1 of 59

Intentional Active Learning in Online Courses: An Exploration of the Integration of Active Learning Through the ICAP Framework in Online Course Design and Its Relationship with Students, Instructional Designers, and Faculty

Dr. Blair Stamper

@instructionaldesignrockstar

Be an Instructional Design Rockstar Podcast

​

2 of 59

Problem of Practice

3 of 59

​

​

​

Problem of Practice

​

Problem

Evidence

Faculty struggle with transitioning face-to-face active learning strategies to the online modality.

Emergency remote learning has exacerbated online learning misconceptions (Burke, 2020; Hodges et al., 2020).

In-class active learning activities do not transfer 1:1 (Khan et al., 2017; Sanga, 2017).

Faculty are often inexperienced in how to design an online course.

Active learning is often the first removed in an online course.

4 of 59

Research Context

5 of 59

​

​

​

​

Constraints Impacting Faculty Acceptance

​

  • A number of faculty members continue to believe that online learning is not a strong alternative to face-to-face courses. (Hodges et al., 2020; Seaman et al., 2021)
  • Time constraints, instructional challenges, and a resistance to change.
  • Successful scores on student evaluations.
  • Lack of support and resources from University.

​

Shadle et al., 2017

6 of 59

​

​

​

​

UNC Charlotte’s Design and Development

​

  • Fall, Spring, and Summer Cohorts
  • 18-20 faculty members in each cohort
  • 4 instructional designers
  • Courses and faculty proposed by Department Chairs
  • Assigned to our department by Distance Education

7 of 59

Design and Development Process

​

Intake Meeting

Courses Assigned

Course Planning

Onboarding

Course Development

Course Polishing

Closeout

8 of 59

Previous Cycles of Research

9 of 59

​

​

​

​

Research Timeline

​

Dissertation Study

‘22

  • Conducted Spring 2022
  • Explored the faculty and instructional design relationship while using an active learning course planning map.
  • Faculty interviews, faculty survey, and instructional designer reflections.

Practice Implementation

‘21

  • Conducted Fall 2021
  • Explored relationship between implementing active learning strategies and students’ STEM identity.
  • Student reflections and survey.

Reconnaissance

‘20

  • Conducted Fall 2020
  • Explored faculty active learning and interaction techniques
  • Faculty interviews and student survey

10 of 59

​

​

​

​

Driving Theories

​

  • Social Constructivism
  • Active Learning
  • ICAP Framework
  • STEM Identity

11 of 59

Social Constructivism

Limitations

  • Assumes learning only occurs during social, active, or hands-on learning.
  • Misconceptions can occur due to the reliance on social learning.
  • Collegial and positive relationship between the instructional designer and faculty member was essential.

Definition

  • Knowledge is constructed through social and cultural interactions among groups of individuals.
  • This constructed knowledge is then assimilated into individual’s lives.
  • Promotes the idea of active learning.

12 of 59

Active Learning

Implication

  • Interactive-Constructive-Active- Passive (ICAP) framework drove the focus on active learning.

Definition

  • For learning to occur, students must engage with the content outside of just reading and/or watching a video (Eison & Bonwell, 1991).

13 of 59

​

Least active

​

​

​

ICAP Framework

​

A type of active learning that focuses on the students’ own levels of engagement and works to define and guide engagement opportunities students can have while learning the content of a course (Chi, 2009; Chi et al., 2018; Chi & Wylie, 2014).

Passive

Active

Interactive

Constructive

Least active

Most active

14 of 59

Reconnaissance

15 of 59

​

​

​

​

Reconnaissance

​

Research Questions

Research Question #1: What are the current techniques used for active learning and interaction in online courses at UNC Charlotte?

​

Research Question #2: How frequently do students at UNC Charlotte participate in interactions in online courses?

​

Research Question #3: What are the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes of students and faculty members towards interactions in online courses at UNC Charlotte?

​

​

Conclusions

  • Faculty struggled with defining “active learning.”
  • Discussion boards used often in online courses as an active learning strategy.
  • Large class sizes prohibit the use of active learning strategies.
  • Online student participants rated relationships with their faculty higher than with their students.

16 of 59

​

​

​

​

Lessons Learned

​

Writing a Survey

  • Adopted a survey and revised.
  • Importance of note taking during survey revision process.
  • In the dissertation cycle, I took extensive notes for how language edits impacted the overall survey design for ease of data analysis.

Reciprocated Relationships

  • Students feelings towards relationships built in the classroom were strongest when the interactions were reciprocated.
  • In the practice implementation, interactions between students were scaffolded with relevant discussion questions.

17 of 59

Practice Implementation

18 of 59

​

​

​

​

Research Questions

​

  • Research Question #1: What is the relationship of students and their STEM identity after implementing active learning strategies at the constructive and interactive levels of the ICAP framework in an online STEM course?
  • Research Question #2: What insights can we gain about students’ STEM identity in an online STEM course through student reflection journals?

19 of 59

​

​

​

​

Intervention

​

  • A computer science course was designed and developed as an asynchronous online course with intentionally embedded active learning strategies.
  • Using the constructive and interactive levels of engagement within the ICAP Framework, students had the opportunity to learn, apply, discuss, and reflect.

20 of 59

​

​

​

​

Conclusions

​

  • Low level of participants and students enrolled in the course made it difficult to make generalizations.
  • For this particular study, the intervention had no impact on a student’s STEM identity.
  • Student reflections showed that peer interactions after a tough assignment were positive.

Reflection Question

After participating in the feedback session with my peers, what new knowledge did I take away? Are there any areas that are still unclear?

Student #1

“After talking with my peer, I took away that I understood and could have probably done well on this assignment if I had done it.

Student #2

“What I did get was reaffirmation that the assignment was frustrating and it was way too time consuming to train the models.”

Student #3

“I realized, after the peer had pointed it out, that the things I had become hung up on were worth considerably less points than the thing I got hung up on at the last minute and probably could have resolved, if I’d had more time.”

​

“It was a particularly productive feedback session.”

21 of 59

​

​

​

​

Lessons Learned

​

  • Alternative focus on the ICAP Framework within course curriculum development.
  • Use ICAP as a framework for reflection rather than prescriptive requirements.

22 of 59

Dissertation Cycle of Research - Spring 2022

23 of 59

​

​

​

​

Model and Application

​

Application of Active Learning Course Planning Map

  • Data collection and analysis from a semester of utilizing the Active Learning Course Planning Map.
  • Discussed from the faculty’s perspective.

Collaborative Active Learning Instructional Design Model

  • A collaborative model between instructional designer and client.
  • Encourages active learning from the beginning of the design or planning phase of an online course design process.

24 of 59

Collaborative Active Learning Instructional Design Model

25 of 59

​

​

​

​

Instructional Design

​

A professional who “works directly with faculty to provide pedagogical and instructional design consultation to support effective and innovative delivery of academic credit courses to online students” (University of North Carolina at Charlotte, n.d.).

​

26 of 59

​

​

​

​

Online Course Design and Development

​

  • Two phases
  • Collaboration between instructional designer and faculty member.
  • Weekly meetings

Course Planning

Course Development

27 of 59

​

​

​

​

Be an Instructional Design Rockstar

​

Used Be an Instructional Design Rockstar to share my own thoughts, feelings, and reflections using a personally developed course planning map titled, Active Learning Course Planning Map.

28 of 59

​

​

​

​

Data Analysis

​

  • Data transcribed and reviewed in a Google Doc.
  • Preliminary exploratory analysis to look for emerging themes.
  • Data uploaded into NVivo
  • Line-by-line initial or “open” coding analysis.
  • Theoretical coding analysis to look for themes.

​

Charmaz, 2014; Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014; Saldaña, 2021

29 of 59

​

​

​

​

CAL-ID Model

​

30 of 59

​

​

​

​

Active Learning Course Planning Map

​

A course planning resource that prompts faculty to choose a level of engagement as described by the ICAP Framework.

31 of 59

​

​

​

​

Collaboration

​

  • Between the instructional designer and subject matter expert (SME).
  • Collegial relationship
  • Each have different roles during the process.

32 of 59

​

​

​

​

Reflection

​

Subject Matter Expert

  • Uses the Active Learning Course Planning Map to reflect on the presentation of content, scaffolding of assignments from beginning to end, and the variety and types of active learning in the course.

Instructional Designer

  • Uses the Active Learning Course Planning Map to reflect on the alignment between components of course including course objectives, instructional materials, assessments, and active learning strategies.
  • Reflect on strategies used for creating a positive working relationship with the SME.

​

33 of 59

​

​

​

​

Lessons Learned for Application

​

  • Work on the course plan from both the SME and the ID must occur consistently each week.
  • Courses cannot be built directly into the Learning Management System (LMS).

34 of 59

The Faculty’s Perspective

35 of 59

​

​

​

​

Research Question

​

How do faculty understand and implement ICAP principles and use the Active Learning Course Planning Map in the development of online courses?

​

36 of 59

Intervention

37 of 59

​

​

​

​

Improving the Course Planning Resource

​

38 of 59

Tools of Measurement

39 of 59

​

​

​

​

Participants

​

  • 6 faculty members part of the Spring 2022 course design and development cohort at UNC Charlotte.
  • Faculty had the opportunity to opt-in.
  • All faculty worked with me to design their online course.
  • Myself as the instructional designer.

40 of 59

​

​

​

​

Data Collection Methods

​

Quantitative

Likert-scale post-intervention survey measuring how the revised course planning resource had “influenced the experience of faculty designing and developing learning experiences in partnership with an instructional designer” (Drysdale, 2019, p. 66).

Qualitative

  • Instructor interviews post-intervention.

41 of 59

​

​

​

​

Consideration of Reliability and Validity

​

Post-Intervention Survey

“The survey was field tested by a group of SMEs, including instructional designers familiar with the CMM, faculty, and researchers versed in qualitative, quantitative, and action research methodologies. This focus group of experts provided feedback that helped clarify the questions and ensure the validity of the survey” (Dysdale, 2018, p. 66).

Faculty Interviews

  • Utilized intracoder reliability
  • Reviewed codes multiple times over a month.

42 of 59

Data Analysis

43 of 59

​

​

​

​

Data Analysis

​

Quantitative

  • 66.7% response rate
  • Data was downloaded and organized into SPSS.
  • Descriptive statistics was calculated including, mean, mode, and median.

Qualitative

  • Data downloaded and transcribe using Zoom transcripts and reviewed.
  • Data uploaded into NVivo
  • Line-by-line coding analysis using In Vivo codes.
  • Focused coding to find common relationships and group into major themes and categories.

Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014; Saldaña, 2021

44 of 59

​

​

​

​

Results and Discussion

​

Thoughts towards the Active Learning Course Planning Map

Survey responses indicated that there was agreement towards the usefulness of the course planning map.

​

Interview responses indicated that the participants found the course planning map to be a useful, reflective, and flexible tool.

45 of 59

​

​

​

​

Results and Discussion

​

Thoughts towards the active learning and ICAP Framework

  • ICAP Framework was a new concept to faculty.
  • The ICAP framework allowed faculty to be reflective and challenged.
  • The framework and examples provided to participants helped faculty integrate active learning strategies that they had not known were possible in the online modality.

46 of 59

​

​

​

​

Results and Discussion

​

Impact on course design

  • Survey responses indicated that there was agreement towards the benefits of working directly with an instructional designer.
  • Interview responses indicated that collaboration between the faculty and instructional designer helped create alternative opportunities for learning.
  • Example: including interactive lectures using Articulate Rise, scaffolding a course into smaller chunks of information.

47 of 59

​

​

​

​

Conclusion

​

We can conclude that the Active Learning Course Planning Map, along with the collaborative work with an instructional designer was an asset that helped in the planning and execution of the final online courses for the Spring 2022 cohort at UNC Charlotte.

48 of 59

Limitations and Next Steps

49 of 59

​

​

​

​

Further Considerations

​

Factors that could have led to success:

  • 4 out of 6 faculty had familiarity with active learning already.
  • 3 out of 6 faculty were education instructors.

50 of 59

​

​

​

​

Next Steps

​

  • Further studies are needed to determine whether or not the integration of the ICAP framework truly increases active learning in online course development.
  • Given the positive experiences faculty had while collaborating with an instructional designer, additional studies could also be conducted exploring this relationship.

51 of 59

Contribution to the Online Learning Field

52 of 59

​

​

​

​

Proposed Instructional Design Model and Application

​

  • Improved a process within the Course Production Team.
  • Faculty were encouraged to reflect upon levels of student engagement.
  • Reflection allowed faculty to be more intentional and detailed.
  • Weekly meetings were then more productive and collaborative rather than used as check-ins.

53 of 59

​

​

​

​

Podcast

​

  • Created the Be an Instructional Design Rockstar podcast.
  • Began adding to the instructional design community and promote conversations to improve our work.
  • Began my journey to becoming a thought leader within the online learning field.

54 of 59

​

​

​

​

Next Steps

​

Future Studies:

  • Impact of instructional design on student success rates.
  • Impact of instructional design on student satisfaction rates.

55 of 59

References

56 of 59

​

​

​

​

References

​

Burke, L. (2020, March 11). Colleges move classes online as coronavirus infects more. Inside Higher Ed.https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/09/colleges-move-classes-online-coronavirus-infects-more

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237

Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626

Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ZRahxwEACAAJ

Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499

Drysdale, J. (2019). The collaborative mapping model: Relationship-centered instructional design for higher education. Online Learning Journal, 23(3), 56–71. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1228807

Eison, J., & Bonwell, C. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Goldschneider, B. (2019). Disciplinary socialization in undergraduate STEM students. 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028439

Goldschneider, B., Pitterson, N. P., & Case, J. M. (2020). Disciplinary socialization in first year STEM students. ASEE’s Virtual Conference 2020.

Goodson, I. F., & McClaren, P. (1993). School subjects and curriculum change. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203169087

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: engaging students to maximize learning In an online course. Electronic Journal of E-Learning: EJEL; Reading, 15(2), 107–115. http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/active-learning-engaging-students-maximize-online/docview/1935254895/se-2

Lederman, D. (2018). Who is studying online (and where). Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/01/05/new-us-data-show-continued-growth-college-students-studying

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2014). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. Pearson Higher Ed.

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publishing.

Sanga, M. W. (2017). Designing for quality: An analysis of design and pedagogical issues in online course development. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(2), 11–22. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=CWI&u=asuniv&id=GALE%7CA513853666&v=2.1&it=r

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective sixth edition. Pearson.

Seaman, J., Elaine, I. A., & Ralph, N. (2021). Teaching online: STEM education in the time of covid. The National Survey on the State of Online STEM Education. https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/stem_education_in_the_time_of_covid.pdf

Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., & Earl, B. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7

Starr, C. R., Hunter, L., Dunkin, R., Honig, S., Palomino, R., & Leaper, C. (2020). Engaging in science practices in classrooms predicts increases in undergraduates’ STEM motivation, identity, and achievement: A short‐term longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1093–1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21623

University of North Carolina at Charlotte. (n.d.). Job Ad For Instructional Designer - 2022. The Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://teaching.charlotte.edu/about-ctl/staff/job-ad-instructional-designer-2022

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Digest of education statistics 2020 (forthcoming). https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80

​

57 of 59

Thank You

58 of 59

Evaluate sessions and win a gift card!

​

  • Navigate to the specific session via the session listing on the website or through the conference platform.
  • Select “Evaluate Session” on session details screen.
  • Complete the session evaluation.*

*Each session evaluation completed (limited to one per session) = one contest entry. Five $25 gift cards will be awarded.

Help determine best in track awards:�Your voice matters.

​

​

OLC

BEST IN TRACK

59 of 59

Questions?