21STCENTURY LEARNING:APPLICATION OF LEARNINGTHEORIES FOR STUDENTENGAGEMENTLoh Khang Ling
Recently, researchers and educators start to feel theimportance of engaged learning. They even formedstrong consensus on the importance of engagedlearning in school and classrooms. With therecognition of changing needs of the 21stcentury, thisconsensus has stimulated the development of specificindicators of engaged learning. 1994, a group ofscholars, from the North Central Regional EducationLaboratory (Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, andRasmussen) developed their own list of engagedlearning indicators. The indicators are: Vision of Engaged Learning Tasks for Engaged Learning Assessment of Engaged Learning Instructional Models & Strategies for EngagedLearning Learning Context of Engaged Learning Grouping for Engaged Learning Teacher Roles for Engaged Learning and Student Roles for Engaged Learning
Educators start to groom student engagement asstudent engagement becomes the indicator ofsuccessful classroom instruction. Student engagementis valued as an outcome of school improvementactivities. Engaged students are believed to have thebelow attributes:Engaged students are attracted to their workEngaged students are happy in accomplishing their workEngaged students are willing, need, desire and compulsion to participateEngaged students persist despite challenges and obstacles
Researchers believe that student engagement isoverlaps with level of motivation among studentsbut student engagement is more than motivation.Student engagement is accompanied by positiveemotional (enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity andinterest). According to another study by Kenny G., KennyD. and Dumont R. (1995), there are fiveindicators for student engagement in college: Level of academic challenge Active and collaborative learning Student-faculty interactions Enriching education experiences Supportive learning environment
RESEARCH 1According to a South African survey of studentengagement with topic “Focusing the StudentExperience on Success through Student Engagement”by J. F. Strydom and M. Mentz (2010), studentengagement is important for improving the qualityand outcomes of the student experience. This researchreport showed the promising and disappointingaspects of student learning experience. The reportalso descript implications and applications of studentengagement by implementation of four-yearundergraduate degree; accessing the effectiveness ofhigher education; improving the quality of teachingand learning; and addressing social cohesion.
RESEARCH 2There is another research by George D. Kuh, Ty M.Cruce, Rick Shoup and Jillian Kinzie (2008) with title“Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement onFirst-Year College Grades and Persistence”. Thisstudy examines the relationships between studentengagement, college GPA, and persistence for 11,000students attending 18 baccalaure ategrantinginstitutions. Two conclusions are made in this report.First, student engagement in educationallypurposeful activities is positively related to academicoutcomes as represented by first-year student gradesand by persistence between the first and second yearof college. Second, engagement has a compensatoryeffect on first-year grades and persistence to thesecond year of college at the same institution.
RESEARCH 3Report by Coates H. (2005), Coates argues for theimportance of factoring information aboutstudent engagement when come to determine thequality of University education. This reportdiscussed about the concept of studentengagement and critically review the approachused in Australia. According to the report, thereare much value of measuring studentengagement by mentioning that studentengagement data can provides a picture of whatand how students are actually doing.
RESEARCH 4In a research by Leah Taylor and Jim Parsons (2011),curricular and pedagogical ideas are introduced to improvestudent engagement in learning. According to Taylor andParsons, five aspects are suggested for successful student-engaging classrooms: Relevant, real and interdisciplinary learning Learning environment rich with technology Open, challenging and open learning environment Respectful “peer-to-peer” collaboration relationshipbetween students and teachers Culture of learning where teachers are learning togetherwith studentsThis research also concluded that increased access totechnology in classroom increases aspects of studentengagement (Taylor & Parsons, 2011, p. 15).
PROPOSAL 1encourage students to use social network in order toencourage students and teachers social interaction.According to source from Browser Media,Socialnomics and MacWorld (2012), 56% of the peoplefrom all around the world use social networks.Teachers may start and join a group within socialnetwork that students are familiar with (Facebook,Twitter etc.). By doing this, we encourage constantcommunication between teachers and students. Thisalso create environment to support student tocontinue learning outside of classroom. Throughsocial network, students are able to have discussionamong them. Involvement of teachers in thediscussion will definitely benefits students. Indirectly,level of engagement in learning process will beincrease with more communication between studentsand teachers. Here, we apply constructivism as ourlearning theory.
PROPOSAL 2Design the instruction that require students to look forinformation using Web 2.0 tools. Class should include morediscussion that pre-informs students in order for them tolook for information. Teachers may suggest Web 2.0 toolsthat students can use to search for discussion detail suchas Youtube, Wikis and search engines. We hope to increaseinvolvement of students in class by applying two learningtheories: constructivism and connectivism. Clarificationshould be done before the discussion in order to pass themessage that participants of discussion should involve withopen-minded. It is important to create an open discussionenvironment where students feel safe and confident todiscuss. This will encourage students’ interaction bysetting some base rules for discussion such as: Every student will need to elaborate her/ his findings(what and from where) Every student will need to raise question for her/ his coursemate’s elaboration
PROPOSAL 3Cognitivism emphasis on how an instruction can easily and effectivelylearn by students’ brain. To apply cognitivism, lecture in class shouldbe as interesting as possible. Teachers should include somemultimedia in the lecture. One of the multimedia is lecturepresentation. Presentation shows should include lecture notes andrelated graphics, charts or tables. There are some tools that can helpthe teacher to prepare the presentation slides: Prezi.com Prezi.com allows us to create maps of texts, images, videos, PDFs,drawings and allow the user to present in a nonlinear way. Theflow of data can be present beyond the slide Teachers can do presentation through prezi.com using webbrowser without installing any software in the computer. Presentation created through prezi.com can be shared andstudents are able to go through the presentation any time thatsuite them for the purpose of revision Slideshare.net Slideshare.net can support majority of presentation format. Forexample Microsoft Powerpoint and OpenOffice ODP Teacher can share with students her/ his presentation
PROPOSAL 4Teacher may use movie clips to help them as partof the lecture. Lecture with video clips stimulatesa love of learning and groom attitude of inquiry.With a help from group discussion among thestudents, lecture with video clips enhanceanalytical thinking, mature student behavior andpositive school climates. The most importantpoint is, video clips are more interesting and ableto engage student in learning.
PROPOSAL 5Tablet device or smart phones for the purpose toimprove students’ engagement in learning.Learning using mobile device or M-learning ismore learner-centric as opposed to classroomlecture-form learning which is teacher-centric.Learner-centric learning will definitely help toengage student in learning. The advantages of M-learning are obvious as traditional forms oflearning requires students to be present in onefixed location but M-learning students can beanywhere as long as there is internetconnectivity. Mobility of learning is the result ofmobility of both the technology and learners (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010).
PROPOSAL 6Student Response Systems (SRS) or ClickerSystem will be introduced to the faculty anduniversity. This will help to enhance interactivecommunication between individual students in aclass and the teacher. With availability of mobiledevice, implementation of SRS education iseasier.We will use SRS or Clicker for the followingpurpose: Course related quizzes Feedback collections Attendance taking
PROPOSAL 7introduce open educational resources to thestudents. Students can access material fromsome of the best universities in the world. Thiswill keep them up-to-date with other studentsaround the world in terms of source ofinformation. Again, these learning materials canbe accessed by the students anytime, anywherewith their laptops, mobile devices or smartphones. For this, we apply Connectivism aslearning theory.
PROPOSAL 8Introduce cloud applications to the students. Some ofthe famous cloud applications available are MicrosoftOfficeLive, DropBox, Google Docs etc. Students areable to access to all of their data, all the time as longas the internet connection is available. Centralize ofdata helps the student to look for references whenneeded. Students learn better if they have moreorganized data. Cloud application like Google Docsmakes sharing, viewing and real-time collaborativeediting of media not only possible but engaging.Students now able to do their discussion with editingof discussion notes immediately even they are atdifferent location. The learning theory that we applywill be Constructivism.
REFERENCES El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining Mobile Learning in theHigher Education Landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 12–21. Williams, A., & Pence, H. (2011). Smart phones, a powerful tool in thechemistry classroom. Journal of Chemistry Education, 88(6), 683-686. Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). DesigningLearning and Technology for Educational Reform. Oak Brook, IL: NorthCentral Regional Educational Laboratory. Kenny, G., Kenny, D. and Dumont, R. (1995). Mission and place :strengthening Learning and Community Campus Design. Oryx/Greenwood, 37 Srydom, J.F. & Mentz, M. (2010). Focusing the Student Experience on Successthrough Student Engagement. Pretoria: Council for Higher Education/SouthAfrican Survey of Student Engagement. Kuh G.D., Cruce T.M., Shoup R., Kinzie J. & Gonyea R.M.(2008) Unmaskingthe effects of student engagement on First-year college grades and persistence.Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563 Coates, H. (2005). The Value of Student Engagement for Higher EducationQuality Assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25-36. Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. CurrentIssues in Education, 14(1).