You are here:

Interacting with Purpose: What is the Difference Between Face-to-Face and Online Student Relationships in a Combined Program? PROCEEDING

, , , Michigan State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This presentation reflects the first phase of analysis of a study that gathered data about student relationships in a doctoral program. This program is unusual, because face-to-face and online students are combined in a single program so the interaction and maintenance of student relationships relies on computer-mediated communication. As this is the first phase of our analysis, this presentation will focus on the types of relationships the students within the group have with each other, the technologies they use to interact, and the purposes they are fulfilling by interacted with each other. Our analysis indicates the types of relationships and interaction that students prefer and choose differs by mode of participation (face-to-face and online) and by students’ year in the program.We will also use this session to solicit feedback for our next phases of analysis.

Citation

Peterson, A., Freer, D. & Rosenberg, J. (2017). Interacting with Purpose: What is the Difference Between Face-to-Face and Online Student Relationships in a Combined Program?. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3411-3414). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 20, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F., & D’Ambra, J. (2011). Enhancing non-task sociability of asynchronous CSCL environments. Computers& Education, 57, 2535–2547.
  2. Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F., & D’Ambra, J. (2012). Do nontask interactions matter? The relationship between nontask sociability of computer supported collaborative learning and learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 385–397.
  3. Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). PhD completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline data. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, 1–23.
  4. Felmlee, D.H. (2006). Interaction in social networks. In Handbook of social psychology (pp. 389-409). Springer.
  5. House, J.S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K.R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology, 293–318.
  6. McPherson, M., & Nunes, M.B. (2004). The failure of a virtual social space (VSS) designed to create a learning community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 305–321.
  7. Muilenburg, L.Y., & Berge, Z.L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26, 29–48.
  8. Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging 15, 18-21.
  9. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
  10. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  11. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 82.
  12. Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 167-177.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.