Article Sidebar

Submitted
Feb 25, 2021
Accepted
Feb 11, 2022
Published
Mar 12, 2022
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 557 Download : 14091

Main Article Content

Abstract

Since 2020, university courses and services have been affected by the COVID-19 global health emergency. Necessary safety measures have compelled educational systems to quickly convert to distance learning and, consequently, to modify their instructional design processes so that they can meet students’ needs. Changes have been seen in all teaching contexts, but in vocational higher education courses characterised by hands-on workshops that provide an experiential form of learning, professors are particularly pressed to find suitable formats for their virtual courses that allow students to participate and feel motivated to learn. Through the use of two qualitative case studies – a first-year and a third-year Education Sciences degree course, a three-year programme, at the University of Macerata, Italy – the present study focuses on motivational drivers. This article specifically describes and analyses the second case study, taking into account the lessons learnt and the inputs from the first case study. The data collection tools (questionnaire, observation grids) were designed starting from interpretative categories identified through analysing the first case study, in order to test the following research hypotheses and explore their connotations: (1) active student participation in group work can be a motivational challenge; and (2) both professor and peer feedback can be a key promoting aspect. The results of the study highlight the potential role of collaborative task-oriented practical learning activities in bridging students’ participation and feedback processes and fostering their motivation.

Keywords

Students' Participation Collaborative Approach Motivation Feedback Online Learning Activities

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

How to Cite
Fedeli, L. (2022). Participation and feedback as motivational triggers: insights from online students’ approach to learning. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 18(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135468

References

  1. Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Lisbon: Ediçoes 70.
  2. Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
  4. Bereiter, C. (2002). Artifacts, canons and the progress of pedagogy: A response to contributors. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society, (pp. 223-244). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
  5. Bergdahl, N., Fors, U., Hernwall, P. & Knutsson, O. (2018). The Use of Learning Technologies and Student Engagement in Learning Activities. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(2), 113-130.
  6. Chae, S. E., & Shin, J. (2016). Tutoring styles that encourage learner satisfaction, academic engagement, and achievement in an online environment, Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1371–1385.
  7. Cicognani, E. (2002). Psicologia sociale e ricerca qualitativa. Rome: Carocci.
  8. Conole, G. (2007). Describing learning activities: Tools and resources to guide practice. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age, (pp. 81–91). New York, NY: Routledge.
  9. DeNisi, A., & Kluger, A.N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360 degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executives, 14, 129–139.
  10. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.
  11. Fedeli, L., & Pennazio, V. (2021). Drivers of student engagement in a global emergency period: some reflections on transition from face-to-face to online learning. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, I. Candel Torres (eds.), INTED2021 Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference, (pp. 691–697). Iated Publications.
  12. Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
  13. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
  14. Hattie. J., & Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
  15. Hubbard, J. K., Potts, M. A., & Couch, B. A. (2017). How question types reveal student thinking: An experimental comparison of multiple-true-false and free-response formats. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar26, 1-13.
  16. Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2020). Cognitive and socio-emotional interaction in collaborative learning: Exploring fluctuations in students’ participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 831–851.
  17. Laurillard, D. (2009a). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 5–20.
  18. Laurillard, D. (2009b). Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3–4), 521–533.
  19. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York & London: Routledge.
  20. McFadden, M., & Munns, G. (2002). Student engagement and the social relations of pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23, 357– 366.
  21. Militello, M., Schweid, J., & Sireci, S.G. (2020). Formative assessment systems: Evaluating the fit between school districts’ needs and assessment systems' characteristics. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 22(1), 29–52.
  22. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative, research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications Inc.
  23. Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 879–896.
  24. Renninger, K. A., & Bachrach, J. E. (2015). Studying triggers for interest and engagement using observational methods. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 58–69.
  25. Robinson, H. A., Kilgore, W., & Warren, S. J. (2017). Care, communication, learner support: Designing meaningful online collaborative learning. Online Learning, 21(4), 29–51.
  26. Schoch, K. (2019). Case study research. In G. J. Burkholder, K. A. Cox, L. M. Crawford, & J. H. Hitchcock (Eds.), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 245–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  27. Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., & Ravenscroft, A. (2004). Active artefacts: Representing our knowledge of learning and teaching. Educational Developments, 5(2), 16–21.
  28. Siklander, P., Kangas, J., Ruhalahti, S., & Korva, P. (2017). Exploring triggers for arousing interest in the online learning. Proceedings of INTED2017 Conference, 9081–9089.
  29. Stošić, L., Dermendzhieva S., & Tomczyk, L. (2020). Information and communication technologies as a source of education. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 12(2), 128–135.
  30. Tuck, J. (2012). Feedback-giving as social practice: Teachers’ perspectives on feedback as institutional requirement, work and dialogue. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), 209–221.
  31. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Cultural, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.