Using Technology to Increase Student Engagement n Academic Work in Special Education Graduation Courses

Yaoying Xu*
* Associate Professor,Early Childhood Special Education, Virginia Common wealth University.
Periodicity:June - August'2008
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.4.1.635

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine effects of using Tablet PC to increase student engagement in their academic work, especially nontraditional students in the field of special education, through technology in hybrid graduate courses. Student achievements were compared through pre- and post-tests on course content areas, pre- and post-surveys on course goals and objectives as well as open-ended interview questions. Findings from the surveys on feedback types indicated that the majority of students preferred digital feedback using Tablet PC and face-to-face conversation compared with other forms of feedback.  Students’ engagement level was significantly increased as measured by their participation in online Blackboard discussions. Eighty percent of their postings were related to the feedback on their assignments. This finding suggested that individualized feedback was related to student interactions and engagement. The pre- and post-test scores of the participating classes showed significant difference of student achievements in content area. There was no significant difference between the two classes in terms of achievement. Pre- and post-surveys showed that there was a significant change of students’ goals and objectives throughout the period of taking the course. The interview results from the participating students confirmed this change.

Keywords

Digital feedback, Engagement, Achievement.

How to Cite this Article?

Yaoying Xu (2008) Using Technology to Increase Student Engagement n Academic Work in Special Education Graduation Courses. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 4(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.4.1.635

References

[I ]. Ames, C. (I 992). Classrooms: Gools, structures, ond student mofivofion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. .
[2]. Ames, C. , & Archer, J. ( I 988). Achievement goois in the clossroom: Gools, structures, ond student mofivofion. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 260-267
[3]. 8lood, E., & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems In lecture-bosed instruction: Does it chonge student engogemenf ond looming? Journal of Technology andTeacher Education, 16(3), 375-383,
[4]. 8oekarfs, M. , Pinfrich, R R. , & Zeidner, M. {Eds.) (2000). Handbook of se/f-regulation. Son Diego, CA: Academic Press.
[5]. Dick, W., Carey, L. M., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The sysfemofic design of instruction. (6th Ed,) New Research, 53(4), 445-459.
[6]. Draper, S. W., & grown, M. I. (2004). Increosing inferocfivify in lectures using on electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 8 I -94.
[7]. Dweck, C. S., & Leggeff, E. L. (1988). A sociol- cognitive opprooch to moffvoflon ond personolify, PsychologicalReview, 95, 256-273
, [8]. Foster, A. L. {2005, June 24). Mork essoys elecfronicolly: A professor uses fob|et PC's in o composition course. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 818.
[9]~ Gagne, R. M. {I 985). Condifions of /earning, (4th Ed.) NewYork: Holt, Rinehort, ond Winston.
[ I 0]. Gray, R. (2002). Assessing students' written projects, NewDirections forTeachingandLearning, 91, 37-42.
[ I I ]. Helme, S. , & Clarke, D. J. (2001). Cognitive engogemenf in the mofhemoflcs ciossroom, In D~ Clorke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science c/assrooms (pp, I 31- I 54). Dordrechf : Kluwer.
[12]. Jdrveld, S., Veermans, M., & Leinonen, R (2008). Invesfigofing student engogemenf in compufer- supported inquiry: A process-oriented onolysls, Socia/ Psychology of Educafion, 11(3), 299-322~
[13]. Jennings, S. E. , & McCuller, M~ Z. (2004). Meeting the challenges of grading online business communication assignments. Poper presented of the 69h Annuol Convention: Associofion for 8uslness Communlcoflon, Combridge, Mossochuseffs. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from hff p:/ /www. businesscommunicof ion, org /convenfions/ Proceedings/ 2004/ PDFs/02A8C04.PDF
[ I 4]. Klinger, T., & Connef, E. (I 992). Designing disfonce looming courses for crlficol thinking. TH.E. Journal, 20(3).
[ I 5]. Lopez-Herrejon, R., & Schulman, M. (2004). Using inferocfive technology in o short jOvO course: An experience report. ACM S/GCSE Bulletin, Proceedings of the 91h Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, (pp. 203-207), Leeds, UK.
[ I 6]. Montgomery, H. , Sharon, R , & Haman, L. (2004). Engoging In ocfivifies involving informofion technology: Dimensions, modes, ond flow. Human Factors, 46, 334-348.
[ I 7]. Morris, L. V. , Finnegan, C. , & Wu, S. (2005). Trocking student behovior, persistence, ond ochievemenf in online courses. /nternet and Hlgher EducaHon, 8, 221-231
[I 8]. Nachmias, R. (2002). Research framework for the study of a campus-wide web-based academic instruction project. /nternet and Hlgher Educat!on, 5, 213-229,
[I 9]. Nachmias, R., & Segev, L. (2003). Students' use of content in Web-supported academic courses. /nternet and Hlgher Education, 6, 145-157,
[20]. Poled, A., & Rashly, D. (1999). Logging for success: Advancing the use of WWW logs to improve computer mediated distance learning Journal of Educatlonal ComputingResearch, 21, 413-431~
[2 I ]. Pintrich, R , & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivated and self- regular ed learning com ponents of academic performance~ Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 33-40.
[22]. Reed, J~ L., Hagen, A. S. , Wicker, F W , & Schallerf, D. L. ( I 996). Engagement as a temporal dynamic: Affective factors in studying for exams. Journal of Educat!onal Psychology 88( I ), 101-109 .
[23]. Reed, J. H., Schallert, D. L., & Deithloff, J. F. (2002). Investigating self-regulation and engagement processes~ Educational Psycholog!st, 37(1), 53-57~
[24]. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (I 993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year~ Journa/ of Educational Psychology 85, 57 I -58 I .
[25]. Sloan Consortium (2006). Making the grade.' Onl!ne educatlon in theUnited States, 2006 ,
[26]. Smialek, T., & Boburka, R. R. (2006). The effects of co- operative listening exercises on the critical listening skills of college music-appreciation students, Joumal of Research in Music Educat!on, 54(1), 57-72.
[27]. Steinweg, S. 8~, Williams, S. C., Warren, S~ H. (2006). Reaching through the screen: Using a tablet PC to provide feedback in oniine classes. Rural Speclal Education Quarterly, 25(2), 8-12.
[28]. Wallace, T., Grinnell, L., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2006). Maximizing learning from rehearsal activity in web-based distance learning. Journal of lnteracHve Learning Research, 17(3), 319-327.
[29]. Zaiane, O. R., Luo, J. (2001). Towards evaluating learners' behavior in a web-based distance learnlng env!ronment, Available online at http://www~cs.uaiberta .ca/~zaiane/postscript/icalt.p.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.