Introduction The trend of decreasing student satisfaction from education in secondary/high school education and higher education context has drawn attention to the concept of student engagement. One of the important factors for student learning and personal development is students' level of engagement with academically purposeful activities (Kuh, 2001). Students' low engagement with academic activities is considered the main reason for dissatisfaction, negative experience, and dropping out of school in some of the previous research studies (Greenwood, Horton, & Utley, 2002; Legters, Balfanz, & McPartland, 2002; Perie, Moran, & Lutkus, 2005). Interventions to improve student engagement are mainly instructional solutions such as designing learning environments and utilization of engaging teaching practices. Many personal, environmental, and instructional factors impact student achievement and personal development in educational institutions (Burkman, Tate, Snyder, & Beditz, 1981; Everson & Millsap, 2004; Walberg, 1984; Wenglinsky, 2002). Among them, educators have control over only instructional practices. By designing and implementing various instructional environments and practices, student learning and development could be improved. Research in higher education and secondary/high school education context alike has agreed that students' engagement with academically purposeful activities is one of the important factors for student learning and personal development in traditional and technology enhanced learning environments (Astin, 1993; Pace, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Jelfs, Nathan, & Barrett, 2004; Ginns & Ellis, 2007). Therefore, it is highly recommended that educational institutions and instructors direct their energy and resources to the methodologies and technologies to improve student engagement in their institutions (Hu & Kuh, 2002). While secondary/high school education literature defines student engagement in three categories, higher education literature provides an umbrella definition for student engagement as students' involvement with academically meaningful activities (Kuh, 2001). Regardless of the definition and the context, the most important question to answer is, "What keeps students engaged in schools and colleges?" Reviewing voluminous research in higher education context, Chickering and Gamson (1987) put forward a framework to ensure students' engagement; "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education". According to this framework, students are more engaged when the instruction (a) increases the contact between student and faculty, (b) provides opportunities for students to work in cooperation, (c) encourages students to use active learning strategies, (d) provides timely feedback on students' academic progression, (e) requires students to spend quality time on academic tasks, (f) establishes high standards for acceptable academic work, and (g) addresses different learner needs in the teaching process. Similarly, Brophy and Good (1986) provided a review of research on teaching and teaching practices that aim to improve student learning and achievement. Although Brophy and Good (1986) did not use the term engagement, they provided recommendations similar to Chickering and Gamson (1987) for providing engaging instruction for students. According to Brophy and Good (1986), teaching practices that encourage active learning strategies, establish collaborative student work, contain challenging tasks, and provide prompt feedback help improve student achievement and learning in schools. Past findings from various educational researches confirm that student engagement is an important construct for learning and personal development (Astin, 1993; Pace, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Jelfs, Nathan, & Barrett, 2004; Ginns & Ellis, 2007). Designing such learning environments requires utilization of instructional design strategies that address principles of student engagement. …
[1]
Roisin Donnelly,et al.
Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning
,
2010,
Comput. Educ..
[2]
Cees P M van der Vleuten,et al.
General competencies of problem‐based learning (PBL) and non‐PBL graduates
,
2005,
Medical education.
[3]
C. Hmelo‐Silver.
Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?
,
2004
.
[4]
Curtis J. Bonk,et al.
The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs
,
2005
.
[5]
Howard T. Everson,et al.
Beyond Individual Differences: Exploring School Effects on SAT Scores
,
2004
.
[6]
Ömer Delialioglu,et al.
Students' Perceptions on Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning in a Blended Learning Environment
,
2007,
J. Educ. Technol. Soc..
[7]
Richard L. Tate,et al.
Effects of Academic Ability, Time Allowed for Study, and Teacher Directedness on Achievement in a High School Science Course (ISIS).
,
1981
.
[8]
George D. Kuh.
Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning Inside The National Survey of Student Engagement
,
2001
.
[9]
R. Donnelly.
Blended problem‐based learning for teacher education: lessons learnt
,
2006
.
[10]
Ceridwyn King,et al.
"One size doesn't fit all": tourism and hospitality employees' response to internal brand management.
,
2010
.
[11]
George D. Kuh,et al.
Being (Dis)Engaged in Educationally Purposeful Activities: The Influences of Student and Institutional Characteristics
,
2002
.
[12]
R. Ellis,et al.
Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning
,
2007,
Internet High. Educ..
[13]
Charles R. Graham,et al.
Blended Learning Environments
,
2005
.
[14]
A. Chickering,et al.
Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education
,
1987,
CORE.
[15]
Harold H. Wenglinsky.
The Link Between Teacher Classroom Practices and Student Academic Performance
,
2002
.
[16]
G. Morgan,et al.
Single-factor repeated-measures designs: analysis and interpretation.
,
2002,
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
[17]
D. Garrison,et al.
Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education
,
2004,
Internet High. Educ..
[18]
Mike Keppell.
Authentic cases and media triggers for supporting problem-based learning in teacher education
,
2008
.
[19]
Martin Oliver,et al.
Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be Redeemed?
,
2005
.
[20]
Anne Jelfs *,et al.
Scaffolding students: suggestions on how to equip students with the necessary study skills for studying in a blended learning environment
,
2004
.
[21]
A. Astin.
What matters in college? : four critical years revisited
,
1994
.
[22]
Ray Jones,et al.
Using Blended Learning to Improve Student Success Rates in Learning to Program
,
2003
.
[23]
R. Ellis,et al.
Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education
,
2007,
Internet High. Educ..
[24]
Chris Beaumont,et al.
Technology and problem-based learning
,
2005
.
[25]
Ernest T. Pascarella,et al.
How college affects students : findings and insights from twenty years of research
,
1992
.
[26]
James M. McPartland,et al.
Solutions for Failing High Schools: Converging Visions and Promising Models.
,
2002
.
[27]
C. Greenwood,et al.
Academic Engagement: Current Perspectives on Research and Practice
,
2002
.
[28]
Adnan Boyacı.
Authentic Learning Environments in Higher Education
,
2006
.
[29]
H. Walberg.
Improving the Productivity of America's Schools.
,
1984
.
[30]
J. Eccles,et al.
Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.
,
2002,
Annual review of psychology.