Online Teaching and Learning Processes: Declarative and Procedural Knowledge

Authors: Eulalia Torras, Andreu Bellot

Abstract:

To know whether students’ achievements are the result of online interaction and not just a consequence of individual differences themselves, it seems essential to link the teaching presence and social presence to the types of knowledge built. The research aim is to analyze the social presence in relation to two types of knowledge, declarative and procedural. Qualitative methodology has been used. The analysis of the contents was based on an observation protocol that included community of enquiry indicators and procedural and declarative knowledge indicators. The research has been conducted in three phases that focused on an observational protocol and indicators, results and conclusions. Results show that the teaching-learning processes have been characterized by the patterns of presence and types of knowledge. Results also show the importance of social presence support provided by the teacher and the students, not only in regard to the nature of the instructional support but also concerning how it is presented to the student and the importance that is attributed to it in the teaching-learning process, that is, what it is that assistance is offered on. In this study, we find that the presence based on procedural guidelines and declarative reflection, the management of shared meaning on the basis of the skills and the evidence of these skills entail patterns of learning. Nevertheless, the importance that the teacher attributes to each support aspect has a bearing on the extent to which the students reflect more on the given task.

Keywords: Education, online, teaching and learning processes, knowledge.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1111935

References:

[1] A. Garrison and J. B. Arbaugh, “Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions,” Internet and Higher Education, vol. 10, pp. 157–172, 2007.
[2] L. W. Clarke and A. Bartholomew, “Digging Beneath the Surface: Analyzing the Complexity of Instructors’ Participation in Asynchronous Discussion. Online Learning-Formerly,” The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 18, no 3, pp. 265-282, 2014.
[3] T. Anderson and D. Wiley, Teaching crowds, Canada: AU Press, 2014.
[4] A. M. Hassan and R. Sharda, “Modeling brand post popularity dynamics in online social networks,”. Decision Support Systems, vol. 65, pp. 59–68, 2014.
[5] P. Shell, S. Shea, J. Hayes, M. Vickers, M. Gozza-Cohen, S. Uzuner, R. Mehta, A. Valchova, P. Rangan, “A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis,” Internet and Higher Education, vol. 13, pp. 10–21, 2010.
[6] J. Hamari, D. J. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B. Coller, J. Asbell-Clarke and T. Edwards, “Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 170-179, 2016.
[7] J. Mok, “A case study of developing student-teachers’ language awareness through online discussion forums, ” Language Awareness, vol. 22, no 2, pp. 161–175, 2015.
[8] D. L. Thompson and M. J. Thompson, “Knowledge, instruction and behavioural change: building a framework for effective eczema education in clinical practice.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 70, no 11, pp. 2483–2494, 2014.
[9] C. Juwah, Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006.
[10] R. S. Baker, A. T. Corbett and k. R. Koedinger, K.R., “Responding to problem behaviors in Cognitive Tutors: Towards educational systems which support all students,” National Association for the Dually Diagnosed Bulletin, 9 (4), 70-75, 2016
[11] E. Tan, A. Brainard and G. Larkin, “Acceptability of the flipped classroom approach for in-house teaching in emergency medicine Emergency,” Medicine Australasia, vol. 27, 453–459, 2015.
[12] R. S. Behara and M. M. Davis, “Navigating Disruptive Innovation in Undergraduate Business Education Decision Sciences,” Journal of Innovative, vol. 13, no 3, pp. 30-326, 2015.
[13] J. P. Gee and M. Handford, Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 2012.
[14] B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Seventh paperback printing, 2012.
[15] S. M. Ravith and M. Mittenfelner, Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. New York: SAGE, 2016