Posts Tagged ‘Students Participation’

gamification and learning

Student Perceptions of Learning and Instructional Effectiveness in College Courses

https://www.ets.org/Media/Products/perceptions.pdf

Students’ Perception of Gamification in Learning and Education.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47283-6_6

College students’ perceptions of pleasure in learning – Designing gameful gamification in education

investigate behavioral and psychological metrics that could affect learner perceptions of technology

today’s learners spend extensive time and effort posting and commenting in social media and playing video games

Creating pleasurable learning experiences for learners can improve learner engagement.

uses game-design elements in non-gaming environments with the purpose of motivating users to behave in a certain direction (Deterding et al., 2011)

How can we facilitate the gamefulness of gamification?

Most gamified activities include three basic parts: “goal-focused activity, reward mechanisms, and progress tracking” (Glover, 2013, p. 2000).

gamification works similarly to the instructional methods in education – clear learning and teaching objectives, meaningful learning activities, and assessment methods that are aligned with the objectives

the design of seven game elements:

  • Storytelling: It provides the rules of the gamified activities. A good gamified activity should have a clear and simple storyboard to direct learners to achieve the goals. This game-design element works like the guidelines and directions of an instructional activity in class.
  • Levels: A gamified activity usually consists of different levels for learners to advance through. At each level, learners will face different challenges. These levels and challenges can be viewed as the specific learning objectives/competencies for learners to accomplish.
  • Points: Points pertain to the progress-tracking element because learners can gain points when they complete the quests.
  • Leaderboard: This element provides a reward mechanism that shows which learners are leading in the gamified activities. This element is very controversial when gamification is used in educational contexts because some empirical evidence shows that a leaderboard is effective only for users who are aggressive and hardcore players (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014).
  • Badges: These serve as milestones to resemble the rewards that learners have achieved when they complete certain quests. This element works as the extrinsic motivation for learners (Kapp, 2012).
  • Feedback: A well-designed gamification interface should provide learners with timely feedback in order to help them to stay on the right track.
  • Progress: A progress-tracking bar should appear in the learner profile to remind learners of how many quests remain and how many quests they have completed.

Dominguez et al. (2013) suggested that gamification fosters high-order thinking, such as problem-solving skills, rather than factual knowledge. Critical thinking, which is commonly assessed in social science majors, is also a form of higher-order thinking.

Davis (1989) developed technology acceptance model (TAM) to help people understand how users perceive technologies. Pleasure, arousal, and dominance (PAD) emotional-state model that developed by Mehrabian (1995) is one of the fundamental design frameworks for scale development in understanding user perceptions of user-system interactions.

Technology Acceptance Model from Damian T. Gordon

Introduction of the basic emotional impact of environments from Sekine masato

Van der Heijdedn (2004) asserted that pleasurable experiences encouraged users to use the system for a longer period of time
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) has been integrated into the design of gamification and addressed the balance between learners’ extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

Self determination theory from Jeannie Maraya
Ryan and Deci (2000) concluded that extrinsic rewards might suppress learners’ intrinsic motivation. Exploiting the playfulness and gamefulness in gamification, therefore, becomes extremely important, as it would employ the most effective approaches to engage learners.
Sweetser and Wyeth (2005) developed GameFlow as an evaluation model to measure player enjoyment in games
Fu, Su, and Yu (2009) adapted this scale to EGameFlow in order to measure college students’ enjoyment of e-learning games. EGameFlow is a multidimensional scale that consists of self-evaluated emotions.

Gamification and Flow from Martin Sillaots
Eppmann, Bekk, and Klein (2018) developed gameful experience scale (GAMEX) to measure gameful experiences for gamification contexts. one of the limitations of GAMEX to be used in education is that its effects on learning outcome has not been studied
the Big Five Model, which has been proposed as trait theory by McCrae & Costa (1989) and is widely accepted in the field, to measure the linkages between the game mechanics in gamification and the influences of different personality traits.

The Big Five Personality Model from Devina Srivastava

Storytelling in the subscale of Preferences for Instruction emphasizes the rules of the gamified learning environments, such as the syllabus of the course, the rubrics for the assignments, and the directions for tasks. Storytelling in the subscale of Preferences for Instructors’ Teaching Style focuses on the ways in which instructors present the content. For example, instructors could use multimedia resources to present their instructional materials. Storytelling in the subscale of Preferences for Learning Effectiveness emphasizes scaffolding materials for the learners, such as providing background information for newly introduced topics.

The effective use of badges would include three main elements: signifier, completion logic, and rewards (Hamari & Eranti, 2011). A useful badge needs clear goal-setting and prompt feedback. Therefore, badges correlate closely with the design of storytelling (rules) and feedback, which are the key game design elements in the subscale of Preferences for Instruction.

Students can use Google to search on their laptops or tablets in class when instructors introduce new concepts. By reading the reviews and viewing the numbers of “thumbs-up” (agreements by other users), students are able to select the best answers. Today’s learners also “tweet” on social media to share educational videos and news with their classmates and instructors. Well-designed gamified learning environments could increase pleasure in learning by allowing students to use familiar computing experiences in learning environments.

 

student engagement in online classes

per SCSU faculty request, please have compiled literature (books and peer-reviewed articles) on:

Here some names who are well regarded in the community of online learning as specialists in online discussions:

  1. Susan Ko
    https://mplus.mnpals.net/vufind/Record/007248228
  2. Palloff and Pratt:
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/159169.Keith_Pratt (not sure if you are a goodreads user, I am)
    https://mplus.mnpals.net/vufind/Record/007494813

the most recent peer-reviewed literature on keywords: “engag*” + “student*” + “online” = 13K+ titles for the period 2010-2016:

http://scsu.mn/1W6Y7wF

and about 20 articles from the link above with the general search:

Record: 1

A Digital Badging Dataset Focused on Performance, Engagement and Behavior-Related Variables from Observations in Web-Based University Courses By: McDaniel, Rudy; Fanfarelli, Joseph R.. British Journal of Educational Technology, v46 n5 p937-941 Sep 2015. (EJ1071635)

Database:

ERIC

Record: 2

A Student-Centered Guest Lecturing: A Constructivism Approach to Promote Student Engagement By: Li, Lei; Guo, Rong. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, v15 Oct 2015. (EJ1060070)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 3

Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging? By: Dixson, Marcia D.. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, v10 n2 p1-13 Jun 2010. (EJ890707)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 4

Effects From Student Engagement Online. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p67-73. 7p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.

Database:

EBSCO MegaFILE

Record: 5

Engaging Students in Online Courses By: Jacobs, Pearl. Research in Higher Education Journal, v26 Oct 2014. (EJ1055325)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 6

Engaging Students via Social Media: Is It Worth the Effort? By: Mostafa, Rania B.. Journal of Marketing Education, v37 n3 p144-159 Dec 2015. (EJ1080980)

Database:

ERIC

Record: 7

Engaging Students with Social Media By: Bal, Anjali S.; Grewal, Dhruv; Mills, Adam. Journal of Marketing Education, v37 n3 p190-203 Dec 2015. (EJ1081047)

Database:

ERIC

Record: 8

HOW TO BETTER ENGAGE ONLINE STUDENTS WITH ONLINE STRATEGIES. By: BRITT, DR. MARGARET. College Student Journal. Fall2015, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p399-404. 6p.

Database:

EBSCO MegaFILE

Record: 9

Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. By: Cho, Moon-Heum; Cho, YoonJung. Internet & Higher Education. Apr2014, Vol. 21, p25-30. 6p. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008.

Database:

EBSCO MegaFILE

Record: 10

Measuring Student Engagement in an Online Program By: Bigatel, Paula; Williams, Vicki. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, v18 n2 Sum 2015. (EJ1065381)

Database:

ERIC

Record: 11

Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE) By: Dixson, Marcia D.. Online Learning, v19 n4 Sep 2015. (EJ1079585)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 12

On-Line Course Development: Engaging and Retaining Students By: Bruster, Benita G.. SRATE Journal, v24 n2 p1-7 Sum 2015. (EJ1083122)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 13

Promoting Online Students’ Engagement and Learning in Science and Sustainability Preservice Teacher Education By: Tomas, Louisa; Lasen, Michelle; Field, Ellen. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, v40 n11 Article 5 Nov 2015. (EJ1083370)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 14

Strengthening student engagement: what do students want in online courses? By: Chakraborty, Misha; Nafukho, Fredrick Muyia. European Journal of Training & Development. 2014, Vol. 38 Issue 9, p782-802. 21p. DOI: 10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0123.

Database:

EBSCO MegaFILE

Record: 15

Student Engagement in Online Learning: What Works and Why. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p1-14. 14p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.

Database:

EBSCO MegaFILE

Record: 16

Student Perceptions of Twitters’ Effectiveness for Assessment in a Large Enrollment Online Course By: Rohr, Linda; Costello, Jane. Online Learning, v19 n4 Sep 2015. (EJ1079590)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 17

Techniques for Student Engagement Online. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p37-66. 30p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.

Database:

EBSCO MegaFILE

Record: 18

The civic-social media disconnect: exploring perceptions of social media for engagement in the daily life of college students. By: Mihailidis, Paul. Information, Communication & Society. Oct2014, Vol. 17 Issue 9, p1059-1071. 13p. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.877054.

Database:

EBSCO MegaFILE

Record: 19

The Online University Classroom: One Perspective for Effective Student Engagement and Teaching in an Online Environment By: Carr, Marsha. Journal of Effective Teaching, v14 n1 p99-110 2014. (EJ1060450)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

Record: 20

The Perils of a Lack of Student Engagement: Reflections of a “Lonely, Brave, and Rather Exposed” Online Instructor By: Stott, Philip. British Journal of Educational Technology, v47 n1 p51-64 Jan 2016. (EJ1086712)

Database:

ERIC

Record: 21

The VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-Led) Classroom: The Impact of Blended Synchronous Online Courses on Student Performance, Engagement, and Satisfaction By: Francescucci, Anthony; Foster, Mary. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, v43 n3 p78-91 2013. (EJ1018277)
Full Text from ERIC

Database:

ERIC

======================================================

More on “Classroom Discussion and Students Participation” in this IMS blog entry:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/29/classroom-discussion-and-students-participation/

Classroom Discussion and Students Participation

Classroom Discussion and Students Participation: how to Secure Student Engagement to Increase Learning and Improve Teaching

  • How to increase the number of students who take part in classroom discussions
  • How to avoid the problem of dominant talkers
  • How to encourage introverted students to increase their participation in classroom discussions
  • Strategies to help your students recognize what they learned in any discussion
  • How to use the first day of the semester to engage your students—and techniques for getting them to participate right from the start
  • What common classroom practices can decrease the likelihood of a student participating in discussion?
  • What strategies can you use to overcome established classroom practices and increase student participation?
  • And how can you structure classroom discussions to better facilitate student learning?

What does Research Tell Us about Classroom Discussion? Jay Howard
http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=facsch_papers

Do College Students Participate More in Discussion in Traditional Delivery Courses or in Interactive Telecourses?
https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_higher_education/v073/73.6howard.html

facts from sociological research:

  • Gender yields mixed results
    • Males participate more frequently than females.
    • Males participate more frequently in courses taught by female instructors
    • Other studies show the opposite
  • Non traditional students participate more frequently
  • Instructors’ gender also returns mixed results
  • Class size as variable is important, smaller classes, more participation
  • Class participation – grading
    • Make the students grade themselves at the end of each class period. By making them grade themselves, they reflect and makes them more aware of their contribution.
      0 – absent
      1 – present but did not verbally participate
      2 – verbally participated one time
      3 – verbally participated more than once
      4 – made an equitable contribution to discussion in terms of both quantity and quality

 

  • The well-known and established belief that smaller classes spur more participation.
    Jay Howard maintain his sociological research in 20th centuries constants: physical classroom, no technology surrounding.
    In the 21st century, clickers changed the opportunity for immediate feedback. They changed also the discourse of the traditional student participation and classroom discussion:
    http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=clickers&submit=Search

Traditional forms and techniques for discussion and participation

Weih, T. G. (2015). Discussion Strategies for the Inclusion of ALL Students. Online Submission,
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561060

  • Don’ts:
    call on student
    instructor’s personality issues:

Does the instructor really care of what students have to say
lecturing does not predispose to discussion

  • The 10 second rule: students discuss in pairs the concept/question
  • Think-Pair-Share: discussion strategy before or after lesson, similar to 10 second but longer
  • Quick writes: write their thoughts and then share. Loose paper, names on top,
  • Recorder-reporter. Post-lecture. The person reps the group, who is working on a specific question. Each group different question.
  • K-W-L. what we know, what we want to learn, what we learned. Teacher instructs students that K = what they know, W = what they want to learn and L = what they learned. . work in small groups, but each student works on h/er chart, thus if student disagrees with rest of the group, has record. L is left blank for after the discussion.

Simich-Dudgeon, C., & National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, W. D. (1998). Classroom Strategies for Encouraging Collaborative Discussion. Directions in Language and Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED435188

  • Using storytelling

Chen, W., & Looi, C. (2007). Incorporating Online Discussion in Face to Face Classroom Learning: A New Blended Learning Approach. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 23(3), 307-326.
Discussions and participation in hybrid environment

Jinhong, J., & Gilson, T. A. (2014). Online Threaded Discussion: Benefits, Issues, and Strategies. Kinesiology Review, 3(4), 241-246.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3ds3h%26AN%3d100248254%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

For each OTD topic, the instructor randomly assigns two to four student discussion leaders who are in charge of organizing OTD for the assigned week. Each of the discussion leaders is asked to generate one or two discussion questions related to the topic based on reading assignments. The use of student discussion leaders is a strategy to encourage active participation and help develop ownership of learning. Once student discussion leaders post their questions, other students are encouraged to contribute to the discussion by answering each question, commenting on the ideas of others, or asking questions of peers or the instructor for the next two days. When the week’s discussion is complete, the student leaders and instructor work together to summarize the discussion and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric. (p.242)

Implementation (p. 243):

  • preparation : On the first day of the course, the instructor introduces topics, how-tos, expectations, grading procedures, and required reading assignments for OTD, and organizes discussion leaders for each online discussion (2–4 leaders for each)
  • Opening and Responding: Posted discussion questions become open at the time of the class and students who are not the leaders are required to post at least one response per question within 48 hrs. During this time, the leaders facilitate discussion by responding to comments, raising questions, or redirecting discussion to encourage active participation and ensure the discussion is on track
  • Summary and Assessment: The job of the leader is to moderate, summarize discussion threads, and assess them at the end of the discussion. When the week’s discussion is complete, the leaders meet with the instructor to debrief and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric given by the instructor. After the meeting, each leader posts his or her summary of the discussion to BBCMS and reports at the next in-person class.

 

  • D2L
  • Beyond CMS (D2L)

Discussions and participation in online environment

Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of Online Discussion Strategies: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal Of Distance Education, 27(4), 228-241. doi:10.1080/08923647.2013.837651

  • Beyond CMS (D2L)

Lin, P., Hou, H., Wang, S., & Chang, K. (2013). Analyzing knowledge dimensions and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Computers & Education, 60(1), 110-121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512001819

  1. 111 results suggest that using Facebook is not necessarily harmful to a student’s learning performance. Adequate learning activity design and pedagogical goal setting could, in fact, exploit the social and information-sharing function of Facebook, thereby supporting academic learning (Gray et al., 2010). this study seeks to advance the understanding of adult learners’ behaviors in online project discussions using Facebook.

In the process of project-based learning, learners must utilize different kinds of knowledge (e.g., discrete declarative knowledge and dynamic procedural knowledge) (Lou, 2004). Meanwhile, students can develop higher level of cognitive skills for a specific domain as well as the ability to apply adequate knowledge to a specific domain or context during PBL (Barron et al., 1998; Blumenfeld et al., 1991).

  1. 118
    Select driving questions or controversial issues as project topics: Blumenfeld et al. (1991) noted that driving questions could facilitate students to explore the project topic. In the exploration process, students must first collect information and propose diverse viewpoints on the project topics. They could subsequently filter out and reach consensus during online discussions. This process involves diverse and converging phases that can move students toward higher-order thinking (Jorczak & Bart, 2009).
  2. Allow ample time for online discussion: Results of this study indicated that student online discussions lacked diversity in both knowledge and cognitive process dimensions. One possible reason could be that the allotted time for online discussions was not sufficient. Considering the multiple roles that adult learners play in family and/or work, they may not be able to respond to the discussions in a timely manner. Therefore, allowing more time for students to discuss may provide opportunities for students to demonstrate more diverse and deeper thinking (Scherling, 2011).
  3. Provide a structured rubric for online discussions: Well-designed discussion guidelines and evaluation criteria, i.e., posting protocols or rubric for grading, could serve as scaffolds for student online discussions, which may, subsequently, lead to more meaningful learning (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). Following that, more diverse type of knowledge and levels of cognitive process could be expected to be shown.
  4. Pay attention to the effects that individual differences may exert on the learner’s interactions: Our results showed that, in the context of online discussions, females and older learners are more likely to have off-topic discussions than their male and/or younger counterparts. These findings are in accord with previous research that suggested effects of individual differences on learning as well as on the use of SNSs (Glynn et al., 2012; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012; Price, 2006; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2009). Therefore, considering the potential effects that gender and age may exert on online discussions, instructors are advised to consider individual differences when grouping students for online discussions, as a balanced group composition of evenly distributed age and gender could be a better approach than a skewed distribution of individuals.

 

social interaction, which was considered as irrelevant discussion, may also leading to meaningful thinking and echoes the viewpoints from previous studies, which suggest social interaction can be a critical element in the CSCL environment (Abedin et al., 2011a, 2011b).

Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended learning approach

Wenli Chen, Chee-Kit Looi

Abstract

This paper discusses an innovative blended learning strategy which incorporates online discussion in both in-class face to face, and off-classroom settings. Online discussion in a face to face class is compared with its two counterparts, off-class online discussion as well as in-class, face to face oral discussion, to examine the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed strategy. By integrating online discussion into the flow of the classroom, learners are given dedicated time to foster a habit of critical thinking, reflection and articulating these online, which can subsequently seed further in-class oral discussions, and off-class online discussions. It is found that in-class, online discussion can provide a wider spectrum of discussion perspectives, equalise participation in discussion, and promote cognitive thinking skills and in depth information processing. However, the lack of face to face interactions and the need for sufficient time to do online postings pose challenges in implementing online discussion for face to face classroom learning.

PDF file available

=============

More on classroom discussions in this IMS blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=discussions&submit=Search