nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

21.05.2022

Investigating Students’ Engagement in Mobile Technology-Supported Science Learning Through Video-Based Classroom Observation

verfasst von: Xiaohong Zhan, Daner Sun, Yun Wen, Yuqin Yang, Ying Zhan

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Driven by the initiative of e-learning, mobile technologies such as tablets, with the merits of portability and accessibility, have become vital tools for creating ubiquitous learning and mobile learning (m-learning) environments in science education. The reconstruction of the science learning environment enabled by mobile technologies may influence students’ learning engagement and correspondingly affect their science learning performance. Considering the limited empirical studies on student engagement in the m-learning environment at the senior secondary level, this study focuses on exploring the characteristics of students’ engagement in a mobile technology-supported science learning environment. In the study, a class with 45 10th grade students and three teachers at a senior secondary school was videotaped and observed. The data of students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagements from 60 science lessons was coded and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively from the social-cultural perspective. On that basis, the correlations among these three dimensions of engagements in m-science learning environment were further calculated. The findings indicated the progress and pitfalls of current mobile technology-supported teaching and learning practices in science education. The results and discussions will inform the pedagogical design and implementation of mobile learning in science education.

Vorheriger Artikel Bridging the Gap Between Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment in Science Education Research with Machine Learning — A Case for Pretrained Language Models-Based Clustering

Nächster Artikel Examining Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Answer Changing Behavior on a Content Knowledge for Teaching Science Assessment

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Alonzo, A. C., Kobarg, M., & Seidal, T. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as reflected in teacher–student interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1211–1239.CrossRef

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159–174.CrossRef

Alt, D. (2018). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT professional development and ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 141–150.CrossRef

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445.CrossRef

Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2016). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 188–198.

Bacca-Acosta, J., & Avila-Garzon, C. (2021). Student engagement with mobile-based assessment systems: a survival analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 158–171.CrossRef

Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., Fors, U., & Knutsson, O. (2020). Engagement, disengagement and performance when learning with technologies in upper secondary school. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103783CrossRef

Boyce, C. J., Mishra, C., Halverson, K. L., & Thomas, A. K. (2014). Getting students outside: Using technology as a way to stimulate engagement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 815–826.CrossRef

Brun, M., & Hinostroza, J. E. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration in Initial Teacher Education in Chile. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 222–238.

Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model and 21st Century Skills. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Cheng, S.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, C.-H. (2019). From reflective observation to active learning: a mobile experiential learning approach for environmental science education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2251–2270.CrossRef

Cho, M. H., & Castaneda, D. A. (2019). Motivational and affective engagement in learning Spanish with a mobile application. System, 81, 90–99.CrossRef

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2020). Mobile learning and pedagogical opportunities: a configurative systematic review of PreK-12 research using the SAMR framework. Computers & Education, 156(2020), 103945.CrossRef

Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: a systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149–160.CrossRef

Cole, P. G., & Chan, L. K. S. (1994). Teaching principles and practice (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Dede, C. (2000). Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270018276CrossRef

Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2019). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17–36.CrossRef

Diacopoulos, M. M., & Crompton, H. (2020). A systematic review of mobile learning in social studies. Computers & Education, 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103911

Engles, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRef

Elfeky, A. I. M., & Masadeh, T. S. Y. (2016). The effect of mobile learning on students’ achievement and conversational skills. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 20–31.CrossRef

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.CrossRef

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. ETR&D, 47, 47–61.CrossRef

Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teacher behaviour. In H. Frick (Ed.), What is Teaching (pp. 173–200). Harper and Row.

Fok, W. T., & Ho, C. W. (2018). Interactive mobile learning for self-directed learning of English language: A case study of a primary school in Hong Kong. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(7), 496–507

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.CrossRef

Gibson, I. W. (2001). At the intersection of technology and pedagogy: Considering styles of learning and teaching. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1–2), 37–61.CrossRef

Goetz, T., Zirngibl, A. Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. (2003). Emotions, learning and achievement from an educational, psychological perspective. In C. Von Rhoeneck (Ed.), Learning Emotions: The Influence of Affective Factors on Classroom Learning (pp. 9–28). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Gu, X., Xu, X., Wang, H., & Crook, C. (2017). Design possibilities for the e-schoolbag: Addressing the 1:1 challenge within China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 571–585.CrossRef

Gu, X., & Wang, Y. (2004). New exploration on analysis technology in the classroom to support teacher professional development. China Educational Technology, 7, 18–21. In Chinese.

Gudmundsdóttir, G. B., Dalaaker, D., Egeberg, G., Hatlevik, O. E., & Tømte, K. H. (2014). Interactive technology. Traditional practice? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2014(1), 23–43.

Heflin, H., Shewmaker, J., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers & Education, 107, 91–99.CrossRef

Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133–153.CrossRef

Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: a review. Computers and Education, 90, 36–53.CrossRef

Holmes, W., Anastopoulou, S., Schaumburg, H., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). Technology enhanced personalised learning: Untangling the evidence. Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH, Stuttgart.

Hwang, B.-L., Chou, T.-C., & Huang, C.-H. (2021). Actualizing the affordance of mobile technology for mobile learning: a main path analysis of mobile learning. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 67–80.

Ibieta, A., Hinostroza, J. E., Labbé, C., & Claro, M. (2017). The role of the Internet in teachers’ professional practice: Activities and factors associated with teacher use of ICT inside and outside the classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 425–438.CrossRef

Janosz, M. (2012). Part IV commentary: Outcomes of engagement and engagement as an outcome: Some consensus, divergences, and unanswered questions. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 695–703). Springer, Boston, MA.

Jimenez-Liso, M. R., Bellocchi, A., Martinez-Chico, M., Lopez-Gay, R. (2021). A model-based inquiry sequence as a heuristic to evaluate students’ emotional, behavioural, and cognitive engagement. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10010-0

Jin, H., Johnson, M. E., Shin, H. J., & Anderson, C. W. (2017). Promoting student progressions in science classrooms: a video study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(7), 852–833.CrossRef

Ke, F., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2015). Mobile augmented-reality artifact creation as a component of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 33–41.CrossRef

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Burke, P. F. (2017). Teacher Development, 22(2), 1–16.

Kelly, D. P. (2015). Overcoming barriers to classroom technology integration. Educational Technology, 55(2), 40–43.

Kong, Q.-P., Wong, N.-Y., & Lam, C.-C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4–21.CrossRef

Kong, S. C., Looi, C. K., Chan, T. W., & Huang, R. H. (2017). Teacher development in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Beijing for e-learning in school education. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(1), 5–25.CrossRef

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82.CrossRef

Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). Research and teaching: a new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 83–91.CrossRef

Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms for mobile learning: Framing research questions. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (Vol. 1, pp. 153–175). London: WLE Centre for Excellence, Institute of Education.

Lei, M., Clemente, I. M., & Hu, Y. (2019). Student in the shell: the robotic body and student engagement. Computers & Education, 130, 59–80.CrossRef

Lin, Y.-N., & Hsia, L.-H. (2019). From social interactions to strategy and skills promotion: an ASQI-based mobile flipped billiards training approach to improving Students learning engagement, performance and perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 22(2), 71–85.

Lin, Y.-N., Hsia, L.-H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2021). Fostering motor skills in physical education: a mobile technology-supported ICRA flipped learning model. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104380CrossRef

Mango, O. (2015). iPad use and student engagement in the classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 53–57.

Ministry of Education. (2018). Master plan of information technology in education 2.0. Retrieved at http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/s3342/201804/t20180425_334188.html

Niemi, H., & Multisilta, J. (2014). Digital storytelling promoting twenty-first century skills and student engagement. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 25(4), 451–468.CrossRef

Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2016). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 14(4), 1–12.

OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: the power of digital technologies and skills. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-enCrossRef

Ouyang, F., & Chang, Y. H. (2019). The relationships between social participatory roles and cognitive engagement levels in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1396–1414.CrossRef

Park, T., & Lim, C. (2019). Design principles for improving emotional affordances in an online learning environment. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9560-7CrossRef

Perry, D. R., & Steck, A. K. (2015). Increasing student engagement, self-efficacy, and meta-cognitive self-regulation in the high school geometry classroom: Do iPads help? Computers in the Schools, 32(2), 122–143.CrossRef

Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Raes, A., Schellens, T., & De Wever, B. (2013). Web-based collaborative inquiry to bridge gaps in secondary science education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 316–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.836656CrossRef

Sakr, M., Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2016). Mobile experiences of historical place: a multimodal analysis of emotional engagement. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 51–92.

Sauers, N. J., & McLeod, S. (2018). Teachers’ technology competency and technology integration in 1:1 schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(6), 892–910.CrossRef

Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. CoMPASS Project. Retrieved from http://www.compassproject.net/sadhana/teaching/readings/sharplesmobile.pdf

Sharples, M., & Pea, R. (2014). Mobile Learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 501–521). Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Shih, J.-L., Chuang, C.-W., & Hwang, G.-J. (2010). An inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhancing social science learning Effectiveness. Educational Technology and Society, 13(4), 50–62.

Shih, S. C., Kuo, B. C., & Liu, Y. L. (2012). Adaptively ubiquitous learning in campus math path. Educational Technology and Society, 15(2), 298–308.

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13.CrossRef

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.CrossRef

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525.CrossRef

Song, Y. (2018). Improving primary students’ collaborative problem solving competency in project-based science learning with productive failure instructional design in a seamless learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 979–1008.CrossRef

Sugden, N., Brunton, R., MacDonald, J. B., & Yeo, M. (2021). Valuating student engagement and deep learning in interactive online psychology learning activities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6632

Sun, J.C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2011). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204.CrossRef

Sun, D., Looi, C.-K., Wu, L., & Xie, W. (2016). The innovative immersion of mobile learning into a science curriculum in Singapore: an exploratory study. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 547–573.CrossRef

Sun, D., Looi, C.-K., Yang, Y., & Sun, J. (2020). Design and implement boundary activity based learning (BABL) principle in science inquiry: an exploratory study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(4), 147–162.

Waight, N., Chiu, M. M., & Whitford, M. (2014). Factors that influence science teachers’ selection and usage of technologies in high school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 668–681.CrossRef

Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/ extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1–12.CrossRef

Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: a longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23.CrossRef

Wong, L.-H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E19–E23.CrossRef

Wong, L.-H., Chai, C. S., Aw, G. P., & King, R. (2015). Enculturating seamless language learning through artifact creation and social interaction process. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 130–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1016534

Wong, L.-H., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.CrossRef

Yazzie-Mintz, E., & McCormick, K. (2012). Finding the humanity in the data: Understanding, measuring, and strengthening student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 743–762). Springer.CrossRef

Yeung, W. K., & Sun, D. (2021). An exploration of inquiry-based authentic learning enabled by mobile technology for primary science. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 15(1), xx.CrossRef

Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2021) An investigation into the role of course satisfaction on students’ engagement and motivation in a mobile-assisted learning management system support flipped classroom. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.1940257

Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: an analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6), 451–480.CrossRef

Zhu, G., Raman, P., Xing, W., et al. (2021). Curriculum design for social, cognitive and emotional engagement in knowledge building. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00276-9

Titel: Investigating Students’ Engagement in Mobile Technology-Supported Science Learning Through Video-Based Classroom Observation
verfasst von: Xiaohong Zhan
Daner Sun
Yun Wen
Yuqin Yang
Ying Zhan
Publikationsdatum: 21.05.2022
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09970-3

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

The Construction and Validation of the Visuospatial Self-Efficacy (VSSE) Scale

IoT in Project-Based Biology Learning: Students’ Experiences and Skill Development

Location-Based Learning and Its Effect on Students’ Understanding of Newton’s Laws of Motion

Examining Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Answer Changing Behavior on a Content Knowledge for Teaching Science Assessment

Supporting Three-dimensional Learning on Ecosystems Using an Agent-Based Computer Model

Videos with Hands: an Analysis of Usage and Interactions of Undergraduate Science Students for Acquiring Physics Knowledge

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten