Factors Influencing Student Engagement and the Role of Technology in Student Engagement in Higher Education: Campus-Class-Technology Theory

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to determine both the factors influencing student engagement and the role and influence of technology on student engagement. The study is important as it aimed at determining the views of students about student engagement and examining in detail the research data to be collected with two different data collection techniques. The present study was designed as a grounded theory study. The research sample included a total of 45 student teachers. Of all the participants, 25 of them participated in face-to-face Interviews, and 20 of them were asked to take part in written compositions. In conclusion, it was seen that the components constituting and influencing student engagement were found to be campus engagement and class engagement. It was found out that for most of the participating students, use of technology in class was not an indispensable factor for student engagement. In addition, an effective technology integration would not only contribute much to student engagement but also constitute an important way of increasing student engagement. Finally, it was seen that use of technology in instructional activities constituted an important factor for student engagement, when the findings obtained via the interviews and the written compositions were taken into consideration together

Keywords

• Student engagement
• campus engagement
• cass engagement
• technology
• theory
• higher education

Yükseköğretimde Öğrenci Bağlılığını Etkileyen Faktörler ve Teknolojinin Öğrenci Bağlılığındaki Rolü: Kampüs-Ders-Teknoloji Kuramı

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğrenci bağlılığını etkileyen faktörleri ve derste kullanılan teknolojilerin öğrenci bağlılığındaki rolünü belirlemektir. Bu çalışma, iki farklı veri toplama tekniğinin kullanılması ve durumun kendi doğal bağlamında incelenerek detaylı veri toplanması açısından önemlidir. Bu çalışma gömülü kuram ile desenlenmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları toplamda 45 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. Yüzyüze yapılan görüşmeler için 25, kompozisyon için 20 öğretmen adayı katılımcı olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, öğrenci bağlılığını etkileyen faktörler, kampüse ve derse bağlılık bileşenleri altında ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca, birçok öğrenci için derste teknoloji kullanımı bağlılıklarının artması için şart görülmemiştir. Ancak etkili teknoloji entegrasyonunun, sadece öğrenci bağlılığına katkı sağlamadığı ayrıca öğrenci bağlılığını artırmanın önemli yollarından biri de olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Tüm bulgular sonucunda, öğrenci bağlılığı ve teknoloji kullanımı arasındaki ilişkiler çalışma sonucunda geliştirilen Kampüs-Ders-Teknoloji Kuramı ile açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğrenci bağlılığı
• kampüse bağlılık
• derse bağlılık
• teknoloji
• kuram
• yükseköğretim

Kaynakça

1. 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.
2. Ang, K.H., & Wang, Q. (2006). A case study of engaging primary school students in learning science by using active worlds. Proceedings of the First International LAMS Conference 2006: Designing the Future of Learning, Sydney, Australia.
3. Angus Busby, T.L. (2011). An exploration of campus recreation's role in student engagement. (Unpublished master dissertation), Winnipeg: Manitoba University.
4. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: A dangerous opposition. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), Brighton, Sussex, UK
5. Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. In C Steel, M Keppell, P Gerbic & S Housego (Eds.) ASCILITE 2010 Proceedings: Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for an Unknown Future, pp. 75-86, Sydney: The University of Queensland.
6. Berque, D. (2004). Fostering classroom engagement with electronic whiteboards, tablet pcs, and dyknow. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPS207.pdf
7. Bouta, H., Retalis, S., & Paraskeva, F. (2012). Utilizing a collaborative macro-script to enhance student engagement: A mixed method study in a3D Virtual Environment. Computers in Education, 58(1), 501-517.
8. Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44(4), 349-362.

9. Chen, P.S.D, Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web- based learning technology on student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222-1232.
10. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
11. Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52, 141-146.
12. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. C. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
13. Creswell, J. W.(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
14. Dunleavy, J., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Exploring the Concept of Student Engagement and its Implications for Teaching and Learning in Canada. Toronto, ON: Canadian Education Association.
15. Ericson, B.E. (2011). The relationship between student use of socially interactive technology and engagement and involvement in the undergraduate experience. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston College.
16. Furlong, M. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2008). Engaging students at school and with learning: A relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 365-368.
17. Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Bracewell, R. (2014). Students’ engagement in technology rich classrooms and its relationship to professors’ conceptions of effective teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 83-96.
18. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
19. Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.938019.
20. Gurung, B., & Rutledge, D. (2014). Digital learners and the overlapping of their personal and educational digital engagement. Computers & Education, 77, 91-100.
21. Hancock, V., & Betts, F. (2002, April 1). Back to the future: Preparing learners for academic success in 2004. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(7), 10-14.
22. Harris, L. R. (2008). A Phenomenographic Investigation of Teacher Conceptions of Student Engagement in Learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 5(1), 57-79.
23. Hede, A. (2002). An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 177-191.
24. Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement. In R. Junco, & D. M. Timm (Eds.), Using emerging technologies to enhance student engagement. New Directions for Student Services, (pp. 19– 35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25. Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H.J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117-127.
26. Hufton, N. R., Elliott, J. G., & Illushin, L. (2002). Educational motivation and engagement: Qualitative accounts from three countries. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 265-289.
27. Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58, 162-171.
28. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119-132.
29. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing Student Engagement in Higher Education. Studies in HigherEducation, 38(5), 758-773.
30. Kolikant, Y.B.D. (2010). Digital natives, better learners? Students’ beliefs about how the Internet influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,1384-1391.
31. Kolikant, Y.B.D. (2009). Digital Students in a Book-Oriented School: Students’ Perceptions of School and the Usability of Digital Technology in Schools. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 131–143.
32. Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
33. Kuh, G. D. , Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J.C. (2007). Piecing Together the Student Success Puzzle: Research, Propositions, and Recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
35. McGrath, B. (1998). Partners in learning: twelve ways technology changes the teacher-student relationship. Technological Horizon In Education, 25(9), 58-62.
36. Morgan, G. L. (2008). Improving student engagement: Use of the interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool to improve engagement and behavior in the junior high school classroom. (Unpublished dissertation). Liberty University, Virginia.
37. Nauffal, D.I. (2011). Assessment of student engagement: An analysis of trends. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(2), 171-191.
38. Neal, R. J. (2010). Student engagement and its relationship to student attrition: A descriptive study of first-time, full-time eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old community college students at American River College. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) La Verne University, California.
39. Nelson Laird, T. F., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46 (2), 211-233.
40. Pedró, F. (2006). The new millennium learners: Challenging our views on ICT and learning. Paris: OECD-CERI.
41. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-5.
42. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently?. On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
43. Reynard, R. (2007, May 23). Hybrid learning: Maximizing student engagement. Campus technology. Campus enterprise networking & infrastructure — Campus technology. Retrieved 08 November, 2013, from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2007/05/hybrid- learning-maximizing-student-engagement.aspx
44. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding the net generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1–2.20). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
45. Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How Motivation Influences Student Engagement: A Qualitative Case Study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252-267.
46. Schlechty, P.C. (2001). Shacking up the schoolhouse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
47. Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 5-27.
48. Trowler, V. (2010). Student Engagement Literature Review. York: Higher Education Academy. Available online: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/studentengagement/StudentE ngagementLiteratureReview.pdf
49. Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school. A sense of belonging and participation. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
50. Veira, A.K., Leacock, C.J., & Warrican, S.J. (2014). Learning outside the walls of the classroom: Engaging the digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 227-244. Voelkl, K.
51. E. (1996). Measuring
52. students' identification with
53. school.Educational and
54. Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 760-770.
55. Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177.
56. Xu, Y. (2010). Examining the Effects of Digital Feedback on Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3), 275-291.
57. Zyngier, D. (2007). Listening to teachers–listening to students: substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,13 (4), 327-347.