Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement

Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) has become a common feature of Higher Education. However, research has been hindered by a lack of differentiation between usage and engagement and not recognising the heterogeneity of TEL applications. The current study aimed to assess the impact of emotional, cognitive and behavioural engagement with TEL on students’ grades and to also look at how motivation levels differentially predict engagement across different types of TEL. In a sample of 524 undergraduate students, we measured engagement and usage of TEL, student learning motivations and self-report student grades. Our results indicate that intrinsic motivations predict engagement, whilst extrinsic motivations predict usage. Importantly, engagement was predictive of grades whereas usage was not. Furthermore, when TEL was broken down by type, the use of social media groups was a significant predictor of grade, whereas reviewing lecture slides/ recordings, reading additional content and using course blogs/ discussion boards were not. We conclude that a sole focus on usage of TEL is misleading. Implications for researchers and educators are discussed.

[1]  Pierre-Yves Oudeyer,et al.  Intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and learning: Theory and applications in educational technologies. , 2016, Progress in brain research.

[2]  Linda Price,et al.  Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review , 2014 .

[3]  Peter Cabrera-Nguyen.  Author Guidelines for Reporting Scale Development and Validation Results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research , 2010, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research.

[4]  Jennifer Shewmaker,et al.  Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Lourdes Alwis,et al.  A study of the impact of technology-enhanced learning on student academic performance. , 2014 .

[6]  S. A. Becker,et al.  NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition , 2015 .

[7]  Ivica Boticki,et al.  Usage of a mobile social learning platform with virtual badges in a primary school , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[8]  E. Kahu.  Framing student engagement in higher education , 2013 .

[9]  Enhancing Student Trust Through Peer Assessment in Physical Education , 2001 .

[10]  Tabassum Rashid,et al.  Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  W F Velicer,et al.  Factors Influencing Four Rules For Determining The Number Of Components To Retain. , 1982, Multivariate behavioral research.

[12]  Thomas J. Dunn,et al.  From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. , 2014, British journal of psychology.

[13]  Jordi Conesa,et al.  Evaluation of an eLearning Platform Featuring Learning Analytics and Gamification , 2016, 3PGCIC.

[14]  S. Glynn,et al.  Attitudinal and Motivational Constructs in Science Learning , 2013 .

[15]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[16]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[17]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  Taiwan college students' self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online peer assessment environments , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[18]  Lennart E. Nacke,et al.  The maturing of gamification research , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Wynne W. Chin.  Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling by , 2009 .

[20]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[21]  N. Selwyn,et al.  Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness’ , 2015 .

[22]  Wade C. Jacobsen,et al.  The Wired Generation: Academic and Social Outcomes of Electronic Media Use Among University Students , 2011, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[23]  Richard Walker,et al.  2008 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for higher education in the UK , 2008 .

[24]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[25]  Gita Taasoobshirazi,et al.  Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors , 2011 .

[26]  Erik Duval,et al.  Technology Enhanced Learning , 2017 .

[27]  Ming-Te Wang,et al.  Adolescent Behavioral, Emotional, and Cognitive Engagement Trajectories in School and Their Differential Relations to Educational Success. , 2012 .

[28]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu,et al.  Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  N. Falchikov.  Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment , 1995 .

[30]  Hamish Coates,et al.  Doing more for learning: enhancing engagement and outcomes , 2010 .

[31]  W. Velicer,et al.  Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. , 1986 .

[32]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[33]  K. Tobin,et al.  Pupil engagement in learning tasks: A fertile area for research in science teaching , 1981 .

[34]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Effect of Choice on Cognitive and Affective Engagement , 2003 .

[35]  A. Hamid.  e-Learning: Is it the "e" or the learning that matters? , 2001, Internet High. Educ..

[36]  John W. Saye,et al.  Using Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Support Problem-based Historical Inquiry in Secondary School Classrooms , 2007 .

[37]  Hsin-Kai Wu,et al.  Ninth-Grade Student Engagement in Teacher-Centered and Student-Centered Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. , 2007 .

[38]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains , 1998 .

[39]  David Fonseca,et al.  Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of Augmented Reality technology for visualized architecture models , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[40]  Doris McGartland Rubio,et al.  A Validation of the Subjective Vitality Scale Using Structural Equation Modeling , 2000 .

[41]  Joan M. Whitehead.  Motives for higher education: a study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in relation to academic attainment , 1984 .

[42]  Stephen J. H. Yang,et al.  A collaborative digital pen learning approach to improving students' learning achievement and motivation in mathematics courses , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[43]  Michael Trimmel,et al.  Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students in laptop classrooms , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[44]  E. Pechenkina,et al.  What Do Students Want? Making Sense of Student Preferences in Technology-enhanced Learning , 2017 .