Learning Activity Matters: Tips for Student Engagement

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 1 - 15, 01.01.2024

Merve Kocagül

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.1.11.1

Öz

This study aims to determine the learning activity methods (technology-based, game-based, art-based, discussion, experimental and calculation-based) that the students attended the most and the least, and reveal the predictive status of the activity characteristics (attractiveness, instructiveness and usefulness) and the target audience in the engagement of the students. A researcher-developed self-report questionnaire was implemented to 4416 students from preschool to university level in a science festival. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the data. The findings indicated that the highest engagement rate was for games-based activities, while the lowest was for technology-based activities. Additionally, the attractiveness, instructiveness of the activity, and the target audience predicted students' engagement in the learning activity. Consequently, increasing the attractiveness of the activity affects the probability of engaging in technology-based, game-based, and art-based activities over calculation-based. Similarly, increasing the instructiveness of the activity affects the probability of engaging in calculation-based activities over technology-based and art-based activities. The findings also showed that elementary and middle school students had similar preferences for engaging in learning activities, while high school students did not. However, the usefulness of the activity was not a predictor variable. The potential reasons for the findings were discussed and some recommendations were proposed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

activity method, learning environment, student engagement, multinomial logistic regression

Destekleyen Kurum

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBİTAK)

Proje Numarası

122B108

Teşekkür

I thank the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for supporting this study with project number 122B108. I am also very thankful to all the participants who attended the science festival.

Kaynakça

• Abdullah, M. Y., Abu Bakar, N. R. & Mahbob, M. H. (2012). Student’s participation in the classroom: What motivates them to speak up? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51(2012), 516-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.199
• Agaoglu, O. & Demir, M. (2020). The integration of 21st century skills into education: An evaluation based on activity example. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 7(3), 105-114.
• Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
• Anwer, P. (2019). Activity-based teaching, student motivation, and academic achievement. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 6(1), 154-170.
• Arcagok, S. (2021). The impact of game-based teaching practices in different curricula on academic achievement. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2). 778–796.
• Attard, C. (2013). "If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn't be maths": Foundations for engagement with mathematics in the middle years. Mathematics Education Research Journal,13, 569–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0081-8
• Ayuwanti, I., Marsigit, Siswoyo, D. (2021). Teacher-student interaction in mathematics learning. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(2), 660-667. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i2.21184
• Baber, H. (2020). Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID 19. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(8), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2020.73.285.292
• Cayubit, R.F.O. (2022). Why learning environment matters? An analysis of how the learning environment influences the academic motivation, learning strategies, and engagement of college students. Learning Environments Research, 25, 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09382-x
• Chen, A. & Darst, P.W. (2001). Situational interest in physical education: A function of learning task design. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72( 2), 150-164.
• Chen, C., Jones, K. & Xu, S. (2018). The association between students’ style of learning preferences, social presence, collaborative learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1168958
• Chen, A. & Shen, B. (2004). A web of achieving in physical education: Goals, interest, outside-school activity and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 169-182
• Danipog, L. D. & Ferido, B. M. (2011). Using art-based chemistry activities to improve students' conceptual understanding of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(12), 1610–1615.
• da Silva Clarindo, C. B., Miller, S. & Kohle, E. C. (2020). Learning activity as a means of developing theoretical thinking capacities. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603753
• Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J. & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235.
• Fernandez-García, C. M., Maulana, R., Inda-Caro, M., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Garcia-Pérez, O. (2019). Student perceptions of secondary education teaching effectiveness: General profile, the role of personal domains of DREEM, and educational level. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00533
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
• Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Gericke, N., Högström, P. & Wallin, J. (2022). A systematic review of research on laboratory work in secondary school. Studies in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2090125
• Gigantesco, A., Palumbo, G., Zadworna Cieslak, M., Cascavilla, I., Del Re, D., Kossakowska, K. & WST European Group (2019). An international study of middle school students’ preferences about digital interactive education activities for promoting psychological well-being and mental health. Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 55(2), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.4415/ANN_19_02_02
• Green, V. N. (2012). Effects of classroom discussion on student performance and confidence in the science classroom. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Montana State University.
• Gudel, K., Heitzmann, A. & Müller, A. (2019). Self-efficacy and (vocational) interest in technology and design: an empirical study in seventh and eighth-grade classrooms. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 1053-1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9475-y
• Gunes, G., Arikan, A. & Cetin, T. (2020). Analyzing the effect of authentic learning activities on achievement in social studies and attitudes towards geographic information system (GIS). Participatory Educational Research, 7(3), 247-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.20.45.7.3
• Hanrahan, M. (1998). The effect of learning environment factors on students’ motivation and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 737–753.
• Inda-Caro, M., Maulana, R., Fernandez-Garcia, C. M., Peña-Calvo, J. V., Rodriguez-Menendez, M. D. C. & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2019). Validating a model of effective teaching behavior and student engagement: Perspectives from Spanish students. Learning Environments Research, 22(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1577754
• Johnson, L. M. (2006). Elementary school students’ learning preferences and the classroom learning environments: Implications for educational practice and policy. The Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 506–518. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40026818
• Kahu, E., Nelson, K. & Picton, C. (2017). Student interest is a key driver of engagement for first-year students. Student Success Journal, 8(2), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.379
• Karagoz, Y. (2017). SPPS ve AMOS uygulamalı nitel, nicel, karma bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve yayın etiği [SPSS and AMOS applied qualitative, quantitative, mixed scientific research methods and publication ethics]. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
• Karns, G. L. (2005). An Update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305276641
• Kasalak, İ. & Altun, A. (2020). Effects of robotic coding activities on the effectiveness of secondary school students’ self-efficacy for coding. Elementary Education Online, 19(4), 2171–2182. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.763834
• Malik, R. H. & Rizvi, A. A. (2018). Effect of classroom learning environment on students’ academic achievement in mathematics at secondary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(2), 207-218.
• Nam, E. & Seong, M. (2020). Teaching activities and students’ preferences in integrated college English reading and writing classes. English Teaching, 75(2), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.2.202006.69
• Nasrullah, S., Khan, M. S., Matiullah, Kamal, S. & Khan, I. U. (2017). Effect of classroom activities in teaching-learning process at primary level. Science International (Lahore), 29(3), 691-695.
• Oncu, S. & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2021). Instructional practices affecting learner engagement in blended learning environments. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 8(3), 210-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.21.62.8.3
• Opdenakker, M.C. & Minnaert, A. (2011). Relationship between learning environment characteristics and academic engagement. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.2466/09.10.11.PR0.109.4.259-284
• Petrucci, C. J. (2009). A primer for social worker researchers on how to conduct a multinomial logistic regression. Journal of Social Service Research, 35(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488370802678983
• Pinto, F. C. M., Jaftha, N., Borg, S., Micallef, Z. & Chircop, T.(2022). Students’ learning and gaming preferences and their expectations of gamification. MCAST Journal of Applied Research & Practice, 6(1), 60–78.
• Qian, M & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023
• Sanchez, N. S. (2017). Discovering students’ preference for classroom activities and teachers’ frequency of activity use. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 51-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.14483/calj.v19n1.9292
• Shana, Z. & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2020). Science practical work and its impact on students’ science achievement. Journal of Technology and Science Education JOTSE, 10(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.888
• Simonds, T. A. & Brock, B. L. (2014). Relationship between age, experience, and student preference for types of learning activities in online courses. Journal of Educators Online, 11(1), 1–19.
• Staples, A. F., Larson, L. R., Worsley, T., Green, G. T. & Carroll, J. P. (2019). Effects of an art-based environmental education camp program on the environmental attitudes and awareness of diverse youth. Journal of Environmental Education, 50(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1629382
• Swarat, S., Ortony, A. & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21010
• Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon
• Talanquer, V., Novodvorsky, I. & Tomanek, D. (2010). Factors influencing entering teacher candidates’ preferences for instructional activities: A glimpse into their orientations towards teaching, International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1389-1406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903019572
• Taner Derman, M., Şahin Zeteroğlu, E., Ergişi Birgül, A. (2020). The effect of play-based math activities on different areas of development in children 48 to 60 months of age. SAGE Open, 10(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919531
• Thomas, C. L., Pavlechko, G. M. & Cassady, J. C. (2019). An examination of the mediating role of learning space design on the relation between instructor effectiveness and student engagement. Learning Environments Research, 22, 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9270-4
• Townsend, L. A. (2012). The effects of laboratory-based activities on student attitudes toward science. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Montana State University. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/2435
• Usman, Y. D. & Madudili, C. G. (2019). Evaluation of the effect of learning environment on student’s academic performance in Nigeria. Online Submission. Retrieved by https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED602097
• Weber, K. & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based preferences toward technology education content, activities, and instructional methods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55-71.
• Whitton, N. (2012). The place of game-based learning in an age of austerity. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning (EJEL), 10(2), 249–256.
• Wu, M. L. (2015). Teachers’ experiences, attitudes, self-efficacy, and perceived barriers to the use of digital game-based learning: A survey study through the lens of a typology of educational digital games. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Michigan State University. https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/3754
• Yildiz, T. & Seferoglu, S. S. (2021). The effect of robotic programming on coding attitude and computational thinking toward self-efficacy perception. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 6(2), 101-116.
• Zhu, D. (2012). Using games to improve students’ communicative ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 801–805.