangerous is if
I feel like they’re writing all of their discussion prompts to me. I do not want them
writing to me. I don’t want answers that they think the teacher will like.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

The Art of Teaching Online: Darci Harland – “Shaping” Student Learning

And so again I can shape those behaviors by asking follow up questions. When
they do something I don’t want them to do, I’ll say, oh, that’s a good point you
make, however, what would happen if? And you lead them to the point where
you want them in how you reply to them. Can you add something to this that
would help explain your reasoning on this? Those kinds of replies will help get
the critical thinking that you’re after, and allow students to become more
successful.

Another way you can use shaping in online teaching that you really couldn’t do in
a face to face situation, is use the data in the learning management system.
You’ve got access to how often students log on, how long they’re spending
places. If you have a student who’s struggling, that’s a good thing to do. Go look
and see. If they’re only logging in the day something is due, you have a little
insight into the problem. And so, that can give you information that can then help
you help the student.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2

The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding” Student Learning

The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding”
Student Learning
Program Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]

JOSHUA STERN: To employ scaffolding in you’re teaching, what you do is you
begin with simplified versions of a task, or whatever it is you’re teaching, and you
work your way up to the full task. It’s like a bridge or a scaffold. Think of the
scaffold on a building– it’s like that– or bridge. It supports the learner and allows
the learner to move forward, to progress.

It comes out of social learning theory and it was described by Lev Vygotsky. So
you’ve probably heard of Vygotsky, maybe in your foundations courses. His idea
is that by employing support and instruction and concrete goal setting, can
instructors help bring their students to higher levels of understanding?

It’s like a building. You don’t just start with an entire building built, you start with
the first floor and, with the scaffolding around it, the building grows. You build it
up from the bottom. It’s that same idea with learning.

OK, this approach– scaffolding– works best with individual workers and the key
to it is trust. So you need to build a– and this is a good idea no matter what in
your online classes and it makes your online teaching that much more enjoyabl–
but to build trust. And to create a safe and supportive environment for your
students where you’re able to really interact with them. And they can take
feedback from you and use it, OK?

You can really have substantial learning gains happen using scaffolding, but a
commitment is required by the student and by you as the instructor. So let me
give you an example. I build upon what students already know, slowly leading
them to what they don’t yet know, OK? So you find out where they’re at, meet
them there, and then start bringing them forward or up. Students benefit from this
personal attention and guidance– but, of course, it takes time– by you, the
instructor.

Baby steps– you build baby steps. That’s the scaffolding to help them keep from
getting overwhelmed, OK? I only intervene with the skills that are beyond the
student’s current capability. So if there is something that I know they already
know, that’s their business now. I’m focusing on what they don’t yet know and not
all the way over here, but just outside of what they know, OK?

And so I allow students to complete the tasks as much as possible unassisted.
So I’m not in there doing it for them, but I’m trying to give them a task that’s a little
bit harder than what they’re able to do and have them do it the best they can.
And I expect students to make errors. And I have in my mind time built in to give

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding” Student Learning

feedback and prompting and specific, concrete instruction on how to move them
forward. But it is intended for students to make mistakes and learn that way.

I try to stand back, as much as possible, and watch students grow in their ability.
Rather than pushing them forward, I allow them to figure it out but make sure that
the task is only a little bit harder than what they already know how to do. So in
time, students grow in their ability incrementally and they also increasingly take
responsibility for themselves and their learning experience.

And they move forward until they master the task. And as they do that, as that
progression is happening, I slowly fade out. I fade out of the process. What that
means is I gradually remove the scaffolding. It allows the students to work
independently and have success.

OK, and a concrete example that I do in my teaching is when I’m teaching
educational foundations course, theory is complex in its nature and not all
students do well with it. For some, it’s brand new and they really struggle. And so
to introduce a really complex theory right out of nowhere is like trying to create a
building in one go. You need to lead students toward the most complex version
through scaffolding.

And so let’s say I’m teaching two theories that overlap, have some differences,
and ultimately I want them to be able to compare and contrast them and fully
understand them, OK? Do I start with that task? Not necessarily. Some students
can handle that, some can’t. And so, based on feedback that I’ve received in
previous times I’ve taught the course, I understand that this is an area that
students struggle with. And what I’ve decided to do is build some scaffolding in
so that most of them have the best chance of success possible.

And so I start by teaching the basic concepts of each theory and I teach them
separately, OK? And what I’m looking for is to see if students can differentiate the
two theories. Are they able to understand what one theory is and what the other
theory is? Maybe they understand that, right? But they’re not able to differentiate
between them in application, OK? So that’s where I want to get them to.

So I customize my teaching and what I do is I explain the differences in the
theories with lots of examples, OK? That would be the next step. And then, once
the class is able to understand the differences, then maybe I move on to more
complex subjects like how the theories overlap, exceptions to the rules in the
theories, counter theories that impacted them throughout history, et cetera.
There’s lots of different things that you would move on.

But so what I start out is the basic level of the theories, then the comparison and
contrasting of the theories, the theories in application, These are all pieces of the
scaffolding. And, as I move in those steps, students work their way up the
scaffolding and they tend to have more success. Takes a little more time– some

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2

The Art of Teaching Online: Joshua Stern – “Scaffolding” Student Learning

students can buzz right through it really quickly, other students are going to really
need it.

And so I highly recommend building this in. Now, I’m not saying to do this for
everything that you teach in your class, but do it for the things that seem complex
or that you see students are struggling with. Teach a class a couple of times and
you will know where the trouble spots are.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 3

Journal of Interactive Online Learning
www.ncolr.org/jiol

Volume 13, Number 3, Spring 2015
ISSN: 1541-4914

 

 

 

112
 

Student Perspectives of Assessment Strategies in Online Courses

Scott Bailey, Stacy Hendricks, and Stephanie Applewhite
Stephen F. Austin State University

Abstract

Engaging professional adults in an online environment is a common challenge for online
instructors. Often the temptation or commonly used approach is to mirror face-to-face strategies
and practices. One premise of this study is that all strategies used in an online environment are
assessment strategies, and as such should be considered for their value in measuring student
experiences. This research study investigated student responses within a principal preparation
course to the use of twelve assessment strategies that included: work samples, “Twitter”
summaries, audio recordings, traditional papers, screencast/videos using “YouTube”, group
projects, open discussion, paired discussion, response to video, field experiences, quizzes, and
interviews. The redesigned course used in this research allowed the researchers to experiment
with both traditional and innovative strategies within an online environment to determine how
students perceive the value of each assessment strategy. Student experiences were measured in
terms of level of enjoyment, level of engagement, and the extent to which students believed the
assessments would result in the creation of knowledge that could be transferred to future
professional practice. The results indicate that students prefer assignments that are less-
traditional and which fully incorporate the technological tools available.

Online teaching is here to stay. With each passing semester, more college courses—and
even entire degree programs—move online. The question is no longer one of whether teaching
online is effective; the question now rests on how to maximize its effectiveness. Answering that
question, or maximizing the effectiveness of online teaching and learning, requires online
instructors to shift their attention “from the technology tools to the pedagogical practices and use
of the tools” (Redmond, 2011, p. 1058) and “to make a transformational shift in their approach to
teaching from one of disseminating information to one of creating learning environments where
students co-construct knowledge through interactions” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 61). Johnson and
Aragon (2003) addressed the issue head on: “the challenge for instructional designers is to devise
ways to incorporate the most effective and innovative instructional strategies in courses delivered
over the Internet” (p. 33). This study accepted that challenge and examined the experiences of
students engaging in a variety of teaching through assessment strategies embedded in the
redesign of an online educational leadership course.

For years, one regional university supported face-to-face, hybrid, and online delivery of
courses in an educational leadership program. Recently, driven by the realities of economics and

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

113
 

student demand, the entire program moved online. Despite contradictory evidence (Johnson &
Aragon, 2003; Whitlock, 2001), the online course offerings have, to date, closely mirrored their
face-to-face predecessors. With both the quality and quantity of online teaching tools expanding
rapidly, the authors reexamined how their online courses were designed and presented to
students. The review of literature revealed several relevant themes that influenced the
subsequent course redesign (Johnson & Aragon, 2003; Laurillard et al., 2011; Redmond, 2011),
including: (a) engagement (Kearsley & Shneiderman,1998; O’Brien & Toms, 2008; Schlechty,
2001; Steinbronn & Merideth, 2008); (b) instructor and Learner roles and responsibility
(Cunningham, 2010; Moore, Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011); and (c) teaching through
assessment (Edwards, 2012; Gayton & McEwen, 2007). Each of these themes was significant to
both course development and research design.

Review of Literature

An outside observer could ostensibly conclude that learning online is different from

learning in a conventional classroom, yet research indicates that might not be true (Johnson &
Aragon, 2003; Russell, 1999; Steinbronn & Merideth 2008). In terms of learning outcomes,
Steinbrom and Merideth (2008) found “no statistical difference when using online or face-to-face
formats” (p. 266). However, what happens during the learning processes to achieve those
outcomes does differ. The relationships between the instructor and the students and the content
and the process change in important ways, namely: “learners become more active in their
responsibility for learning,” and instructors serve as the “facilitator, strategist, and coordinator
for the learning activities” (p. 266). These changes inform the theoretical framework for this
study which is grounded on the premise that, as learners become more responsible for their
learning, instructors are tasked with redesigning their courses to successfully engage the learners
to achieve the course objectives.
Engagement Theory

The changes in instructor/student relationships described by Steinbronn and Merideth
(2008) mesh well with the “engagement theory” developed in the infancy of online learning by
Kearsley and Shneiderman (1998), who presented engagement theory as

a model for learning in technology-based environments. The major premise is that
students must be engaged in their coursework in order for effective learning to occur. The
theory posits three primary means to accomplish engagement: (1) an emphasis on
collaborative efforts, (2) project-based assignments, and (3) non-academic focus. It is
suggested that these three methods result in learning that is creative, meaningful, and
authentic. (p. 23)

In their view, students become engaged when they interact with others and complete meaningful
work, and it is the meaningful nature of those interactions that creates the intrinsic motivation
required for their success as learners. The meaning of an assignment is created when the student
makes connections to their immediate context (Cunningham, 2010), which for these courses was
the emerging school administrator. The technology involved with the online presentation is just
a means to create and deliver these experiences and is not a focus of the course. However, taking
into consideration possible differences between classroom engagement and online engagement
proves useful in the re-design of an online course.
O’Brien and Toms (2008) conducted a study to “critically deconstruct the term
engagement as it applies to peoples’ experiences with technology” (abstract), considering

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

114
 

pleasure or enjoyment as a measurable factor linked to a person’s level of engagement. Other
measured attributes included “feedback, intrinsic motivation, fun, user control, and interactivity”
(p. 940), with these attributes contributing to the survey design of this research study and was
used to justify the inclusion of “enjoyable” as a valid factor. The results of O’Brien and Toms
(2008) yielded a “common trajectory for engaging experiences” that they describe as
“experiential threads” which included: “the point of engagement, period of engagement,
disengagement, and reengagement” (p. 943).
As Schlechty (2001) noted, “to be student centered is not to cater to student whims.
Rather, it is to understand the students and the things that motivate them better than the students
understand their own motivations” (p. 29). Further, “students learn from what they do” (p. 63),
so the first thing instructional designers must focus upon is developing assignments that students
will do, as no learning will occur until students actually do something. To create those
assignments, instructional designers must tap into their students’ motives. O’Brien and Toms
(2008) affirmed Schechty’s ideals in their study, identifying the period of engagement of the
study participants as “marked by the attention [they] were able to focus on their task and the
application, the novelty of the experience, their level of interest, and their perceptions of
challenge, feedback, and user control inherent in the interaction” (p. 943).
The types of assignments that Schlechty (2001) discussed are precisely the ones needed
to engage online learners. These assignments cause students to “experience a sense of
satisfaction, accomplishment, pride, and sometimes delight;” they “result in students’ persisting
with the tasks assigned until their work meets the desired standard;” and, they result in “students
learning those things they need to know to do well” (p. 71).

Re-Designed Online Instructional Framework
While modern educators recognize the importance of student engagement and the
pathways to achieve it in traditional classrooms, including project-based, situational, and
collaborative learning, Johnson and Aragon (2003) noted that those innovations often do not
transfer to the online courses instructors create; instead, those courses reflect more “traditional”
forms of instruction focused on the transmission/recitation of information between the instructor
and the students. That more traditional framework will not stimulate the engagement Kearsley
and Shneiderman (1998) deemed necessary for student success online. In short, “the challenge
for instructional designers is to devise ways to incorporate the most effective and innovative
instructional strategies in [online] courses” (p. 33), and they are not meeting this challenge
(Johnson & Aragon, 2003). In essence, these online courses become correspondence courses,
centered around readings or recorded lectures followed by quizzes or tests over the content.
In response, Johnson and Aragon (2003) synthesized elements of behavioral, cognitive,
and social learning theories to develop a “synergistic” (p. 34) framework that instructional
designers can utilize to guide the development of more engaging and student-centered online
courses. Accordingly, the framework consists of elements that “(1) address individual
differences, (2) motivate the student, (3) avoid information overload, (4) create a real-life
context, (5) encourage social interaction, (6) provide hands-on activities, and (7) encourage
student reflection” (p. 34). This framework serves as an extension of the engagement theory
proposed earlier (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998) and a practical way to visualize a course
construct similar to Gayton and McEwen (2007) in which students affirmed high levels of online
engagement through a variety of assignments that served as assessments.

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

115
 

Re-Designed Instructor and Student Roles and Responsibilities
The instructor’s responsibility is now to re-design activities or assessments that follow
the guidelines of the framework and successfully engage and motivate students to accomplish the
desired learning outcomes. The redesign process involves a re-discovery of roles and
responsibilities because the teacher is no longer the lecturer, but instead transforms out of the
traditional identity into a facilitator or designer (Cunningham, 2010; Moore et al., 2011;
Redmond, 2011). For some, this process is terribly challenging, and one solution to overcoming
that challenge is to reach out to others who are also re-designing their courses.
Laurillard et al. (2011) suggested that collaborative design strategies were found to be
useful for academics to create meaningfully designed online courses. Their study was designed
to investigate the value of an interactive design tool that allowed the sharing of strategies,
experiences, testing of ideas, and sharing of results.
The idea of a “Community of Inquiry” (CoI) (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer,
2001; Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Cunningham, 2010; Redmond, 2011) was researched for its
value to the online learning environment. CoI framework involves the intersection of three
components, all of which are framed as a type of “presence” that included social, cognitive, and
teaching presence (Akyol & Garrison, 2008). As Cunningham (2010) discussed, the idea of
presence in an online environment causes both instructors and learners to assess their traditional
assumptions about their roles and responsibilities in the learning process.
The assumptions that Cunningham (2010) challenged as needing to change included:
“students do not learn without a teacher present” (p. 92); “my students cannot possibly
understand this textual content without my lectures;” and finally the assumptions that both
teachers and students hold regarding their views of what learning looks like and how it occurs (p.
93). Cunningham (2010) concluded that “understanding the needs of a self-directed student is
paramount for a successful course design” (p. 99). Moore et al. (2011) conducted research on the
roles in the online learning environment and found that even when given survey answer choices
to identify themselves as “instructor/facilitator, designer, and evaluator” (p. 132) the majority of
the teacher-participants selected the answer choice of “instructor” which validated the
assumptions Cunningham (2010) discussed.
In an effort to further the understandings of how students perceive their experiences in
the online environment, the researchers of this study, using the literature as a guide, determined it
was necessary to re-design their online courses using a collaborative planning approach, and
developed a tool to measure the students’ level of engagement with the newly implemented
strategies.

Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ perceptions of various assessment
strategies, with the intent of determining which strategies students find most engaging and
meaningful. These three questions guided the study:

1. Which assessment strategies do students find enjoyable?
2. Which assessment strategies do students believe create meaningful engagement?
3. Which assessment strategies do students perceive as likely to create knowledge that will

transfer to practice?

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

116
 

Method

This study followed a descriptive format, relying on student-perception data collected
from an online survey. An email with the link to the online survey was sent to the course email
addresses of all the students concurrently enrolled in both courses under study (N = 51) and was
followed by a reminder email three days later. The survey window was open for five days, or the
final week of the course (so that the students had time to complete all of the assessments).
Thirty-five students responded, yielding a response rate of 69%.
The idea of learning design through peer collaboration (Laurillard et al., 2011) inspired
the partnership of researchers in this study. Focusing on two introductory courses to the
principal preparation program, the authors redesigned the courses to make them more conducive
to online delivery and structured them so students would work through the courses in parallel,
utilizing the same texts and resources.

For the purposes of this study, all learning activities are referred to as assessments,
because all activities formatively assess student progress (Edwards, 2012; Gayton & McEwen,
2007).

In accordance with engagement theory and the instructional framework discussed earlier,
a key component of this process was driven by the researchers’ desire to increase student
interactions with the professor, other students, and most importantly, the content. To that end, the
redesign acknowledged that, in an online setting, learning is highly self-directed (Cunningham,
2010; Johnson & Aragon, 2003); and, it is precisely that dependence on self-direction that begs
for the creation of engaging assessments. Recognizing that interaction with course content results
in knowledge creation and that learning occurs most intensely during the assessment process
(Edwards, 2012), the authors imbedded multiple assessment methods in the courses to engage
students with the content in varied ways. A total of 12 assessment strategies were included in the
course and subjected to analysis, and together, these strategies addressed all seven of the
elements outlined in the online instructional framework developed by Johnson and Aragon
(2003).

The assessments included:
1. Work Samples: Supplied with either a data set or a scenario, students produced

documents replicating ones they would actually create as practicing administrators,
such as a campus plan, a professional development plan, a campus needs assessment,
and a professional growth plan for a teacher in need of assistance.

2. “Twitter” Summaries: Students followed Twitter guidelines to summarize each
chapter of a course textbook in 140 characters or less.

3. Audio Recording: In lieu of written artifacts, students submitted audio recordings of
themselves explaining important concepts as they might explain them to parents,
faculty, or other groups.

4. Traditional Paper: Students wrote and submitted traditional papers of various lengths
(2, 5, and 8 pages) or used the textbook to respond in writing to a series of questions.

5. Screencast/Video: Students were required to locate and download screencasting
software which was utilized to create a screencast with embedded video of
themselves. Then they uploaded the screencast to a private YouTube channel for
instructor and class viewing. This assignment simulated the students’ introducing
themselves and their professional priorities as an administrator to the faculty at a new
school.

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

117
 

6. Group Project: After being randomly assigned to groups, students worked together to
complete tasks and submit one finished written product representative of the group.
Most students utilized the communication tools embedded in the course (email,
private discussion boards, and chat tools), yet some relied on other publicly available
tools from outside the course.

7. Open Discussion: Topics were posted to the course discussion board, and students
created original posts to add to the board and reply to other students’ posts. Students
interacted with the entire class (30 students).

8. Paired Discussion: Students were grouped (2-5 students) and discussed the
assignment topics only within that group. Students could only view responses within
their group.

9. Respond to Video: Rather than respond in writing to a text, students responded in
writing to a video. They accessed and watched a one-hour documentary, streamed
through the course management system, and produced a written analysis.

10. Field Experiences: Students must complete field experience hours (20 hours/course).
Students choose what activities to engage in to complete these hours as best suits their
needs and interests, but the activities must be outside the scope of their regular jobs.
At the end of the course, students submit a log of their hours and a written reflection.

11. Quizzes: These quizzes were short, multiple-choice quizzes designed to test students’
factual knowledge of the content immediately after it was presented. Quizzes were
auto-graded, with the grade immediately released to the student.

12. Interviews: Students interviewed practicing school administrators. For each assigned
topic, students interviewed two administrators and synthesized their work into a
summative reflection.

Participants
The participants were graduate students in the educational leadership program
concurrently enrolled in each of two sections (four sections total) of the authors’ two courses
under study. Of the 35 respondents, 18 (51%) were male and 17 (49%) were female. They were
relatively equally split among age groups, with 14 (40%) occupying the 25-35 years span, 10
(29%) in the 36-45 years span, and 11 (31%) in the 46+ years span. The respondents self-
identified as technologically proficient. Thirty-one (89%) have owned a computer for more than
eight years, and 26 (74%) had taken online classes before.

Instrument
The online survey used to collect student perception data was developed and designed by
the authors specifically to address the research questions. The authors checked the survey for
face and content validity with colleagues in the department and graduate students in one of the
author’s research classes.

The survey consisted of twelve sections, with each section representing a different
assessment strategy. Each section included a brief description of the assessment strategy and a
reminder of the assignments which represented that strategy. Respondents answered three
questions about each assessment strategy according to three criteria.

First, students rated each strategy in terms of enjoyableness, guided by the following
choices: A = very enjoyable; B = somewhat enjoyable; C = just another assignment; and, D = not
enjoyable at all. The survey defined enjoyable as “resulting in pleasure or satisfaction both while

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

118
 

working on and after completing the assignment,” and asked students to “think about how you
felt in regards to the process of completing the assignment.”
Then, students evaluated the level of engagement each strategy engendered, with the
following choices: A = highly engaging; B = moderately engaging; C = just another assignment,
and; D = not engaging at all. The survey defined engaging as “heightening interest, motivation,
and attention brought to task” and asked students to “think about how the assignment caused you
to interact with the course content.”

Next, students estimated the degree to which each strategy helped generate knowledge
applicable to their future practice using the following options: A = always apply directly to
professional practice as an administrator; B = sometimes apply to professional practice; C =
rarely apply to professional practice; and, D = never apply to professional practice. The
instructions directed students to “think about whether you believe the knowledge gained from
this assignment resulted in something you could utilize as a practicing administrator.”

Finally, students were presented with an open-ended response box asking for “additional
comments about or suggestions for these types of assessments.” Once the survey window closed,
the authors utilized the tools built into the survey collection program to disaggregate the
responses.

Limitations

This study was limited in that the researchers relied on a non-standard data collection
instrument and utilized a small sample of convenience. These factors prevent the results of the
study from being generalized to a different population, but the results remain relevant as points
of discussion to work toward program improvement.

Results and Discussion

This study asked students in an educational leadership program to rate 12 assessment
strategies utilized in two of their online courses on the criteria of enjoyableness, engagement, and
the degree to which they believed the knowledge gained from completing the assessments could
be transferred to future practice as an administrator. The final percentage ratings are summarized
in Table 1. These ratings, along with anecdotal evidence taken from the students’ open-ended
responses, were used to provide a descriptive view of students’ feelings toward their experience
with online assessments.

Overview

Overall, students indicated an overwhelmingly positive experience. Thirty-five students
rated twelve assessments on three criteria, constituting a total of 1,260 responses. Of that total,
only 19 responses (1.5%) were negative and 145 (11.5%) were neutral, meaning that 1,096
responses (87.0%) were moderately to highly positive.

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

119
 

Table 1
Student Ratings of Assessment Methods by Percentage

Level of Agreement
Assessment Methods High Moderate Neutral Not at All
Work Samples

Enjoyableness 29 63 3 6
Engagement 40 57 3 0
Transferability 74 26 0 0
Twitter Summary Enjoyableness 71 20 6 3
Engagement 71 23 6 0
Transferability 71 23 6 0
Audio Recording Enjoyableness 54 26 11 9
Engagement 60 23 17 0
Transferability 54 34 11 0
Traditional Paper Enjoyableness 23 46 23 9
Engagement 31 40 26 3
Transferability 51 40 9 0
Screencast/Video Enjoyableness 49 40 6 6
Engagement 71 20 9 0
Transferability 71 23 6 0
Group Projects Enjoyableness 46 34 20 0
Engagement 54 23 23 0
Transferability 49 46 6 0
Open Discussion Enjoyableness 31 52 17 0
Engagement 37 51 11 0
Transferability 43 51 6 0
Paired Discussion Enjoyableness 34 49 14 3
Engagement 40 43 17 0
Transferability 43 40 17 0
Respond to Video

Enjoyableness 91 9 0 0
Engagement 91 9 0 0
Transferability 91 9 0 0
Field Experiences

Enjoyableness 57 31 9 3
Engagement 74 17 6 3
Transferability 83 14 3 0

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

120
 

Quizzes
Enjoyableness 9 40 46 6

Engagement 17 31 49 3
Transferability 23 54 20 3
Interviews

Enjoyableness 66 26 9 0
Engagement 83 14 3 0
Transferability 83 17 0 0

For the individual assessments, students rated the response to video the highest in terms

of enjoyableness (91%), followed by the twitter summaries (71%) and the interviews (66%). In
terms of engagement, the response to video was again rated highest (91%) and was followed by
the interviews (83%) and field experiences (74%). For the final criterion of transferability of
knowledge, the response to video was rated highest for the third time (91%), trailed by the field
experiences and interviews (83%) each.
Using the “neutral” response as a guide, students judged the quizzes (46%), the
traditional paper (23%), and the group projects (17%) least enjoyable. The same three
assessments were ranked in the same order in terms of being the least engaging (quizzes, 49%;
traditional paper, 26%; and group projects 23%, respectively). For the assessments that produced
the least transferable knowledge, the quizzes again received the top neutral ranking (20%),
followed by the paired discussion (17%) and the audio recording (11%). Due to their small
number, the negative, or “not at all” responses were not included and the “neutral” responses
were used as a proxy for the negative response.

Individual Assessments
Response to video. The highest rated assessment across all categories was the response
to video. There was only one assessment that fit this category, and the video to which the
students responded was a 50 minute documentary that tracked the struggles of two principals.
From prior experience in other classes, students almost always unanimously agree that the video
is inspiring, moving, and very enjoyable; many students have reported watching it several times.
Initially, the researchers attributed the high ratings for this assignment to the failure of the
students to separate the quality of the video from the quality of the assignment; in other words,
did students respond positively simply because they liked the video or was it because they
actually liked the assignment? The answer to that question was found in their open-ended
responses. Comments included,

“Enjoyed something visual for once.”
“It is REAL LIFE! You can’t beat that.”
“Able to learn from someone else’s experience.”
“ROLE MODELING. Now I’m better able to synthesize the readings. Very

effective.”
“Loved this assignment and the movie. It really helped give me a vision of the

kind of principal I would like to become.”
These comments indicate that the students found value in the assignment beyond watching an
enjoyable video. The video provided a real-world connection and a visual hook for the other
work completed in the course. The video assignment addressed three criteria of the online

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

121
 

instructional strategy framework (Johnson & Aragon, 2003): it was motivational, created a real-
life context, and encouraged reflection.

Interactive assignments. Another important criterion established in the online
instructional strategy framework (Johnson & Aragon, 2003) was that assignments should
encourage social interaction. A number of assessments met that criterion, including the group
projects, both the open and paired discussions, the field experiences, and the interviews.
Interestingly, and contrary to the expected benefit of student-to-student collaboration, students
gave relatively low rankings in terms of enjoyment, engagement, and transferability to the
assessments requiring interaction with other students (the discussions and group projects). The
comments left by students were split evenly between the view that these interactive assessments
were positive because they did foster interactions with others and the more negative view which
frowned on the fact that these assessments bound students to one another in terms of time and
content. Responses ranged from “loved the collaboration” and “enjoyed working as a team” to
“poor group experience” and “I did not find this particularly productive.” Most students took a
neutral position, best captured by the individual who stated, “I felt like it was the typical
classroom group project: even if each person is involved throughout the entire process, one
person is still stuck compiling it all. It was, though, an excellent way for the three of us to get to
know each other a bit more even if we’ve never seen one another.” Or as another student
succinctly stated, these are “a necessary evil.”
However, assessments such as the field experiences and interviews which required
interaction with practicing professionals were rated much higher than activities promoting
interaction with other students. Students rated these activities particularly high in terms of
transferability, reflecting those ratings in their comments, such as:

“I got loads of real perspective that is hard to get from a book or lecture.”
“I learned more from talking to a professional in the field than I would have from

reading about it.”
“I learned more from the field experiences than anything.”

The only negative comments related to these assignments were that success depended on finding
cooperative administrators who would facilitate the process and the concern that not all students
have “stellar examples” to work with. Yet again, one student best captured the general feeling of
the group, noting that “when doing these types of assignments, you are actually getting
information that you can use because the people giving the information are in the position that
we are trying to get to.”
Work Samples. As a group, the work samples forced students to produce the types of
documents they would produce as administrators, including campus plans, professional
development plans, and teacher growth plans. These assessments meet the criteria (Johnson &
Aragon, 2003) of addressing individual differences, creating real-life contexts, providing hands-
on activities, and encouraging reflection. Students recognized the importance of these activities
to their futures as administrators by the high transferability rating (74%) awarded; however, they
did not rate them as particularly enjoyable or engaging. The student comments reflected these
ratings:

“Some of these assignments were time consuming, but at the end I think they will give us
a good perception of real world scenarios, which is something positive.”

“These assignments provide insight into real job scenarios that I can utilize and develop
my skills as a professional.”

“They are very complex . . . [but] were like training for a real job.”

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

122
 

In fact, the complex nature of these assignments led seven students to mention the need for
clearer instructions, with four students noting that a video-based explanation would complement
the written instructions well.

Twitter Summary. Based on the combined ratings and the number of positive comments
(14) this was the most “popular” assessment. For this assessment, students summarized book
chapters as “tweets” (140 character or less statements). It fit the framework (Johnson & Aragon,
2003) by avoiding information overload and encouraging reflection. Students remarked:

“This assignment helps us keep up with the times that we live in and allows us to think
outside the box and move away from comfort zones.”

“This assignment was challenging, but fun when I put my mind to it.”
“Summarizing like this really helped me think about how I could apply the information.”

Additionally, seven students said they had “stolen” this assignment to use in their own
classrooms, with one noting, “I totally stole this and have begun using it with my students! They
love it, it is effective, and grading is actually interesting now!”
Audio/Video production. Two assessments comprise this category. For one, students
had to role-play a conversation explaining the information gleaned from a required reading, and
for the other, students had to create a screencast with embedded video of themselves conducting
a mock presentation. These assessments fit the framework (Johnson & Aragon, 2003) by
addressing individual differences, motivating the students, creating real-life contexts, providing
hands-on activities, and encouraging reflection. For both assignments, some students expressed
concern about technological difficulties. All of the software for the audio was embedded in the
course delivery system, while the students did have to locate and download free screencasting
software to complete the video assignment. Most of the problems students encountered were
software-related and were resolved when students updated their browser software, switched
browsers, updated Flash player, or adjusted their JAVA settings.
The success of the audio submission was tempered by the fact that many of the students
were uncomfortable hearing a recording of themselves (6 comments), with one admitting it “was
kind of weird.” Still, students recognized the value of converting the text to the spoken word,
noting:

“I still remember this assignment and the material it covered. It has lasted.”
“Not the ‘norm,’ but you truly had to know the information to have the pretend

conversation.”
“It was an out of the box assignment. I liked that it was different. Plus, I am a talker. It

was nice to be able to do something orally and not just written.”
Interestingly, this was the only assignment for which a student wrote that he or she “personally
did not enjoy this assignment.” Unfortunately, there was no elaboration as to why.
As was the case for the audio submission, many students (8) commented on the
technological challenges they encountered while creating the screencast and posting to YouTube.
However, most (6) followed up with a statement indicating how valuable the experience was
because it forced them to use technology they should already know how to use, or as one
comically stated, “to be like the average 6th grader.” Only one student reported having used these
tools before. Overall, comments were positive, including:

“When I read the assignment I dreaded having to do it so I procrastinated, but I actually
enjoyed it once I got started.”

“That was a new experience for me and took a TON of time, but I learned so MUCH.”

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

123
 

“Although the content covered and the synthesis involved was deep and thorough, and
greatly needed, the technological aspect of it was incredibly frustrating. However, I’m
chalking that up to a ridiculous machine on my end.”

“Learning something new is always great for me. If I can use it past the current class,
that’s a bonus!”

Connections to Review of Literature

This study indicated students find assignments they view as innovative more enjoyable,

more engaging—and especially important to the business of preparing future educational
leaders—more likely to create knowledge that is transferable to future practice. Schlechty (2001)
maintained that students learn more when they work on assignments that mattered to them.
Based on the student comments regarding the assignments evaluated in this study, the authors
agree with that assertion. To wit, one student wrote in an unsolicited email to one of the
researchers:

I shared almost everything I learned with my co-workers. I found these assignments to
be thought provoking and reflective. Prompted me to look at things in a different way.
Shifted my thinking and kept me engaged! I really enjoyed being evaluated in ways other
than boring papers!

That sentiment is a salient reminder to continue the push to find more creative, unique, and
innovative ways to engage students and tap into the intrinsic motivation arising from the
meaningful character of the assessments (Vaughn, 2010).

Implications for Practice

As noted previously, the students responded in an overwhelmingly positive fashion to the

course as a whole. Even the lowest-rated assessment, the quizzes, received a 49% positive rating.
When looking at the results, however, it is clear that students preferred assessments with some
sort of innovative feature over the more traditional assessments (quizzes and papers), or as one
student referred to them, the “throwback assignments.” When writing about the traditional
paper, one student captured the spirit of the group by stating, “I understand there has to be a
‘variety’ of assignments. I was just spoiled with the ‘fun’ assignments so it wasn’t that this was
bad, it just didn’t meet the same standard as the other assignments.” Considering the positive
student responses to the assessment strategies under review, the online instructional strategy
framework developed by Johnson and Aragon (2003) proved to be useful and effective tool for
guiding assessment design.

Steinbronn and Merideth (2008) asserted that many professors are more comfortable
using traditional methods found in face-to-face teaching environments. But professors are in the
business of promoting student learning, or more specifically, in the business of creating work
that will engage students and result in learning (Schlechty, 2001); they are not in the business of
promoting professor comfort. As Redmond (2011) noted, professors need to redefine themselves
and their practices in order to create highly engaging online learning environments. The
overarching implication of this study is that online professors and online instructional designers
must move away from their comfort zones in pursuit of more innovative instructional strategies
and assessments that will engage students, because, through their own voices, this is what

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

124
 

students say they want. After all, a more engaged student is a student who will, ostensibly, learn
more (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998).

Further, though students report some difficulties with the technologies involved, this
study indicates that students are willing to “push [their] own envelopes,” as one commented, to
complete assessments that engage them in novel ways and produce learning experiences
extending beyond the actual course content. Online instructional designers should reciprocate by
pushing their own envelopes to produce the types of assessments that students find most
beneficial and most engaging.

Finally, students self-report the value of interacting with professionals in the field and
participating in experiences that approximate, as closely as possible, authentic work-related
tasks. Increasing the frequency, accuracy, and depth of these types of assessments will be
important moving forward. All of the students in the program are working professionals with a
specific end-goal in sight: certification. As such, they recognize the inherent value in tasks that
equip them with the skills and knowledge required for future success, or as one student aptly
noted, “I think these assignments are what you put into [them]. I gave 100% to these assignments
so I could learn as much as possible and not look like a fool once I do get a job.”

Recommendations for Future Research

The researchers were satisfied with the initial findings of this project, but feel that an

extension of the study would allow for a greater understanding of how the students viewed the
transferability of the methods into their own practice. Gender and age connections may also
prove useful for strategically designing online courses. The need for pedagogical research to
inform online instructors of how to better infuse their courses with highly engaging and
meaningful teaching as assessment strategies is needed, as much of the current research simply
measures how traditional practices transfer into the online learning environment. This study
indicated that students positively engaged in activities that were uniquely situated within an
online space; therefore, additional research into the use of creative assessment approaches would
be valuable.

Journal of Interactive Online Learning Baily, Hendricks, and Applewhite

 

 

 

125
 

References

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a
computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in
an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and
teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 3-22.

Cunningham, J. (2010). Self-direction: A critical tool in distance learning. Common Ground
Journal, 7(2), 89-100. Retrieved from www.commongroundjournal.org

Edwards, S. (2012). Teaching through assessment: Reconsidering the transfer problem through a
convergence of technology and assessment in the early childhood teacher education.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(5), 585-599. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.709733

Gayton, J. & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies.
American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653

Johnson, S. & Aragon, S. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning
environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003 (100), 31-43.

Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based
teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.

Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dunajioiykism D., Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G., . . .
Whittlestone, K. (2011). A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model
learning designs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1).
doi:10.111/j.1365-2729.2011.00458.x

Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, and
distance learning environment: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education, 14,
129-135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001

O’Brien, H. L. & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for
defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 59(6), 938-955. doi:10.1002/asi.20801

Redmond, P. (2011). From face-to-face to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions. In G.
Williams, P. Slatham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing
Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011. (pp. 1050-1060). Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Redmond-full

Russell, T. L. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina
State University Press.

Schelchty, P. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support and sustain educational
innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steinbronn, P. & Meredith, E. (2008). Perceived utility of methods and instructional strategies
used in online and face-to-face teaching environments. Innovative Higher Education,
32(5), 265-278.

Vaughn, N. D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement
and course redesign. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 60-65.

Whitlock, Q. (2001). Course design for online learning: What’s gone wrong. In J. Stephenson
(Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 182-191).
London, England: Kogan Page.

Copyright of Journal of Interactive Online Learning is the property of Board of Trustees of
the University of Alabama and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.