Students' Experiences of Study Engagement Formation During Their First Year at University in Different Learning Models
Keywords:
Student Engagement, Academic and Social Engagement, Distance Model, Hybrid Model, Flipped-onsite ModelAbstract
The transition to university studies can be challenging for first-year students. This study examines the first-year university students' experiences of engagement in three different learning models (distance, hybrid and flipped-onsite) during emergency remote teaching. The data was collected using the semi-structured interview method and ten first-year students were interviewed. The data was analysed via theory-guided qualitative content analysis. The results show, as expected, that interactive pedagogical practices enhance student engagement regardless of the learning model. Student-centred teaching was emphasized in students’ experiences of engagement, while teacher-centred approaches were seen as disengaging. According to the students’ experiences, the lack of opportunities for genuine interactions disengages students in their studies. The aim of this study is to create a deeper understanding of learning models that improve or inhibit students' engagement in their studies during their first university year in the field of applied natural sciences, where collaboration and problem-solving are in the centre of the studies.
Downloads
References
Ahlgren, R., Häkkinen, S., & Eskola, A. (2020). Success factors for hybrid teaching. INTED2020 Proceedings, 2215–2219. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020.0683
Alrashidi, O., Pha, H., & Ngu, B. (2016). Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies, 9(12), 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p41
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Åstedt-Kurki P. & Heikkinen R.-L. (1994). Two approaches to the study of experiences of health and old age: the thematic interview and the narrative method. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 418–421. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb02375.x
Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nursing Plus Open, 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richer, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal Educational Technology Higher Education, 17, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Bowden, J. L., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2021). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: A holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1207–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647
Braun V., & Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brooman, S., & Darwent, S. (2013). Measuring the beginning: A quantitative study of the transition to higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1523–1541. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801428
Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6), 1120–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3483
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878
Coertjens, L., Brahm, T., & Trautwein, C. (2017). Students’ transition into higher education from an international perspective. Higher Education, 73, 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0092-y
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Dearnley C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher, 13(1), 19–28. doi:10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997
Eliveria, A., Serami, L., Famorca, L. P., & Dela Cruz, J. S. (2019). Investigating students’ engagement in a hybrid learning environment. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 482, 012011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012011
Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. (2012). Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf
Flick, U. (2014). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Flick, U. (2018). Designing qualitative research (Vols. 1–0). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529622737
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814732939.001.0001
Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 48–70). Routledge.
Green, J., Burrow, M., & Carvalho, L. (2020). Designing for transition: Supporting teachers and students cope with emergency remote education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 906–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00185-6
Hirsto, L., López-Pernas, S., Saqr M., Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., & Väisänen, S. (2023). Bridging education learning analytics and AI: Challenges of the present and thoughts for the future. Proceedings of the 1st Finnish Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence in Education Conference (FLAIEC 2022) CEUR Workshop Proceedings. (pp. 1-6). Retrieved from https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3383/FLAIEC22_preface.pdf
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fer.educause.edu%2Farticles%2F2020%2F3%2Fthe-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
Hollister, B., Nair, P., Hill-Lindsay, S., & Chukoskie, L. (2022). Engagement in online learning: Student attitudes and behavior during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.85101
Jusyf, H., Ibrahim, N., & Suparman, A. (2019). Developing a hybrid learning strategy for students’ engagement in object-oriented programming course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(9A), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071610
Khlaif, Z. N., Salha, S., & Kouraichi, B. (2021). Emergency remote learning during COVID-19 crisis: Students’ engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7033–7055.
Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., Bozkurt, A., & Buyuk, K. (2018). Measuring self-regulation in self-paced open and distance learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1).
Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student engagement in good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017993113390
Korhonen, V., Pesonen, H., Ketonen, E., Hangelin, S., Inkinen, M., & Toom, A. (2023). Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden opintoihin kiinnittymisen ja hyvinvoinnin haasteet pandemia-ajan etäopiskelussa. Journal of University Pedagogy. https://lehti.yliopistopedagogiikka.fi/2023/07/31/korkeakouluopiskelijoiden-opintoihin-kiinnittymisen-ja-hyvinvoinnin-haasteet-pandemia-ajan-etaopiskelussa/
Korhonen, V., Ketonen, E., & Toom, A. (2024). Student engagement and its development in university education: A three-year follow-up study. Learning and Individual Differences, 113, 102465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102465
Korhonen, V., Inkinen, M., Mattsson, M., & Toom, A. (2017). Student engagement and the transition from the first to second year in higher education. In E. Kyndt, V. Donche, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transitions: Theory and research (pp. 113–134). Routledge - Taylor & Francis Group.
Koskinen, P., Lämsä, J., Maunuksela, J., Hämäläinen, R., & Viiri, J. (2018). Primetime learning: collaborative and technology-enhanced studying with genuine teacher presence. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0113-8
Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
Laasonen, M. (2022). Pedagogiset käytännöt ja perusopiskelijoiden valmistuminen – systemaattinen kirjallisuuskatsaus. [Pedagogical Practices and Undergraduate Graduation – A Systematic Literature Review] Journal of University Pedagogy, 1. https://lehti.yliopistopedagogiikka.fi/2022/08/22/pedagogiset-kaytannot-ja-perusopiskelijoiden-valmistuminen-systemaattinen-kirjallisuuskatsaus/
Lamb, J., Carvalho, L., Gallagher, M., & Knox, J. (2022). The postdigital learning spaces of higher education. Postdigital Science Education, 4, 1–12.
Lear, J. L., Ansorge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process model for the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 71– 77.
Linder, K. E. (2017). Fundamentals of hybrid teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2017(149), 11–18.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Minosky, S. A., Wiechers, M., & Landaverde-Umana, L. (2022). The impact of course format on student perceptions of the classroom learning environment and teamwork. Active Learning in Higher Education, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221128023
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mäkinen, M. (2012). Opiskelijat opintoihin kiinnittymisen tulkitsijoina. [Students as Interpreters of Engagement in Studies] In M. Mäkinen, J. Annala, V. Korhonen, S. Vehviläinen, A-M. Norrgrann, P. Kalli & P. Svärd (Eds.), Osallistava korkeakoulutus (pp. 47–74). Tampere University Press.
OECD. (2019). Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2019_f8d7880d-en.html
Parsons, C. S. (2018). Learning the ropes: The influence of roundtable classroom design on socialization. Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 23–34.
Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., van den Noortgate, W., & Depaepe, F. (2020). Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131519302350?via%3Dihub
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Sage.
Sasson, I., Malkinson, N., & Oria, T. (2022). A constructivist redesigning of the learning space: The development of a sense of class cohesion. Learning Environment Research, 25, 183–197.
Saykılı, A. (2018). Distance education: Definitions, generations, key concepts and future directions. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 5(1), 2–17.
Sjöblom, K., Mälkki, K., Sandström, N., & Lonka, K. (2016). Does physical environment contribute to basic psychological needs? A self-determination theory perspective on learning in the chemistry laboratory. Frontline Learning Research, 4(1), 17–39.
Statistics Finland. (2022). Discontinuation of education increased in upper secondary level particularly in vocational education and decreased in tertiary level education in 2020. https://stat.fi/til/kkesk/2020/kkesk_2020_2022-03-17_tie_001_en.html
Tight, M. (2019). Student retention and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(2), 1–16.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599–623.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Higher Education, 45, 89–125.
UNESCO. (2022). COVID-19 impact of education. Global monitoring of school closures caused by COVID-19. https://covid19.uis.unesco.org/global-monitoring-school-closures-covid19/country-dashboard/
Usher, M., & Hershkovitz, A. (2023). From guides to jugglers, from audience to outsiders: A metaphor analysis of synchronous hybrid learning. Learning Environment Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09466-w
Véliz Palomino, J. C., & Ortega, A. M. (2023). Dropout intentions in higher education: Systematic literature review. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 16(2), 149–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2023.160206
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Yates, A., Brindley-Richards, W., & Thistoll, T. (2014). Student engagement in distance-based vocational education. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(2), 29–44. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079824.pdf
Zydney, J. M., McKimmy, P., Lindberg, R., & Schmidt, M. (2019). Here or there instruction: Lessons learned in implementing innovative approaches to blended synchronous learning. TechTrends, 63(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0344-z
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
