Une analyse de la discipline et de la personnalité dans des environnements hybrides

Interagissent-ils différemment dans les présences enseignante, cognitive et sociale?

Auteurs-es

DOI :

https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27883

Mots-clés :

community of inquiry, studnet's personality, discipline, blended learning, student-centred teaching, COI

Résumé

L'objectif de cette étude est d'étudier l'interaction entre la discipline et la personnalité dans une classe hybride en utilisant le modèle de la communauté d'apprentissage. À cette fin, une ANOVA factorielle est utilisée pour déterminer les principaux effets du haut et du bas de chaque trait de personnalité ainsi que des quatre différents groupes de discipline sur les présences. L'étude a utilisé un modèle non expérimental pour recueillir les données. Au total, 12 professeurs et 408 étudiants de trois institutions ont participé à l'étude. Les résultats indiquent qu'il y a une différence significative dans la présence d'enseignante entre les disciplines dures appliquées et les disciplines dures-pures ainsi que les disciplines dures appliquées et celles douces-pures seulement pour la conscience de la personnalité. En conséquence, il existe une différence significative dans la présence sociale entre les disciplines dures appliquées et les disciplines douces-pures pour les cinq traits de personnalité. Cependant, il n'y a pas de différence significative dans la présence cognitive pour tous les groupes de disciplines sur l'ensemble des traits de personnalité.

Biographie de l'auteur-e

Chan Chang Tik, Monash University Malaysia

Senior Lecturer and Programme Coordinator 

School of Arts and Social Sciences

Références

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:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667

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

Téléchargements

Publié-e

2020-09-11

Numéro

Vol. 46 No. 1 (2020): Hiver

Rubrique

Articles

Licence

© Chan Chang Tik 2020

Licence Creative Commons

Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.

Droits d’auteur

Les auteurs conservent le droit d'auteur et accordent le droit de la première publication de la revue avec le travail simultanément sous une licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0) qui permet aux autres de partager le travail avec une reconnaissance de la paternité de l'œuvre et la publication initiale dans ce journal.