Technology-enhanced High Impact Practice for Authentic Learning
Today, most college students are steeped in technology for both academic and social activities. In their attempt to enhance student learning, higher education institutions incorporated innovative student-centered methods, such as the American Association of Colleges and University’s high impact practices (HIPs), and projects that foster collaboration among students. This study explored the Students Working in Interdisciplinary Groups (SWIG), a technology-enhanced collaborative assignments and projects at Queensborough Community College, which claims that using technology it engages students in authentic learning, where they asynchronously collaborate to create and disseminate products that address discipline specific learning outcomes. Analysis of student’s reflections and Wiki interactions from in fall 2013, spring 2014 and spring 2015 showed that while completing the assignment using the available technology, students were engaged in authentic learning, developed media literacy, and achieved discipline specific learning outcomes. The students were also able to transfer the skills acquired from this project to their other courses and their future careers.
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. Educause Review, March/April 2012, 23-33.
Blake-Yancey, K. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297-328. Retrieved from ProQuest Direct Complete.
Bower, M. (2015). A typology of web 2.0 learning technologies. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/csd6280.pdf
Brown, A. H., Benson, B., & Uhde, A. P. (2004). You’re doing what with technology? College Teaching, 52(3), 100-104. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559191.
Brownell, J.E. & Swaner, L.E. (2012, Spring). Outcomes of high-impact educational practices: a literature review. Diversity & Democracy, 12(7). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/outcomes-high-impact-educational-practices-literature-review
Byas, T. (2011). E-Portfolio and student Wiki interdisciplinary group. Proceedings of 2011 LAMS and Learning Design Conference proceeding. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University, 52-59.
Byas, T. (2012). Navigating the SWIG spaces. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 3(8), 69-83.
Byas, T., Cercone, A., Lynch, B., Miller, B. & Wentrack (2015, May 8). Students Working in Interdisciplinary Groups at Queensborough Community College: Best practices for collaboration & integrative learning. [PowerPoint slides] 11th Annual CUE Conference, Engaging for Impact: CUNY as a Catalyst for Change.
Choy, S. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates: Findings from the condition of education 2002. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002012.pdf
Cronin, J. G. (2010). Beyond Wikipedia and google: Web-based literacies and student learning. In B. Higgs, S. Kilcommins, & T. Ryan (Eds.), Making Connections: Intentional teaching for integrative learning (pp. 91-104). North Mall, CORK: National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED538018.pdf
Cydis, S. (2015). Authentic instruction and technology literacy. Journal of Learning Design, 8(1), 68-78.
Darcy, J. (2012, March). Reflection and metacognition in first year experience at Queensborough Community College. Hispanic Educational Technology Services (HETS) Online Journal, 2(Spring Issue) Retrieved from http://hets.org/ejournal/2014/07/28/reflection-and-metacognition-in-first-year-experience-at-queensborough-community-college/
Darcy, J., Dupre, J., & Cuomo, M. (2010, October). An ePortfolio virtual learning community within a traditional classroom space: The student in a global social networking community. Hispanic Educational Technology Services Online Journal (HETS) Online Journal, 1(1), 41-60. Retrieved from http://www.hets.org/journal/flash/pdf/VolI-I.pdf
Dooly, M. (2008). Constructing knowledge together. In Dooly, M. (Ed.). Telecollaborative language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online (pp. 21-45). Bern: Peter Lang.
Donovan, M.S., Bransford, J.D., & Pellegrino J. W. (Eds). (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research on learning into practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Duncan, A. (2015). Toward a new focus on outcomes in higher education. Remarks at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. July 27, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/toward-new-focus-outcomes-higher-education
Ferdenzi, A., & Abbott, J. (n.d.). What we’ve learned. The Making Connections National Resource Center website. Retrieved from https://qbcc.mcnrc.org/what-weve-learned/
Finley, A. (2011). Assessment of high-impact practices: Using findings to drive change in the compass project. Peer Review 13(2), Spring 2011. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2011/spring/finley
Gagliardi, J. S., Martin, R. R., Wise, K., & Blaich, C. (2015). The System Effect: Scaling high-impact practices across campuses. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(169), 15-26. doi:10.1002/he.20119
Gallup, Inc. (2013). The 21st century skills and the workplace: A 2013 Microsoft partners in learning and Pearson Foundation study. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/services/176699/21st-century-skills-workplace.aspx
Higgs, B., Kilcommins, S. & Ryan, T. (Eds.) (2010). Making connections: Intentional teaching for integrative learning. North Mall, CORK: National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The horizon report: 2009 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD5612.pdf
Kalin, J. (2012). Doing what comes naturally? Student perception and use of collaborative technologies. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1-20.
Khatib, N. M. (2014). The adoption of technology-enhanced instruction to support education for all. Gifted and Talented International, 29(1) & 29(2), 93-98.
Kilgo, C., Ezell Sheets, J., & Pascarella, E. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509-525. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9788-z
Kitsantas, A., & Dabbagh, N. (2010). Learning to learn with integrative learning technologies: A practical for academic success. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Koszalka, T. A., & Wang, X. (2002). Integrating technology into learning: A summary view of promises and problems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 179-183.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington D.C.: AAC&U, 2008. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-490.
Lackner, E., & Fichera, V. (2016, Jan 19). Academic Assessment Protocol 2013-2015: Report of Findings 2014-2015. Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/OIRA/docs/Academies-Assessment-Protocol-Report-for-2014-15.pdf
Lenhart, A. (2015). “Teens, social media & technology overview 2015: Smartphones facilitate shifts in communication landscape for teens.” Pew Research Center Report. Retrieved from http://www.pewInternet.org/files/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf
Lomas, C., Burke, M. & Page, C. L. (2008). Collaboration Tools. Educause Learning Initiative Paper 2: 2008. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/collaboration-tools
Lomas, C., & Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed). Learning Spaces, Educause, 5.1-5.11
Lytras, M. D., Gasevic, D., de Pablos, O. & Huang, W. (Eds). (2008). Technology enhanced learning: Best Practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. W. (2008). The three P's of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Records, 108(6), 1017-1054.
National Association for Media Literacy Education (2007). Core principles of media literacy education in the United States. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8j2T8jHrlgCYXVHSVJidWtmbmc/view
Newmann, R., & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
November, N. & Day, K. (2012). Using undergraduates’ digital literacy skills to improve their discipline-specific writing: A dialogue. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), Article 5.
Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2013, Nov). Queensborough Academies Presentation to Monroe Community College. Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/OIRA/docs/Queensborough-Academies-Presentation-to-MonroeCC-Nov2013.pdf
Palladino, L.J. (2007). Find your focus zone: An effective new plan to defeat distraction and overload. New York: Free Press.
Rhodes, T.L. (Ed) (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
Rott, S., & Weber, E. D. (2013). Preparing students to use wiki software as a collaborative learning tool. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 179-203.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Double Day.
Sorensen, E. K., & Murchu, D. O. (2006). Preface. In E.K. Sorensen & D.O. Murchu, (Eds). Enhancing learning through technology. (pp. vi-xvii) Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.