Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling

Abstract We investigated activity-level student engagement in blended learning classes at the university level. We used intensive longitudinal methodology to collect activity level engagement data throughout a semester for 68 students enrolled in six blended courses across two universities. We used structural equation modeling to gain a holistic understanding of learning environments, including the influence of personal characteristics, course design, and student perceptions of the learning experience on in-the-moment cognitive and emotional engagement. To investigate longitudinal relationships between emotional and cognitive engagement, we employed cross-lagged modeling techniques. Findings showed that course design and student perception variables had a greater influence on engagement than individual student characteristics and that student multitasking had a strong negative influence on engagement. Students' perceptions of the importance of the activity had a strong positive influence on both cognitive and emotional engagement. An important outcome of engagement was the students' perceptions that they were learning and improving.

[1]  C. C. Robinson,et al.  New Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student Engagement in Online Learning , 2008 .

[2]  Corey Matthews,et al.  Participatory Action Research and City Youth: Methodological Insights from the Council of Youth Research , 2013, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[3]  Charles R. Graham,et al.  Caring in a technology-mediated online high school context , 2013 .

[4]  Mary Ainley,et al.  Students’ Interest and Engagement in Classroom Activities , 2012 .

[5]  Charles R. Graham,et al.  A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research , 2014, Internet High. Educ..

[6]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education , 2009 .

[7]  Benjamin C. Heddy,et al.  The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science , 2015 .

[8]  David J. Shernoff,et al.  Further Evidence of an Engagement–Achievement Paradox Among U.S. High School Students , 2008 .

[9]  Nelson Baloian,et al.  A Blended Learning Environment for Enhancing Meaningful Learning Using 21st Century Skills , 2014, ICSLE.

[10]  C. Dziuban,et al.  A time‐based blended learning model , 2011 .

[11]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[12]  B. Means,et al.  The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2013, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[13]  Grace Oakley,et al.  From Diffusion to Explosion: Accelerating Blended Learning at the University of Western Australia , 2016 .

[14]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life , 2006 .

[15]  Charles D. Dziuban,et al.  Technology-Enhanced Education and Millennial Students in Higher Education , 2007 .

[16]  Charles R. Graham,et al.  The current landscape of international blended learning , 2016 .

[17]  T. Kindermann,et al.  Engagement and Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? , 2008 .

[18]  Scott L. Thomas,et al.  An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling Techniques: MLM and SEM Approaches Using Mplus, Third Edition , 2015 .

[19]  D. Rubin,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. , 1989 .

[20]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. , 1975 .

[21]  Hal A. Lawson,et al.  New Conceptual Frameworks for Student Engagement Research, Policy, and Practice , 2013 .

[22]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Blending In The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States , 2007 .

[23]  E. Skinner,et al.  Developmental Dynamics of Student Engagement, Coping, and Everyday Resilience , 2012 .

[24]  Cher Ping Lim,et al.  Blended learning for quality higher education: Selected case studies on implementation from Asia-Pacific , 2016 .

[25]  Charles R. Graham,et al.  Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[26]  G. Banerjee.  Blended Environments: Learning Effectiveness and Student Satisfaction at a Small College in Transition , 2011 .

[27]  W. Briggs,et al.  A Measure of College Student Course Engagement , 2005 .

[28]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners' cognitive-affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[29]  Marcia D. Dixson.  Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? , 2010 .

[30]  Katrina A. Meyer,et al.  Student Engagement in Online Learning: What Works and Why , 2014 .

[31]  D. Garrison,et al.  Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education , 2004, Internet High. Educ..

[32]  J. Reeve,et al.  Agency as a fourth aspect of students engagement during learning activities , 2011 .

[33]  Lia M. Daniels,et al.  Not that different in theory: Discussing the control-value theory of emotions in online learning environments , 2012, Internet High. Educ..

[34]  Laurie P. Dringus,et al.  A five-year study of sustaining blended learning initiatives to enhance academic engagement in computer and information sciences campus courses , 2013 .

[35]  R. Ellis,et al.  Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education , 2007, Internet High. Educ..

[36]  N. Bolger,et al.  Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[37]  Robert M. Gonyea,et al.  Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence , 2008 .

[38]  David J. Shernoff,et al.  Optimal Learning Environments to Promote Student Engagement , 2013 .

[39]  Richard F. Schmid,et al.  A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied , 2014, Journal of Computing in Higher Education.

[40]  Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia,et al.  Academic Emotions and Student Engagement , 2012 .

[41]  David J. Shernoff,et al.  Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. , 2003 .

[42]  S. Holloway,et al.  What Makes Students Engaged in Learning? A Time-Use Study of Within- and Between-Individual Predictors of Emotional Engagement in Low-Performing High Schools , 2011, Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

[43]  Charles R. Graham.  Emerging Practice and Research in Blended Learning , 2012 .

[44]  D. A. Kenny.  Cross-Lagged Panel Design† , 2005 .

[45]  Barbara A. Greene.  Measuring Cognitive Engagement With Self-Report Scales: Reflections From Over 20 Years of Research , 2015 .

[46]  S. Peterson,et al.  Comparing the Quality of Students' Experiences During Cooperative Learning and Large-Group Instruction , 2004 .

[47]  Ellen A. Skinner,et al.  Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. , 2009 .

[48]  Jim Gleason,et al.  Using Technology-Assisted Instruction and Assessment to Reduce the Effect of Class Size on Student Outcomes in Undergraduate Mathematics Courses , 2012 .

[49]  Michel Janosz,et al.  Part IV commentary: Outcomes of engagement and engagement as an outcome: Some consensus, divergences, and unanswered questions. , 2012 .

[50]  Martin Oliver,et al.  Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be Redeemed? , 2005 .

[51]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq) , 1993 .

[52]  N. Bolger,et al.  Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research , 2013 .

[53]  Samer Khasawneh,et al.  Self-efficacy and college students' perceptions and use of online learning systems , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[54]  R. Pekrun.  The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice , 2006 .

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

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

[57]  Robert Rueda,et al.  Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education , 2012, Br. J. Educ. Technol..