Instructional Practices Affecting Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 210 - 226, 01.08.2021

Semiral Öncü Barbara Bıchelmeyer

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.62.8.3

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Learners have to engage in academically purposeful instructional endeavors to be successful in school. Latest research indicates that the learners of today are not as interested in educational deeds as they need to be. Educational stakeholders should look for means to address this tendency to have a positive influence on educational results. This study explores the instructional practices that play a role in behavioral engagement (also known as involvement) of learners in schoolwork in the Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA) program – an information technology certificate program. Behavioral engagement in this context refers to learners’ active learning and collaboration with peers. A two-level hierarchical linear modeling was established to predict behavioral engagement from instructional practices while controlling for certain learner level (expectancy and value motivation, gender, and age) and teacher level (teaching and networking experience) variables. Learners who attended the CCNA program in the United States, totaling 773 high school and community college students, were matched specifically with 149 teachers who taught them. Student and instructor surveys were conducted online to gather data. The results show that the level of learner involvement in the program was poor, equivalent to the national student engagement survey of the period. However, if their teachers used collaborative and learner-centered practices, learners were more involved in schoolwork behaviorally. Learners were also very involved in the program if they placed a high value on the program. Female learners were not as active as male learners. In addition to the two instructional practices implied in this study, another major takeaway is that learners should be advised as early as possible about the detrimental impact of poor motivation in the program.

Keywords

engagement, active learning, collaboration, instructional method, instructional practice

Thanks

This study has been derived from the corresponding author’s dissertation study titled “The relationship between instructor practices and student engagement: What engages students in blended learning environments?”

References

• Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5-20. doi:10.1080/0729436052000318541
• Alioon, Y., & Delialioğlu, Ö. (2019). The effect of authentic m‐learning activities on student engagement and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 655-668. doi:10.1111/bjet.12559
• Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? For critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Baker, K. Q., Spiezio, K. E., & Boland, K. (2004). Student engagement: Transference of attitudes and skills to the workplace, profession, and community. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42(2), 101-107.
• Bujod, N., & Saint-Pierre, H. (1996). Style d'intervention pedagogique, relations affectives enseignants-etudiants et engagement par rapport a la matiere [Style of Pedagogic Intervention, Teacher-Student Affective Relations, and Engagement in Content Material]. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 26(1), 75-107.
• Chaves, C. A. (2003). Student involvement in the community college setting. ERIC digest (ED477911). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477911.pdf
• Craft, A. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2017). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project-based learning: Merging rigor and relevance to increase student engagement. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science (EIJEAS), 3(6), 140-158.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
• D'Aquila, J. M., Wang, D., & Mattia, A. (2019). Are instructor generated YouTube videos effective in accounting classes? A study of student performance, engagement, motivation, and perception. Journal of Accounting Education, 47, 63-74. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.02.002
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
• Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives in research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328. doi:10.1080/02796015.2002.12086159
• Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133-153. doi:10.1007/BF03217103
• Kelly, P. A., Haidet, P., Schneider, V., Searle, N., Seidel, C. L., & Richards, B. F. (2005). A comparison of in-class learner engagement across lecture, problem-based learning, and team learning using the STROBE classroom observation tool. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 17(2), 112-118. doi:10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_4
• Kuh, G. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
• Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24-32. doi:10.1080/00091380309604090
• Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184. doi:10.3102/00028312037001153
• McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips strategies, research and theory for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
• Newmann, F. M. (Ed.) (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Ozgonul, L., & Alimoglu, M. K. (2019). Comparison of lecture and team-based learning in medical ethics education. Nursing Ethics, 26(3), 903-913. doi:10.1177/0969733017731916
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
• Prata, M. J., Festas, I., Oliveira, A. L., & Veiga, F. H. (2019). The impact of a cooperative method embedded in a writing strategy instructional program on student engagement in school. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 24(2), 145-153. doi:10.1016/j.psicoe.2018.12.001
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
• Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2006). HLM 6.0 for Windows: Scientific Software International.
• Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 51-68). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Roadrangka, V., & Yeany, R. H. (1985). A study of the relationship among type and quality of implementation of science teaching strategy, student formal reasoning ability, and student engagement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(8), 743-760. doi:10.1002/tea.3660220806
• Schneider, B. L., & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America's teenagers, motivated but directionless. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9094-9_24
• Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.
• Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1(1), 64-85.
• Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. doi:10.3102/00346543045001089
• Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1
• Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
• Willms, J. D. (2003). PISA student engagement at school a sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
• Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020). The impact of L2 writing instructional approaches on student writing motivation and engagement. Language Teaching Research(OnlineFirst), 1362168820957024. doi:10.1177/1362168820957024