Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework Cover

Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework

Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Volume 2019 (2019): Issue 1
By: Melissa Bond and  Svenja Bedenlier  
Open Access
|Sep 2019

References

  1. 1Abate, LE, Gomes, A and Linton, A. 2011. Engaging Students in Active Learning: Use of a Blog and Audience Response System. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30(1): 12–18. DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2011.540206
    Back to article
  2. 2Adams Becker, S, Brown, M, Dahlstrom, E, Davis, A, DePaul, K, Diaz, V and Pomerantz, J. 2018. NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE.
    Back to article
  3. 3Adhikari, J, Mathrani, A and Scogings, C. 2016. Bring Your Own Devices classroom. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(4): 323–343. DOI: 10.1108/ITSE-04-2016-0007
    Back to article
  4. 4Akamai. 2017. Akamai’s State of the Internet Q1 2017 Report. Available at https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf [Accessed 15 July 2019].
    Back to article
  5. 5Akbari, E, Naderi, A, Simons, R-J and Pilot, A. 2016. Student engagement and foreign language learning through online social networks. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1): 1–22. DOI: 10.1186/s40862-016-0006-7
    Back to article
  6. 6Alcaraz-Salarirche, N, Gallardo-Gil, M, Herrera-Pastor, D and Serván-Núñez, MJ. 2011. An action research process on university tutorial sessions with small groups: presentational tutorial sessions and online communication. Educational Action Research, 19(4): 549–565. DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2011.625713
    Back to article
  7. 7Aldridge, JM and McChesney, K. 2018. The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88: 121–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012
    Back to article
  8. 8Alioon, Y and Delialioğlu, Ö. 2019. The effect of authentic m-learning activities on student engagement and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2): 655–668. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12559
    Back to article
  9. 9Alizadeh, T. 2017. The NBN: how a national infrastructure dream fell short. Available at http://theconversation.com/the-nbn-how-a-national-infrastructure-dream-fell-short-77780 [Accessed 15 July 2019].
    Back to article
  10. 10Almarghani, EM and Mijatovic, I. 2017. Factors affecting student engagement in HEIs – it is all about good teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8): 940–956. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1319808
    Back to article
  11. 11Alshaikhi, D and Madini, AA. 2016. Attitude toward Enhancing Extensive Listening through Podcasts Supplementary Pack. English Language Teaching, 9(7): 32–47. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v9n7p32
    Back to article
  12. 12Ansong, D, Okumu, M, Bowen, GL, Walker, AM and Eisensmith, SR. 2017. The role of parent, classmate, and teacher support in student engagement: Evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development, 54: 51–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.03.010
    Back to article
  13. 13Antonenko, PD. 2015. The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1): 53–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4
    Back to article
  14. 14Appleton, JJ, Christenson, SL and Furlong, MJ. 2008. Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5): 369–386. DOI: 10.1002/pits.20303
    Back to article
  15. 15Ashwin, P and McVitty, D. 2015. The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In: Curaj, A, Matei, L, Pricopie, R, Salmi, J and Scott, P (eds.), The European Higher Education Area, 343–359. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_23
    Back to article
  16. 16Astin, A. 1999. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5): 518–529.
    Back to article
  17. 17Bandura, A. 1995. Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In: Bandura, A (ed.), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, 1–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511527692.003
    Back to article
  18. 18Baron, P and Corbin, L. 2012. Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6): 759–772. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.655711
    Back to article
  19. 19Bartle, E, Longnecker, N and Pegrum, M. 2011. Collaboration, contextualisation and communication using new media: Introducing podcasting into an undergraduate chemistry class. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 19(1): 16–28.
    Back to article
  20. 20Beckmann, EA. 2010. Learners on the move: Mobile modalities in development studies. Distance Education, 31(2): 159–173. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2010.498081
    Back to article
  21. 21Beer, C, Clark, K and Jones, D. 2010. Indicators of engagement. In: Steel, CH, Keppell, MJ, Gerbic, P and Housego, S (eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010, 75–86.
    Back to article
  22. 22Bigatel, P and Williams, V. 2015. Measuring Student Engagement in an Online Program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(2).
    Back to article
  23. 23Boekaerts, M. 2016. Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learning and Instruction, 43: 76–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.001
    Back to article
  24. 24Bond, M. 2019. Flipped learning and parent engagement in secondary schools: A South Australian case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3): 1294–1319. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12765
    Back to article
  25. 25Bond, M. (Manuscript in preparation). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review.
    Back to article
  26. 26Bond, M, Buntins, K, Bedenlier, S, Zawacki-Richter, O, and Kerres, M. (Manuscript in preparation). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education.
    Back to article
  27. 27Bond, M, Marín, VI, Dolch, C, Bedenlier, S and Zawacki-Richter, O. 2018. Digital transformation in German higher education: student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1): 1–20. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1
    Back to article
  28. 28Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    Back to article
  29. 29Bronfenbrenner, U. 1986. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6): 723–742. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
    Back to article
  30. 30Bronfenbrenner, U and Ceci, SJ. 1994. Nature-Nurture Reconceptualized in Developmental Perspective: A Bioecological Model. Psychological Review, 101(4): 568–586. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
    Back to article
  31. 31Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Referat Digitaler Wandel in der Bildung. 2018. Bildung digital. Digitale Hochschulbildung. Available at https://www.bmbf.de/de/digitale-hochschullehre-2417.html [Accessed 20 April 2018].
    Back to article
  32. 32Bundick, M, Quaglia, R, Corso, M and Haywood, DE. 2014. Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116(4).
    Back to article
  33. 33Cakir, H. 2013. Use of blogs in pre-service teacher education to improve student engagement. Computers & Education, 68: 244–252. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.013
    Back to article
  34. 34Castañeda, L and Selwyn, N. 2018. More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1): 211. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y
    Back to article
  35. 35Castro, M, Expósito-Casas, E, López-Martín, E, Lizasoain, L, Navarro-Asencio, E and Gaviria, JL. 2015. Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14: 33–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002
    Back to article
  36. 36Chen, P-SD, Lambert, AD and Guidry, KR. 2010. Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4): 1222–1232. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
    Back to article
  37. 37Cheng, Y-H and Weng, C-W. 2017. Factors influence the digital media teaching of primary school teachers in a flipped class: A Taiwan case study. South African Journal of Education, 37(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.15700/saje.v37n1a1293
    Back to article
  38. 38Chipchase, L, Davidson, M, Blackstock, F, Bye, R, Colthier, P, Krupp, N, Dickson, W, Turner, D and Williams, M. 2017. Conceptualising and Measuring Student Disengagement in Higher Education: A Synthesis of the Literature. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2): 31. DOI: 10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p31
    Back to article
  39. 39Coates, H. 2007. A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2): 121–141. DOI: 10.1080/02602930600801878
    Back to article
  40. 40Coates, H. 2009. Engaging students for success: Australasian Student Engagement Report. Camberwell, Vic.
    Back to article
  41. 41D’addato, T and Miller, LR. 2016. An Inquiry into Flipped Learning in Fourth Grade Math Instruction. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 17(2): 33–55.
    Back to article
  42. 42Daniels, AD and Holtman, LB. 2014. The Use of Artefact Production to Achieve Learning Objectives in a Second-Year Zoology Course at an Institute of Higher Learning. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(6): 263–272. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n6p263
    Back to article
  43. 43de Araujo, Z, Otten, S and Birisci, S. 2017. Mathematics teachers’ motivations for, conceptions of, and experiences with flipped instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62: 60–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.006
    Back to article
  44. 44Diogo, AM, Silva, P and Viana, J. 2018. Children’s use of ICT, family mediation, and social inequalities. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1): 61–76.
    Back to article
  45. 45Doctoroff, GL and Arnold, DH. 2017. Doing homework together: The relation between parenting strategies, child engagement, and achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 48: 103–113. DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2017.01.001
    Back to article
  46. 46Eccles, J. 2016. Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43: 71–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003
    Back to article
  47. 47Education Endowment Foundation. 2018. Working with parents to support children’s learning. Available at https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/tools/guidance-reports/working-with-parents-to-support-childrens-learning/ [Accessed 18 July 2019].
    Back to article
  48. 48Educause. 2018. Report from the 2018 EDUCAUSE Task Force on Digital Transformation. Available at https://library.educause.edu/resources/2018/11/report-from-the-2018-educause-task-force-on-digital-transformation [Accessed 18 July 2019].
    Back to article
  49. 49Eick, C and King, DT, Jr. 2012. Nonscience Majors’ Perceptions on the Use of YouTube Video to Support Learning in an Integrated Science Lecture. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(1): 26–30.
    Back to article
  50. 50Eng, S, Szmodis, W and Mulsow, M. 2014. Cambodian Parental Involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 114(4): 573–594. DOI: 10.1086/675639
    Back to article
  51. 51Finn, J and Zimmer, K. 2012. Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In: Christenson, SL, Reschly, AL and Wylie, C (eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 97–131. Boston, MA: Springer US.
    Back to article
  52. 52Fredricks, JA, Blumenfeld, PC and Paris, AH. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1): 59–109. DOI: 10.3102/00346543074001059
    Back to article
  53. 53Fredricks, JA, Filsecker, M and Lawson, MA. 2016. Student engagement, context and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43: 1–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
    Back to article
  54. 54Gerick, J, Eickelmann, B and Bos, W. 2017. School level predictors for the use of ICT in schools and students’ CIL in international comparison. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5(5): 1–13. DOI: 10.1186/s40536-017-0037-7
    Back to article
  55. 55Goodall, J and Vorhaus, J. 2011. Review of best practice in parental engagement. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-best-practice-in-parental-engagement [Accessed 18 July 2019].
    Back to article
  56. 56Grypp, L and Luebeck, J. 2015. Rotating Solids and Flipping Instruction. Mathematics Teacher, 109(3): 186–193. DOI: 10.5951/mathteacher.109.3.0186
    Back to article
  57. 57Heatly, MC and Votruba-Drzal, E. 2018. Developmental precursors of engagement and motivation in fifth grade: Linkages with parent- and teacher-child relationships. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 60: 144–156. DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.09.003
    Back to article
  58. 58Henderson, M, Selwyn, N and Aston, R. 2017. What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8): 1567–1579. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946
    Back to article
  59. 59Hennessy, S, Mavrikis, M, Girvan, C, Price, S and Winters, N. 2019. BJET Editorial for the 50th Anniversary Volume in 2019: Looking back, reaching forward. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1): 5–11. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12730
    Back to article
  60. 60Henrie, CR, Halverson, LR and Graham, CR. 2015. Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90: 36–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
    Back to article
  61. 61Hew, KF, Lan, M, Tang, Y, Jia, C and Lo, CK. 2019. Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3): 956–971. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12770
    Back to article
  62. 62Hill, NE and Tyson, DF. 2009. Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3): 740–763. DOI: 10.1037/a0015362
    Back to article
  63. 63Hochschulforum Digitalisierung. 2016. Discussion Paper. 20 Theses on Digital Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Working Paper No. 18. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung. Available at https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/sites/default/files/dateien/HFD_AP_Nr%2018_Discussion_Paper.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2019].
    Back to article
  64. 64Hohlfeld, TN, Ritzhaupt, AD and Barron, AE. 2010. Connecting schools, community, and family with ICT: Four-year trends related to school level and SES of public schools in Florida. Computers & Education, 55(1): 391–405. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.004
    Back to article
  65. 65Hollingworth, S, Mansaray, A, Allen, K and Rose, A. 2011. Parents’ perspectives on technology and children’s learning in the home: Social class and the role of the habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27(4): 347–360. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00431.x
    Back to article
  66. 66Howard, SK, Ma, J and Yang, J. 2016. Student rules: Exploring patterns of students’ computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning. Computers & Education, 101: 29–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.008
    Back to article
  67. 67Howell, D. 2013. Effects of an Inverted Instructional Delivery Model on Achievement of Ninth-Grade Physical Science Honors Students, Gardner-Webb University.
    Back to article
  68. 68Ihme, JM and Senkbeil, M. 2017. Why Adolescents Cannot Realistically Assess Their Own Computer-Related Skills. Zeitschrift Fur Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie, 49(1): 24–37. DOI: 10.1026/0049-8637/a000164
    Back to article
  69. 69Imlawi, J, Gregg, D and Karimi, J. 2015. Student engagement in course-based social networks: The impact of instructor credibility and use of communication. Computers & Education, 88: 84–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.015
    Back to article
  70. 70Jääskelä, P, Häkkinen, P and Rasku-Puttonen, H. 2017. Teacher beliefs regarding learning, pedagogy, and the use of technology in higher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3–4): 198–211. DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2017.1343691
    Back to article
  71. 71Joksimović, S, Poquet, O, Kovanović, V, Dowell, N, Mills, C, Gašević, D, Dawson, S, Graesser, AC and Brooks, C. 2018. How Do We Model Learning at Scale? A Systematic Review of Research on MOOCs. Review of Educational Research, 88(1): 43–86. DOI: 10.3102/0034654317740335
    Back to article
  72. 72Junco, R. 2012. The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1): 162–171. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004
    Back to article
  73. 73Kahn, P. 2014. Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6): 1005–1018. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3121
    Back to article
  74. 74Kahu, ER. 2013. Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5): 758–773. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
    Back to article
  75. 75Kahu, ER and Nelson, K. 2018. Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1): 58–71. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
    Back to article
  76. 76Karabulut-Ilgu, A, Jaramillo Cherrez, N and Jahren, CT. 2018. A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3): 398–411. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12548
    Back to article
  77. 77Kearsley, G and Shneiderman, B. 1998. Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5): 20–23.
    Back to article
  78. 78Koehler, M and Mishra, P. 2005. What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2): 131–152. DOI: 10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
    Back to article
  79. 79Krause, L. 2014. Examining Stakeholder Perceptions of Accessibility and Utilization of Computer and Internet Technology in the Selinsgrove Area School District, Drexel University. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED569546 [Accessed 7 August 2019].
    Back to article
  80. 80Lear, J, Ansorge, C and Steckelberg, A. 2010. Interactivity/Community Process Model for the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 6(1): 71–77.
    Back to article
  81. 81Lee, M-K. 2018. Flipped classroom as an alternative future class model? implications of South Korea’s social experiment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3): 837–857. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-018-9587-9
    Back to article
  82. 82Leese, M. 2009. Out of class—out of mind? The use of a virtual learning environment to encourage student engagement in out of class activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1): 70–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00822.x
    Back to article
  83. 83Levin, S, Whitsett, D and Wood, G. 2013. Teaching MSW Social Work Practice in a Blended Online Learning Environment. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(4–5): 408–420. DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2013.829168
    Back to article
  84. 84Lewin, C and Luckin, R. 2010. Technology to support parental engagement in elementary education: Lessons learned from the UK. Computers & Education, 54(3): 749–758. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.010
    Back to article
  85. 85Lim, C. 2004. Engaging learners in online learning environments. TechTrends, 48(4): 16–23. DOI: 10.1007/BF02763440
    Back to article
  86. 86Linnenbrink-Garcia, L, Rogat, TK and Koskey, KLK. 2011. Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1): 13–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001
    Back to article
  87. 87Ma, J, Han, X, Yang, J and Cheng, J. 2015. Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24: 26–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.005
    Back to article
  88. 88Marcelo, C and Yot-Domínguez, C. 2019. From chalk to keyboard in higher education classrooms: changes and coherence when integrating technological knowledge into pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(7): 975–988. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2018.1429584
    Back to article
  89. 89Martin, F and Bolliger, DU. 2018. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1): 205–222. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
    Back to article
  90. 90Matos, L, Reeve, J, Herrera, D and Claux, M. 2018. Students’ agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(4): 579–596. DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2018.1448746
    Back to article
  91. 91Mejia, G. 2016. Promoting language learning: The use of mLearning in the Spanish classes. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Especificos, 22(1): 80–99.
    Back to article
  92. 92Moore, MG. 1989. Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2): 1–7. DOI: 10.1080/08923648909526659
    Back to article
  93. 93Moos, DC and Azevedo, R. 2009. Learning With Computer-Based Learning Environments: A Literature Review of Computer Self-Efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2): 576–600. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308326083
    Back to article
  94. 94NBN, Co. 2018. The Corporate Plan 2019–22. Available at https://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/2018/documents/media-centre/corporate-plan-report-2019-2022.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2019].
    Back to article
  95. 95Nelson Laird, TF and Kuh, GD. 2005. Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2): 211–233. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-004-1600-y
    Back to article
  96. 96Northey, G, Bucic, T, Chylinski, M and Govind, R. 2015. Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3): 171–180. DOI: 10.1177/0273475315589814
    Back to article
  97. 97Northey, G, Govind, R, Bucic, T, Chylinski, M, Dolan, R and van Esch, P. 2018. The effect of “here and now” learning on student engagement and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2): 321–333. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12589
    Back to article
  98. 98OECD. 2015. Schooling Redesigned. OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd.org/education/schooling-redesigned-9789264245914-en.htm [Accessed 19 July 2019].
    Back to article
  99. 99Payne, L. 2017. Student engagement: Three models for its investigation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 3(2): 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1391186
    Back to article
  100. 100Peck, JJ. 2012. Keeping it Social: Engaging Students Online and in Class. Asian Social Science, 8(14): 81–90. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v8n14p81
    Back to article
  101. 101Pekrun, R and Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. 2012. Academic Emotions and Student Engagement. In: Christenson, SL, Reschly, AL and Wylie, C (eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 259–282. Boston, MA: Springer US. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12
    Back to article
  102. 102Peters, H, Zdravkovic, M, João Costa, M, Celenza, A, Ghias, K, Klamen, D, Mossop, L, Rieder, M, Devi Nadarajah, V, Wangsaturaka, D, Wohlin, M and Weggemans, M. 2019. Twelve tips for enhancing student engagement. Medical Teacher, 41(6): 632–637. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1459530
    Back to article
  103. 103Quin, D. 2017. Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2): 345–387. DOI: 10.3102/0034654316669434
    Back to article
  104. 104Redecker, C. 2017. European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. DOI: 10.2760/159770
    Back to article
  105. 105Redmond, P, Heffernan, A, Abawi, L, Brown, A and Henderson, R. 2018. An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1): 183–204. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
    Back to article
  106. 106Reeve, J. 2012. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In: Christenson, SL, Reschly, AL and Wylie, C (eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. 149–172. Boston, MA: Springer US. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7
    Back to article
  107. 107Reeve, J. 2013. How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3): 579–595. DOI: 10.1037/a0032690
    Back to article
  108. 108Reeve, J and Tseng, C-M. 2011. Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4): 257–267. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
    Back to article
  109. 109Reschly, AL and Christenson, SL. 2012. Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In: Christenson, SL, Reschly, AL and Wylie, C (eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 3–19. Boston, MA: Springer US. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1
    Back to article
  110. 110Ruckert, E, McDonald, PL, Birkmeier, M, Walker, B, Cotton, L, Lyons, LB, Straker, HO and Plack, MM. 2014. Using Technology to Promote Active and Social Learning Experiences in Health Professions Education. Online Learning, 18(4): 1–21. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v18i4.515
    Back to article
  111. 111Salaber, J. 2014. Facilitating student engagement and collaboration in a large postgraduate course using wiki-based activities. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(2): 115–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.006
    Back to article
  112. 112Schindler, LA, Burkholder, GJ, Morad, OA and Marsh, C. 2017. Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1): 25. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0
    Back to article
  113. 113Schwab, JT. 1973. The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum. The School Review, 81(4): 501–522. DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2013.798838
    Back to article
  114. 114Selwyn, N. 2016. Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8): 1006–1021. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229
    Back to article
  115. 115Shepherd, C and Hannafin, M. 2011. Supporting Preservice Teacher Inquiry with Electronic Portfolios. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2): 189–207.
    Back to article
  116. 116Skinner, E. 2009. Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: A case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17(2): 89–100. DOI: 10.1080/09687760902951599
    Back to article
  117. 117Sontag, JC. 1996. Toward a Comprehensive Theoretical Framework for Disability Research. The Journal of Special Education, 30(3): 319–344. DOI: 10.1177/002246699603000306
    Back to article
  118. 118Stevenson, O. 2008. Ubiquitous presence, partial use: The everyday interaction of children and their families with ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2): 115–130. DOI: 10.1080/14759390802098615
    Back to article
  119. 119Sullivan, M and Longnecker, N. 2014. Class blogs as a teaching tool to promote writing and student interaction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4): 390–401. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.322
    Back to article
  120. 120Sumuer, E. 2018. Factors related to college students’ self-directed learning with technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4): 29–43. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.3142
    Back to article
  121. 121Tucker, R. 2015. What will the NBN really cost? The Conversation, 1 December. Available at https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-nbn-really-cost-51562 [Accessed 19 July 2019].
    Back to article
  122. 122Umbach, PD and Wawrzynski, MR. 2005. Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2): 153–184. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1
    Back to article
  123. 123Vekiri, I. 2010. Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out-of-school experiences. Computers & Education, 54(4): 941–950. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.029
    Back to article
  124. 124Warschauer, M and Xu, Y. 2018. Technology and Equity in Education. In: Voogt, J, Knezek, G, Christensen, R and Lai, K-W (eds.), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, 1063–1079. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_76
    Back to article
  125. 125Whipp, JL and Lorentz, RA. 2009. Cognitive and social help giving in online teaching: An exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2): 169–192. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9104-7
    Back to article
  126. 126Willis, L-D, Povey, J, Hodges, J and Carroll, A. 2018. PES – Parent engagement in schools. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: The University of Queensland, Institute for Social Science Research. Available at https://issr.uq.edu.au/parent-engagement-schools [Accessed 8 January 2019].
    Back to article
  127. 127Wimpenny, K and Savin-Baden, M. 2013. Alienation, agency and authenticity: A synthesis of the literature on student engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3): 311–326. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2012.725223
    Back to article
  128. 128Wong, RSM, Ho, FKW, Wong, WHS, Tung, KTS, Chow, CB, Rao, N, Chan, KL and Ip, P. 2018. Parental Involvement in Primary School Education: Its Relationship with Children’s Academic Performance and Psychosocial Competence through Engaging Children with School. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(5): 1544–1555. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-017-1011-2
    Back to article
  129. 129Xiao, J. 2017. Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1): 123–135. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982
    Back to article
  130. 130Yildiz, S. 2009. Social Presence in the Web-Based Classroom: Implications for Intercultural Communication. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(1): 46–65. DOI: 10.1177/1028315308317654
    Back to article
  131. 131Zepke, N. 2014. Student engagement research in higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6): 697–708. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.901956
    Back to article
  132. 132Zepke, N. 2018a. Student engagement in neo-liberal times: What is missing? Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2): 433–446. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1370440
    Back to article
  133. 133Zepke, N. 2018b. Learning with peers, active citizenship and student engagement in Enabling Education. Student Success, 9(1): 61–73. DOI: 10.5204/ssj.v9i1.433
    Back to article
  134. 134Zepke, N and Leach, L. 2010. Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3): 167–177. DOI: 10.1177/1469787410379680
    Back to article
  135. 135Zhang, A and Aasheim, C. 2011. Academic success factors: An IT student perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 10: 309–331. DOI: 10.28945/1518
    Back to article
  136. 136Zhang, H, Song, W, Shen, S and Huang, R. 2014. The effects of blog-mediated peer feedback on learners’ motivation, collaboration, and course satisfaction in a second language writing course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6): 670–685. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.860
    Back to article
  137. 137Zhu, E. 2006. Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6): 451–480. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-006-0004-0
    Back to article
  138. 138Zweekhorst, MBM and Maas, J. 2015. ICT in higher education: Students perceive increased engagement. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 7(1): 2–18. DOI: 10.1108/JARHE-02-2014-0022
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528 | Journal eISSN: 1365-893X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Feb 22, 2019
Accepted on: Jun 13, 2019
Published on: Sep 10, 2019
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
student engagement,
educational technology,
theoretical framework,
bioecological model,
higher education,
K-12

© 2019 Melissa Bond, Svenja Bedenlier, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 2019 (2019): Issue 1Next article