Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 17, Number 2, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
Invited as a Paper From ED-MEDIA 2006
Although engagement and learning appear linked, quantitatively measuring this relationship is challenging. New technologies offer a window into studying the interactions among classroom activity, student engagement, and positive learning outcomes in computer-equipped classrooms. A Classroom Behavioral Analysis System (CBAS) was developed to measure student engagement in a college writing class, and to test the hypothesis that an interactive lesson would increase student engagement levels in a computer-equipped classroom. Student computer-based behaviors (off-task and on-task internet visits) were compared during a traditional, lecture-based lesson (no-simulation condition) and an interactive simulation-based lesson (simulation condition). The dependent variable was student engagement as measured by the number of off-task and on-task internet activities during the lesson. Off-task internet activities were operationalized as website visits that were not part of the classroom activity; on-task internet activities included websites that related to the assigned class activity. CBAS recorded all student computer actions during the observed instructional periods. Students attending a simulation-based lesson performed more on-task internet actions, and significantly fewer off-task internet actions than did students attending a lecture-based lesson. These findings support the hypothesis that interactive lessons increase student engagement levels in computer-equipped classrooms, and demonstrate that CBAS is a promising tool for studying student engagement.
Bulger, M.E., Mayer, R.E., Almeroth, K.C. & Blau, S.D. (2008). Measuring Learner Engagement in Computer-Equipped College Classrooms. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129-143. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 16, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/23524/.
© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
- Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
- Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.
- Berliner, D.C. (1987). Knowledge is power. In D.C. Berliner & B.V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers: A festschrift for N.L. Gage (pp. 3-33), New York: Random House.
- Berliner, D.C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In M. BenPeretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3 – 35). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
- Brophy, J., Rashid, H., Rohrkemper, M., & Goldberger, M. (1983). Relationships between teachers’ presentations of classroom tasks and students’ engagement in those tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 544-552.
- Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Riverside Press. Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational
- Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
- Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
- Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665-692), New York: Macmillan.
- Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan
- Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Lentz, F. (1998). On-task behavior, academic performance, and classroom disruptions: Untangling the target selection problem in classroom interventions. School Psychology Review, 17(2), 243–257.
- Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- McMahon, B., & Portelli, J.P. (2004). Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 59-76.
- Meece, J. L., & Blumenfeld, P.C. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523.
- Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
- Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
- Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21(1/2), 139-161.
- Schraw, G. & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.
- Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
- Winne, P.H. (1992). State-of-the-art instructional computing systems that afford
- Winne, P.H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 5-17.
- Zhang, H., Almeroth, K. C., & Bulger, M. (2005). An activity monitoring system to support classroom research. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005 (pp. 1444-1449). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Leni Casimiro, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Philippines
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2015 (Jun 22, 2015) pp. 11–20
Kathy Robinson & Alanah Kazlauskas, Australian Catholic University, Australia
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2011 (Jun 27, 2011) pp. 2805–2810
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact email@example.com.