You are here:

Web Versus Face-to-Face Tutorials: Why I Didn’t Go To Class In My Pyjamas
PROCEEDINGS

, , Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Canada ; , Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Canada ; , Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Montréal, Quebec, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-98-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This study compared attendance for web versus face-to-face versions of undergraduate Introductory Psychology tutorials. Attendance records as well as students’ reported reasons for attending one or the other tutorial medium are explored. Despite the overwhelming convenience of attending a web tutorial held at an inconvenient time, many students preferred the face-to-face option held at the same time. Moreover, despite the richness afforded by the web medium to communicate via voice, video, screens, and text, many students elected to utilize more impoverished communications methods. Students’ reasons and behaviour in this study are relevant to the implementation and success of web learning in post-secondary education. Only by addressing student preferences, priorities, and needs can educators hope to achieve the pedagogical goals associated with blended classrooms.

Citation

Tsuji, B., Pierre, A., Van Roon, P. & Vendetti, C. (2012). Web Versus Face-to-Face Tutorials: Why I Didn’t Go To Class In My Pyjamas. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2012--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 1 (pp. 802-806). Montréal, Quebec, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 4, 2023 from .

© 2012 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Educause (2010). The seven things you should know about the HyFlex course model. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7066.pdf.
  2. Finegold, A.R.D., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the attitudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in online groups. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 201-215.
  3. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.
  4. Hughes, J.A. (2005). Supporting the online learner. In T. Anderson& F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Canada: Athabasca
  5. 15).Lenhart, A. (2010). Teens, cell phones, and texting. Pew Research Center Publications. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1572/teens-cell-phones-text-messages
  6. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (3rd ed.). New York, Wiley.
  7. Smyth, S., Houghton, C., Cooney, A., Casey, D. (2012). Students' experiences of blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes. Nurse Education Today, 32, 464-468.
  8. Twigg, C.A. (2004). Using asynchronous learning in redesign: Reaching and retaining the at-risk student. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(1), 7-15.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections