An Analysis of Discipline and Personality in Blended Environments
Do they interact differently in the teaching, cognitive, and social presences?
Keywords:community of inquiry, studnet's personality, discipline, blended learning, student-centred teaching, COI
The purpose of the study is to investigate the interaction between discipline and personality in a blended classroom using the community of inquiry model. To this end, a factorial ANOVA is used to determine the main effects of the high and low of each personality trait as well as the four different clusters of discipline on the presences. The study used a non-experimental design to gather data. A total of 12 lecturers and 408 students from three institutions were involved. The results indicate that there is a significant difference in teaching presence between the hard-applied and hard-pure as well as the hard-applied and soft-pure disciplines only for the conscientiousness personality. Correspondingly, there is a significant difference in social presence between the hard-applied and soft-pure disciplines across all the five personality traits. However, there is no significant difference in cognitive presence for all the discipline clusters across all the personality traits.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x
Akyol, Z., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., & Mitchell, R. (2010). The relationship between course socio-epistemological orientations and student perceptions of community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 13(2010), 66-68. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.002
Allan, J., & Lawless, N. (2003). Stress caused by online collaboration in e-learning: A developing model. Education + Training, 45, 564-572. doi:10.1108/00400910310508955
Allik, J. (2012). National differences in personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(2), 114-117. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.011
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry famework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 37-44. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.006
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry Framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133-136. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for measuring the big five in late childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 645-664. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00051-X
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161. doi:10.1080/03075079412331382007
Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2007), 69-81. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203. doi:10.1037/h0034701
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Chan, C. T. (2012). 21st-century education technologies for engineers and IT professionals. In A. Patil, H. Eijkman, & E. Bhattacharyya (Eds.), New media communication skills for engineers and IT professionals: Trans-national and trans-cultural demands (pp. 9-21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0243-4.ch002
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169-189. doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045703
Feibleman, J. K. (1972). Pure science, applied science, and technology: An attempt at definition. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy and technology: Readings in the philosophical problems of technology (pp. 33-41). New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.
Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively – Learning in a community of inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. & Akyol, Z. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 104-119). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738.ch7
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry Framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education – Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.
Godlewska, A., Beyer, W., Whetstone, S., Schaefli, L., Rose, J., Talan, B., Kamin-Patterson, S., Lamb, C., & Forcione, M. (2019). Converting a large lecture class to an active blended learning class: Why, how, and what we learned. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(1), 96-115. doi:10.1080/03098265.2019.1570090
Han, F., & Ellis, R. A. (2019). Identifying consistent patterns of quality learning discussion in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 40(2019), 12-19. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.09.002
Hansen, D. E. (2008). Knowledge transfer in online learning environment. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 93-105. doi:10.1177/0273475308317702
Heilporn, G., & Lakhal, S. (2020). Investigating the reliability and validity of the community of inquiry framework: An analysis of categories within each presence. Computers and Education, 145(2020), 103712. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103712
Kaufman, J., Agars, M., & Lopez-Wagner, M. (2008). The role of personality and motivation in predicting early college academic success in non-traditional students at a Hispanic-serving institution. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 492-496. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.004
Keles, E. (2018). Use of facebook for the community services practices course: Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework. Computers & Education, 116 (2018), 203-224. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.003
Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., & Lee, S. (2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students’ learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 829-846. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00775.x
Marquardt, M. J., & Kearsley, G. (1999). Technology-based learning: Maximising human performance and corporate success. CRC Press, NW Florida: St. Lucie.
Moldasheva, G., & Mahmood, M. (2014). Personality, learning strategies, and academic performance. Education + Training, 56(4), 343-359. doi:ET-10-2012-0101
Nagel, L., & Kotze, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. Internet and Higher Education, 13(2010), 45-51. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.001
O’Connor, B. P. (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories. Assessment, 9(2), 188-203. doi:10.1177/1073191102092010
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686. doi:10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.527
Schniederjans, M. J., & Kim, E. B. (2005). Relationship of student undergraduate achievement and personality characteristics in a total web-based environment: An empirical study. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 205-221. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2005.00067.x
Shea, P., Li., C., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
Vasileva-Stojanovska, T., Malinovski, T., Vasileva, M., Jovevski, D., & Trajkovik, V. (2015). Impact of satisfaction, personality and learning style on educational outcomes in a blended learning environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 127-135. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.018
Williams, E. A., Duray, R., & Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education, Journal of Management Education, 30, 592-616. doi:10.1177/1052562905276740
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1431-1446. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00125-3
Copyright (c) 2020 Chan Chang Tik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an International Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.