AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
2
. Su
ff
icien
t
T
each
er
-Stu
d
en
t
co
m
m
u
n
icatio
n
FG1
S1: “…I like it that during seminars we can
discuss various issues”
S3: For me, communication with you is
sufficient because I may ask during the seminar
anything I want and I always get an answer and
on the other hand, the system provides us with
everything – lecture, materials, so if I need
anything I am able to find proper information
myself.”
S4: “Well, interaction with you is the reason that
I work on my assignments at school. I may ask
anything.”
5
. On
lin
e co
m
m
u
n
icatio
n
(
Faceb
o
o
k
, em
ail
, et
c.
)
FG1
S1: “Facebook is more comfortable than
sending messages through Moodle.”
S2: “It [Facebook] is quicker.”
S4: “…everyone has an application in
smartphone.”
S5: “We have group e-mail, so when we need
anything, we are discussing things there, or
Facebook.”
S3: “…we have that Facebook group where we
share everything.”
M: “Have you ever tried to message someone
via Moodle?”
S3: “No, and I think that it is not necessary to
use many communication channels; as I have
already mentioned, we have Facebook group.
Everybody has an application in smartphone,
and this is enough.”
6.
O
the
r
for
m of
c
om
m
u
n
icatio
n
FG1
M: “So how do you communicate about
assignments when you are at home?”
S1: “We call each other.”
S2: “Yes, we call...”
S3: “Well, sometimes I call someone when I am
at home and need help.”
FG2
M: “Why don’t you use forums in the course?”
S5: “...because seminars and lectures are
enough for us.”
S14: “...and if we really, like need to discuss
issues, we use Facebook chat or discussion in
Facebook group.”
M: “So, this is the main reason why you don’t
use forums, because you use Facebook anytime?
Am I right?”
S3: “Well, if I may summarize it, why should we
use more communication channels? …we
discuss issues here [seminar, lecture], and on
Facebook….it seems logical we don’t need to
use forums in the course.”
S5: “We also use our department’s [Facebook]
group”
The analysis of the results from the focus group records shows
that in the original version of the course students missed
assignments or other activities that would support collaborations.
After the interventions were made, students had generally
positive views regarding collaboration supported by online
communication.
As for communication between students and the teacher during
the duration of the case study, students expressed that
communication with the teachers during the lectures and
seminars was satisfactory and they did not need to communicate
with them online. On the other hand, they communicated online
with each other often, mostly via Facebook. Hence, an effective
use of current social networks for study purposes was
demonstrated via blending face-to-face communication with the
teacher during the seminars and online communication with
classmates at any place and time.
It can be concluded from the results that the potentials of using
the Web 2.0 tools was exploited and appreciated by the students,
they welcomed visualisation (videos) and collaborative
activities. However, in the field of communication, the potential
was not satisfactorily used. One of the reasons is that the course
was blended, and thus students used the opportunity to
communicate during the face-to-face part. Moreover, the
students were used to social networking sites (especially
Facebook) and preferred using it for their communication also
about the issues from the course.
Answer to RQ 3
The third question is necessary for the design-based research. It is
not enough to be satisfied with the results. Teachers should try to
use what their research has discovered to develop better learning
environments for their learners.
The focus group revealed that students appreciated Quizzes and
asked for more of them.
Table 4 Code 11 – Possible improvements.
11 Possible
improvements
Forum; Using Moodle in other course; Group
activities; Self-assessment quiz
FG2
S5: “I would appreciate if you added
more quizzes.”
In Focus group 2 (FG2), which was held after the intervention, the
demand for more quizzes was expressed. This shows the need for
interactivity, which can be satisfied in further improvement of the
course.
Next potential can be seen in the answers in Table 2, Code 5
(Online Communication) above. The students did not use the
communication channels provided by the LMS Moodle, since
they used Facebook. They do not like to have too many different
communication channels, which becomes clear in case of
smartphones with screens that are too small for more
applications to be open on one screen. Nevertheless, this pitfall
of the LMS can be solved by opening a Facebook group, which
will serve just the course and connect it with its content and
schedule.
The analysis shows that the teacher underestimated this outcome
from the Focus group. It appeared in FG1, which was held
before the intervention; however, no action was taken.
Next, the students in the focus groups expressed their
satisfaction with sharing the content (Category 1 – Overall use),
which is the potential established during the second phase of
Focus group meetings. Indeed, the exploitation of this benefit
was perceived as very motivational for the students as they were
likely to see other classmates’ work and learn or be inspired
by
it.
Table 5 Code 4 - Sharing the content.
4 Sharing
the content
FG2
S1: “I think it is great that we can see
our classmates’ work now [videos in
blog].”
M: “Did you watch the videos of your
classmates at home?”
S1: “Yes, we wanted to get some
inspiration.”
S6: “It was really great that we could
see those videos and laugh.”
Video assignment was highly appreciated. It satisfied three
demands of Generation Z learners: visualisation,
communication, and sharing.
The RQ3 can be answered positively. There are further
potentials, which can be used in future improvement of the
course. The Focus group research tool revealed some of them, as
- 340 -