student engagement literature review

• Help & FAQ

Student Engagement Literature Review

Research output : Book/Report › Commissioned report

Access to Document

• https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/studentengagementliteraturereview_1.pdf

Student Engagement Literature Review. / Trowler, Vicki .

T1 - Student Engagement Literature Review

AU - Trowler, Vicki

KW - Student engagement

M3 - Commissioned report

BT - Student Engagement Literature Review

PB - The Higher Education Academy

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 02 October 2017

Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature

• Laura A. Schindler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8730-5189 1 ,
• Gary J. Burkholder 2 , 3 ,
• Osama A. Morad 1 &
• Craig Marsh 4  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  25 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

388k Accesses

138 Citations

39 Altmetric

Metrics details

Computer-based technology has infiltrated many aspects of life and industry, yet there is little understanding of how it can be used to promote student engagement, a concept receiving strong attention in higher education due to its association with a number of positive academic outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a critical review of the literature from the past 5 years related to how web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites ( Facebook and Twitter ), and digital games influence student engagement. We prefaced the findings with a substantive overview of student engagement definitions and indicators, which revealed three types of engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive) that informed how we classified articles. Our findings suggest that digital games provide the most far-reaching influence across different types of student engagement, followed by web-conferencing and Facebook . Findings regarding wikis, blogs, and Twitter are less conclusive and significantly limited in number of studies conducted within the past 5 years. Overall, the findings provide preliminary support that computer-based technology influences student engagement, however, additional research is needed to confirm and build on these findings. We conclude the article by providing a list of recommendations for practice, with the intent of increasing understanding of how computer-based technology may be purposefully implemented to achieve the greatest gains in student engagement.

Introduction

The digital revolution has profoundly affected daily living, evident in the ubiquity of mobile devices and the seamless integration of technology into common tasks such as shopping, reading, and finding directions (Anderson, 2016 ; Smith & Anderson, 2016 ; Zickuhr & Raine, 2014 ). The use of computers, mobile devices, and the Internet is at its highest level to date and expected to continue to increase as technology becomes more accessible, particularly for users in developing countries (Poushter, 2016 ). In addition, there is a growing number of people who are smartphone dependent, relying solely on smartphones for Internet access (Anderson & Horrigan, 2016 ) rather than more expensive devices such as laptops and tablets. Greater access to and demand for technology has presented unique opportunities and challenges for many industries, some of which have thrived by effectively digitizing their operations and services (e.g., finance, media) and others that have struggled to keep up with the pace of technological innovation (e.g., education, healthcare) (Gandhi, Khanna, & Ramaswamy, 2016 ).

Integrating technology into teaching and learning is not a new challenge for universities. Since the 1900s, administrators and faculty have grappled with how to effectively use technical innovations such as video and audio recordings, email, and teleconferencing to augment or replace traditional instructional delivery methods (Kaware & Sain, 2015 ; Westera, 2015 ). Within the past two decades, however, this challenge has been much more difficult due to the sheer volume of new technologies on the market. For example, in the span of 7 years (from 2008 to 2015), the number of active apps in Apple’s App Store increased from 5000 to 1.75 million. Over the next 4 years, the number of apps is projected to rise by 73%, totaling over 5 million (Nelson, 2016 ). Further compounding this challenge is the limited shelf life of new devices and software combined with significant internal organizational barriers that hinder universities from efficiently and effectively integrating new technologies (Amirault, 2012 ; Kinchin, 2012 ; Linder-VanBerschot & Summers 2015 ; Westera, 2015 ).

Many organizational barriers to technology integration arise from competing tensions between institutional policy and practice and faculty beliefs and abilities. For example, university administrators may view technology as a tool to attract and retain students, whereas faculty may struggle to determine how technology coincides with existing pedagogy (Lawrence & Lentle-Keenan, 2013 ; Lin, Singer, & Ha, 2010 ). In addition, some faculty may be hesitant to use technology due to lack of technical knowledge and/or skepticism about the efficacy of technology to improve student learning outcomes (Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015 ; Buchanan, Sainter, & Saunders, 2013 ; Hauptman, 2015 ; Johnson, 2013 ; Kidd, Davis, & Larke, 2016 ; Kopcha, Rieber, & Walker, 2016 ; Lawrence & Lentle-Keenan, 2013 ; Lewis, Fretwell, Ryan, & Parham, 2013 ; Reid, 2014 ). Organizational barriers to technology adoption are particularly problematic given the growing demands and perceived benefits among students about using technology to learn (Amirault, 2012 ; Cassidy et al., 2014 ; Gikas & Grant, 2013 ; Paul & Cochran, 2013 ). Surveys suggest that two-thirds of students use mobile devices for learning and believe that technology can help them achieve learning outcomes and better prepare them for a workforce that is increasingly dependent on technology (Chen, Seilhamer, Bennett, & Bauer, 2015 ; Dahlstrom, 2012 ). Universities that fail to effectively integrate technology into the learning experience miss opportunities to improve student outcomes and meet the expectations of a student body that has grown accustomed to the integration of technology into every facet of life (Amirault, 2012 ; Cook & Sonnenberg, 2014 ; Revere & Kovach, 2011 ; Sun & Chen, 2016 ; Westera, 2015 ).

The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review on how computer-based technology influences student engagement within higher education settings. We focused on computer-based technology given the specific types of technologies (i.e., web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, and digital games) that emerged from a broad search of the literature, which is described in more detail below. Computer-based technology (hereafter referred to as technology) requires the use of specific hardware, software, and micro processing features available on a computer or mobile device. We also focused on student engagement as the dependent variable of interest because it encompasses many different aspects of the teaching and learning process (Bryson & Hand, 2007 ; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Parks, 1994; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ), compared narrower variables in the literature such as final grades or exam scores. Furthermore, student engagement has received significant attention over the past several decades due to shifts towards student-centered, constructivist instructional methods (Haggis, 2009 ; Wright, 2011 ), mounting pressures to improve teaching and learning outcomes (Axelson & Flick, 2011 ; Kuh, 2009 ), and promising studies suggesting relationships between student engagement and positive academic outcomes (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006 ; Center for Postsecondary Research, 2016 ; Hu & McCormick, 2012 ). Despite the interest in student engagement and the demand for more technology in higher education, there are no articles offering a comprehensive review of how these two variables intersect. Similarly, while many existing student engagement conceptual models have expanded to include factors that influence student engagement, none highlight the overt role of technology in the engagement process (Kahu, 2013 ; Lam, Wong, Yang, & Yi, 2012 ; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ).

Our review aims to address existing gaps in the student engagement literature and seeks to determine whether student engagement models should be expanded to include technology. The review also addresses some of the organizational barriers to technology integration (e.g., faculty uncertainty and skepticism about technology) by providing a comprehensive account of the research evidence regarding how technology influences student engagement. One limitation of the literature, however, is the lack of detail regarding how teaching and learning practices were used to select and integrate technology into learning. For example, the methodology section of many studies does not include a pedagogical justification for why a particular technology was used or details about the design of the learning activity itself. Therefore, it often is unclear how teaching and learning practices may have affected student engagement levels. We revisit this issue in more detail at the end of this paper in our discussions of areas for future research and recommendations for practice. We initiated our literature review by conducting a broad search for articles published within the past 5 years, using the key words technology and higher education , in Google Scholar and the following research databases: Academic Search Complete, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, Education Research Complete, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO . Our initial search revealed themes regarding which technologies were most prevalent in the literature (e.g., social networking, digital games), which then lead to several, more targeted searches of the same databases using specific keywords such as Facebook and student engagement. After both broad and targeted searches, we identified five technologies (web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, and digital games) to include in our review.

We chose to focus on technologies for which there were multiple studies published, allowing us to identify areas of convergence and divergence in the literature and draw conclusions about positive and negative effects on student engagement. In total, we identified 69 articles relevant to our review, with 36 pertaining to social networking sites (21 for Facebook and 15 for Twitter ), 14 pertaining to digital games, seven pertaining to wikis, and six pertaining to blogs and web-conferencing software respectively. Articles were categorized according to their influence on specific types of student engagement, which will be described in more detail below. In some instances, one article pertained to multiple types of engagement. In the sections that follow, we will provide an overview of student engagement, including an explanation of common definitions and indicators of engagement, followed by a synthesis of how each type of technology influences student engagement. Finally, we will discuss areas for future research and make recommendations for practice.

• Student engagement

Interest in student engagement began over 70 years ago with Ralph Tyler’s research on the relationship between time spent on coursework and learning (Axelson & Flick, 2011 ; Kuh, 2009 ). Since then, the study of student engagement has evolved and expanded considerably, through the seminal works of Pace ( 1980 ; 1984 ) and Astin ( 1984 ) about how quantity and quality of student effort affect learning and many more recent studies on the environmental conditions and individual dispositions that contribute to student engagement (Bakker, Vergel, & Kuntze, 2015 ; Gilboy, Heinerichs, & Pazzaglia, 2015 ; Martin, Goldwasser, & Galentino, 2017 ; Pellas, 2014 ). Perhaps the most well-known resource on student engagement is the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), an instrument designed to assess student participation in various educational activities (Kuh, 2009 ). The NSSE and other engagement instruments like it have been used in many studies that link student engagement to positive student outcomes such as higher grades, retention, persistence, and completion (Leach, 2016 ; McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2012 ; Trowler & Trowler, 2010 ), further convincing universities that student engagement is an important factor in the teaching and learning process. However, despite the increased interest in student engagement, its meaning is generally not well understood or agreed upon.

Student engagement is a broad and complex phenomenon for which there are many definitions grounded in psychological, social, and/or cultural perspectives (Fredricks et al., 1994; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ). Review of definitions revealed that student engagement is defined in two ways. One set of definitions refer to student engagement as a desired outcome reflective of a student’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about learning. For example, Kahu ( 2013 ) defines student engagement as an “individual psychological state” that includes a student’s affect, cognition, and behavior (p. 764). Other definitions focus primarily on student behavior, suggesting that engagement is the “extent to which students are engaging in activities that higher education research has shown to be linked with high-quality learning outcomes” (Krause & Coates, 2008 , p. 493) or the “quality of effort and involvement in productive learning activities” (Kuh, 2009 , p. 6). Another set of definitions refer to student engagement as a process involving both the student and the university. For example, Trowler ( 2010 ) defined student engagement as “the interaction between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions intended to optimize the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of students and the performance, and reputation of the institution” (p. 2). Similarly, the NSSE website indicates that student engagement is “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities” as well as “how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning” (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2017 , para. 1).

Many existing models of student engagement reflect the latter set of definitions, depicting engagement as a complex, psychosocial process involving both student and university characteristics. Such models organize the engagement process into three areas: factors that influence student engagement (e.g., institutional culture, curriculum, and teaching practices), indicators of student engagement (e.g., interest in learning, interaction with instructors and peers, and meaningful processing of information), and outcomes of student engagement (e.g., academic achievement, retention, and personal growth) (Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Nora et al., 2005 ). In this review, we examine the literature to determine whether technology influences student engagement. In addition, we will use Fredricks et al. ( 2004 ) typology of student engagement to organize and present research findings, which suggests that there are three types of engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive). The typology is useful because it is broad in scope, encompassing different types of engagement that capture a range of student experiences, rather than narrower typologies that offer specific or prescriptive conceptualizations of student engagement. In addition, this typology is student-centered, focusing exclusively on student-focused indicators rather than combining student indicators with confounding variables, such as faculty behavior, curriculum design, and campus environment (Coates, 2008 ; Kuh, 2009 ). While such variables are important in the discussion of student engagement, perhaps as factors that may influence engagement, they are not true indicators of student engagement. Using the typology as a guide, we examined recent student engagement research, models, and measures to gain a better understanding of how behavioral, emotional, and cognitive student engagement are conceptualized and to identify specific indicators that correspond with each type of engagement, as shown in Fig. 1 .

Conceptual framework of types and indicators of student engagement

Behavioral engagement is the degree to which students are actively involved in learning activities (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Zepke, 2014 ). Indicators of behavioral engagement include time and effort spent participating in learning activities (Coates, 2008 ; Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Kuh, 2009 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ) and interaction with peers, faculty, and staff (Coates, 2008 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Kuh, 2009 ; Bryson & Hand, 2007 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 : Zepke & Leach, 2010 ). Indicators of behavioral engagement reflect observable student actions and most closely align with Pace ( 1980 ) and Astin’s ( 1984 ) original conceptualizations of student engagement as quantity and quality of effort towards learning. Emotional engagement is students’ affective reactions to learning (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ). Indicators of emotional engagement include attitudes, interests, and values towards learning (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Witkowski & Cornell, 2015 ) and a perceived sense of belonging within a learning community (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lester, 2013 ; Trowler, 2010 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ). Emotional engagement often is assessed using self-report measures (Fredricks et al., 2004 ) and provides insight into how students feel about a particular topic, delivery method, or instructor. Finally, cognitive engagement is the degree to which students invest in learning and expend mental effort to comprehend and master content (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Lester, 2013 ). Indicators of cognitive engagement include: motivation to learn (Lester, 2013 ; Richardson & Newby, 2006 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ); persistence to overcome academic challenges and meet/exceed requirements (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kuh, 2009 ; Trowler, 2010 ); and deep processing of information (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Richardson & Newby, 2006 ) through critical thinking (Coates, 2008 ; Witkowski & Cornell, 2015 ), self-regulation (e.g., set goals, plan, organize study effort, and monitor learning; Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Lester, 2013 ), and the active construction of knowledge (Coates, 2008 ; Kuh, 2009 ). While cognitive engagement includes motivational aspects, much of the literature focuses on how students use active learning and higher-order thinking, in some form, to achieve content mastery. For example, there is significant emphasis on the importance of deep learning, which involves analyzing new learning in relation previous knowledge, compared to surface learning, which is limited to memorization, recall, and rehearsal (Fredricks et al., 2004 ; Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ).

While each type of engagement has distinct features, there is some overlap across cognitive, behavioral, and emotional domains. In instances where an indicator could correspond with more than one type of engagement, we chose to match the indicator to the type of engagement that most closely aligned, based on our review of the engagement literature and our interpretation of the indicators. Similarly, there is also some overlap among indicators. As a result, we combined and subsumed similar indicators found in the literature, where appropriate, to avoid redundancy. Achieving an in-depth understanding of student engagement and associated indicators was an important pre-cursor to our review of the technology literature. Very few articles used the term student engagement as a dependent variable given the concept is so broad and multidimensional. We found that specific indicators (e.g., interaction, sense of belonging, and knowledge construction) of student engagement were more common in the literature as dependent variables. Next, we will provide a synthesis of the findings regarding how different types of technology influence behavioral, emotional, and cognitive student engagement and associated indicators.

Influence of technology on student engagement

We identified five technologies post-literature search (i.e., web-conferencing, blogs, wikis, social networking sites , and digital games) to include in our review, based on frequency in which they appeared in the literature over the past 5 years. One commonality among these technologies is their potential value in supporting a constructivist approach to learning, characterized by the active discovery of knowledge through reflection of experiences with one’s environment, the connection of new knowledge to prior knowledge, and interaction with others (Boghossian, 2006 ; Clements, 2015 ). Another commonality is that most of the technologies, except perhaps for digital games, are designed primarily to promote interaction and collaboration with others. Our search yielded very few studies on how informational technologies, such as video lectures and podcasts, influence student engagement. Therefore, these technologies are notably absent from our review. Unlike the technologies we identified earlier, informational technologies reflect a behaviorist approach to learning in which students are passive recipients of knowledge that is transmitted from an expert (Boghossian, 2006 ). The lack of recent research on how informational technologies affect student engagement may be due to the increasing shift from instructor-centered, behaviorist approaches to student-centered, constructivist approaches within higher education (Haggis, 2009 ; Wright, 2011 ) along with the ubiquity of web 2.0 technologies.

• Web-conferencing

Web-conferencing software provides a virtual meeting space where users login simultaneously and communicate about a given topic. While each software application is unique, many share similar features such as audio, video, or instant messaging options for real-time communication; screen sharing, whiteboards, and digital pens for presentations and demonstrations; polls and quizzes for gauging comprehension or eliciting feedback; and breakout rooms for small group work (Bower, 2011 ; Hudson, Knight, & Collins, 2012 ; Martin, Parker, & Deale, 2012 ; McBrien, Jones, & Cheng, 2009 ). Of the technologies included in this literature review, web-conferencing software most closely mimics the face-to-face classroom environment, providing a space where instructors and students can hear and see each other in real-time as typical classroom activities (i.e., delivering lectures, discussing course content, asking/answering questions) are carried out (Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ). Studies on web-conferencing software deployed Adobe Connect, Cisco WebEx, Horizon Wimba, or Blackboard Collaborate and made use of multiple features, such as screen sharing, instant messaging, polling, and break out rooms. In addition, most of the studies integrated web-conferencing software into courses on a voluntary basis to supplement traditional instructional methods (Andrew, Maslin-Prothero, & Ewens, 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ; Wdowik, 2014 ). Existing studies on web-conferencing pertain to all three types of student engagement.

Studies on web-conferencing and behavioral engagement reveal mixed findings. For example, voluntary attendance in web-conferencing sessions ranged from 54 to 57% (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ) and, in a comparison between a blended course with regular web-conferencing sessions and a traditional, face-to-face course, researchers found no significant difference in student attendance in courses. However, students in the blended course reported higher levels of class participation compared to students in the face-to-face course (Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ). These findings suggest while web-conferencing may not boost attendance, especially if voluntary, it may offer more opportunities for class participation, perhaps through the use of communication channels typically not available in a traditional, face-to-face course (e.g., instant messaging, anonymous polling). Studies on web-conferencing and interaction, another behavioral indicator, support this assertion. For example, researchers found that students use various features of web-conferencing software (e.g., polling, instant message, break-out rooms) to interact with peers and the instructor by asking questions, expressing opinions and ideas, sharing resources, and discussing academic content (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ; Wdowik, 2014 ).

Studies on web-conferencing and cognitive engagement are more conclusive than those for behavioral engagement, although are fewer in number. Findings suggest that students who participated in web-conferencing demonstrated critical reflection and enhanced learning through interactions with others (Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ), higher-order thinking (e.g., problem-solving, synthesis, evaluation) in response to challenging assignments (Wdowik, 2014 ), and motivation to learn, particularly when using polling features (Hudson et al., 2012 ). There is only one study examining how web-conferencing affects emotional engagement, although it is positive suggesting that students who participated in web-conferences had higher levels of interest in course content than those who did not (Francescucci & Foster, 2013 ). One possible reason for the positive cognitive and emotional engagement findings may be that web-conferencing software provides many features that promote active learning. For example, whiteboards and breakout rooms provide opportunities for real-time, collaborative problem-solving activities and discussions. However, additional studies are needed to isolate and compare specific web-conferencing features to determine which have the greatest effect on student engagement.

A blog, which is short for Weblog, is a collection of personal journal entries, published online and presented chronologically, to which readers (or subscribers) may respond by providing additional commentary or feedback. In order to create a blog, one must compose content for an entry, which may include text, hyperlinks, graphics, audio, or video, publish the content online using a blogging application, and alert subscribers that new content is posted. Blogs may be informal and personal in nature or may serve as formal commentary in a specific genre, such as in politics or education (Coghlan et al., 2007 ). Fortunately, many blog applications are free, and many learning management systems (LMSs) offer a blogging feature that is seamlessly integrated into the online classroom. The ease of blogging has attracted attention from educators, who currently use blogs as an instructional tool for the expression of ideas, opinions, and experiences and for promoting dialogue on a wide range of academic topics (Garrity, Jones, VanderZwan, de la Rocha, & Epstein, 2014 ; Wang, 2008 ).

Studies on blogs show consistently positive findings for many of the behavioral and emotional engagement indicators. For example, students reported that blogs promoted interaction with others, through greater communication and information sharing with peers (Chu, Chan, & Tiwari, 2012 ; Ivala & Gachago, 2012 ; Mansouri & Piki, 2016 ), and analyses of blog posts show evidence of students elaborating on one another’s ideas and sharing experiences and conceptions of course content (Sharma & Tietjen, 2016 ). Blogs also contribute to emotional engagement by providing students with opportunities to express their feelings about learning and by encouraging positive attitudes about learning (Dos & Demir, 2013 ; Chu et al., 2012 ; Yang & Chang, 2012 ). For example, Dos and Demir ( 2013 ) found that students expressed prejudices and fears about specific course topics in their blog posts. In addition, Yang and Chang ( 2012 ) found that interactive blogging, where comment features were enabled, lead to more positive attitudes about course content and peers compared to solitary blogging, where comment features were disabled.

The literature on blogs and cognitive engagement is less consistent. Some studies suggest that blogs may help students engage in active learning, problem-solving, and reflection (Chawinga, 2017 ; Chu et al., 2012 ; Ivala & Gachago, 2012 ; Mansouri & Piki, 2016 ), while other studies suggest that students’ blog posts show very little evidence of higher-order thinking (Dos & Demir, 2013 ; Sharma & Tietjen, 2016 ). The inconsistency in findings may be due to the wording of blog instructions. Students may not necessarily demonstrate or engage in deep processing of information unless explicitly instructed to do so. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine whether the wording of blog assignments contributed to the mixed results because many of the studies did not provide assignment details. However, studies pertaining to other technologies suggest that assignment wording that lacks specificity or requires low-level thinking can have detrimental effects on student engagement outcomes (Hou, Wang, Lin, & Chang, 2015 ; Prestridge, 2014 ). Therefore, blog assignments that are vague or require only low-level thinking may have adverse effects on cognitive engagement.

A wiki is a web page that can be edited by multiple users at once (Nakamaru, 2012 ). Wikis have gained popularity in educational settings as a viable tool for group projects where group members can work collaboratively to develop content (i.e., writings, hyperlinks, images, graphics, media) and keep track of revisions through an extensive versioning system (Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Most studies on wikis pertain to behavioral engagement, with far fewer studies on cognitive engagement and none on emotional engagement. Studies pertaining to behavioral engagement reveal mixed results, with some showing very little enduring participation in wikis beyond the first few weeks of the course (Nakamaru, 2012 ; Salaber, 2014 ) and another showing active participation, as seen in high numbers of posts and edits (Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). The most notable difference between these studies is the presence of grading, which may account for the inconsistencies in findings. For example, in studies where participation was low, wikis were ungraded, suggesting that students may need extra motivation and encouragement to use wikis (Nakamaru, 2012 ; Salaber, 2014 ). Findings regarding the use of wikis for promoting interaction are also inconsistent. In some studies, students reported that wikis were useful for interaction, teamwork, collaboration, and group networking (Camacho, Carrión, Chayah, & Campos, 2016 ; Martínez, Medina, Albalat, & Rubió, 2013 ; Morely, 2012 ; Calabretto & Rao, 2011 ) and researchers found evidence of substantial collaboration among students (e.g., sharing ideas, opinions, and points of view) in wiki activity (Hewege & Perera, 2013 ); however, Miller, Norris, and Bookstaver ( 2012 ) found that only 58% of students reported that wikis promoted collegiality among peers. The findings in the latter study were unexpected and may be due to design flaws in the wiki assignments. For example, the authors noted that wiki assignments were not explicitly referred to in face-to-face classes; therefore, this disconnect may have prevented students from building on interactive momentum achieved during out-of-class wiki assignments (Miller et al., 2012 ).

Studies regarding cognitive engagement are limited in number but more consistent than those concerning behavioral engagement, suggesting that wikis promote high levels of knowledge construction (i.e., evaluation of arguments, the integration of multiple viewpoints, new understanding of course topics; Hewege & Perera, 2013 ), and are useful for reflection, reinforcing course content, and applying academic skills (Miller et al., 2012 ). Overall, there is mixed support for the use of wikis to promote behavioral engagement, although making wiki assignments mandatory and explicitly referring to wikis in class may help bolster participation and interaction. In addition, there is some support for using wikis to promote cognitive engagement, but additional studies are needed to confirm and expand on findings as well as explore the effect of wikis on emotional engagement.

Social networking sites

Social networking is “the practice of expanding knowledge by making connections with individuals of similar interests” (Gunawardena et al., 2009 , p. 4). Social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, allow users to create and share digital content publicly or with others to whom they are connected and communicate privately through messaging features. Two of the most popular social networking sites in the educational literature are Facebook and Twitter (Camus, Hurt, Larson, & Prevost, 2016 ; Manca & Ranieri, 2013 ), which is consistent with recent statistics suggesting that both sites also are exceedingly popular among the general population (Greenwood, Perrin, & Duggan, 2016 ). In the sections that follow, we examine how both Facebook and Twitter influence different types of student engagement.

Facebook is a web-based service that allows users to create a public or private profile and invite others to connect. Users may build social, academic, and professional connections by posting messages in various media formats (i.e., text, pictures, videos) and commenting on, liking, and reacting to others’ messages (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Maben, Edwards, & Malone, 2014 ; Hou et al., 2015 ). Within an educational context, Facebook has often been used as a supplementary instructional tool to lectures or LMSs to support class discussions or develop, deliver, and share academic content and resources. Many instructors have opted to create private Facebook groups, offering an added layer of security and privacy because groups are not accessible to strangers (Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Clements, 2015 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Esteves, 2012 ; Shraim, 2014 ; Maben et al., 2014 ; Manca & Ranieri, 2013 ; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016 ; Rambe, 2012 ). The majority of studies on Facebook address behavioral indicators of student engagement, with far fewer focusing on emotional or cognitive engagement.

Studies that examine the influence of Facebook on behavioral engagement focus both on participation in learning activities and interaction with peers and instructors. In most studies, Facebook activities were voluntary and participation rates ranged from 16 to 95%, with an average of rate of 47% (Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Fagioli, Rios-Aguilar, & Deil-Amen, 2015 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ). Participation was assessed by tracking how many students joined course- or university-specific Facebook groups (Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ), visited or followed course-specific Facebook pages (DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ), or posted at least once in a course-specific Facebook page (Rambe, 2012 ). The lowest levels of participation (16%) arose from a study where community college students were invited to use the Schools App, a free application that connects students to their university’s private Facebook community. While the authors acknowledged that building an online community of college students is difficult (Fagioli et al., 2015 ), downloading the Schools App may have been a deterrent to widespread participation. In addition, use of the app was not tied to any specific courses or assignments; therefore, students may have lacked adequate incentive to use it. The highest level of participation (95%) in the literature arose from a study in which the instructor created a Facebook page where students could find or post study tips or ask questions. Followership to the page was highest around exams, when students likely had stronger motivations to access study tips and ask the instructor questions (DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ). The wide range of participation in Facebook activities suggests that some students may be intrinsically motivated to participate, while other students may need some external encouragement. For example, Bahati ( 2015 ) found that when students assumed that a course-specific Facebook was voluntary, only 23% participated, but when the instructor confirmed that the Facebook group was, in fact, mandatory, the level of participation rose to 94%.

While voluntary participation in Facebook activities may be lower than desired or expected (Dyson, Vickers, Turtle, Cowan, & Tassone, 2015 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016 ; Rambe, 2012 ), students seem to have a clear preference for Facebook compared to other instructional tools (Clements, 2015 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Hou et al., 2015 ; Kent, 2013 ). For example, in one study where an instructor shared course-related information in a Facebook group, in the LMS, and through email, the level of participation in the Facebook group was ten times higher than in email or the LMS (Clements, 2015 ). In other studies, class discussions held in Facebook resulted in greater levels of participation and dialogue than class discussions held in LMS discussion forums (Camus et al., 2016 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Kent, 2013 ). Researchers found that preference for Facebook over the university’s LMS is due to perceptions that the LMS is outdated and unorganized and reports that Facebook is more familiar, convenient, and accessible given that many students already visit the social networking site multiple times per day (Clements, 2015 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Kent, 2013 ). In addition, students report that Facebook helps them stay engaged in learning through collaboration and interaction with both peers and instructors (Bahati, 2015 ; Shraim, 2014 ), which is evident in Facebook posts where students collaborated to study for exams, consulted on technical and theoretical problem solving, discussed course content, exchanged learning resources, and expressed opinions as well as academic successes and challenges (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Esteves, 2012 Ivala & Gachago, 2012 ; Maben et al., 2014 ; Rambe, 2012 ; van Beynen & Swenson, 2016 ).

There is far less evidence in the literature about the use of Facebook for emotional and cognitive engagement. In terms of emotional engagement, studies suggest that students feel positively about being part of a course-specific Facebook group and that Facebook is useful for expressing feelings about learning and concerns for peers, through features such as the “like” button and emoticons (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Naghdipour & Eldridge, 2016 ). In addition, being involved in a course-specific Facebook group was positively related to students’ sense of belonging in the course (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ). The research on cognitive engagement is less conclusive, with some studies suggesting that Facebook participation is related to academic persistence (Fagioli et al., 2015 ) and self-regulation (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ) while other studies show low levels of knowledge construction in Facebook posts (Hou et al., 2015 ), particularly when compared to discussions held in the LMS. One possible reason may be because the LMS is associated with formal, academic interactions while Facebook is associated with informal, social interactions (Camus et al., 2016 ). While additional research is needed to confirm the efficacy of Facebook for promoting cognitive engagement, studies suggest that Facebook may be a viable tool for increasing specific behavioral and emotional engagement indicators, such as interactions with others and a sense of belonging within a learning community.

Twitter is a web-based service where subscribers can post short messages, called tweets, in real-time that are no longer than 140 characters in length. Tweets may contain hyperlinks to other websites, images, graphics, and/or videos and may be tagged by topic using the hashtag symbol before the designated label (e.g., #elearning). Twitter subscribers may “follow” other users and gain access to their tweets and also may “retweet” messages that have already been posted (Hennessy, Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Border, 2016 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ; Prestridge, 2014 ; West, Moore, & Barry, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ;). Instructors may use Twitter to post updates about the course, clarify expectations, direct students to additional learning materials, and encourage students to discuss course content (Bista, 2015 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ). Several of the studies on the use of Twitter included broad, all-encompassing measures of student engagement and produced mixed findings. For example, some studies suggest that Twitter increases student engagement (Evans, 2014 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Junco, Heibergert, & Loken, 2011 ) while other studies suggest that Twitter has little to no influence on student engagement (Junco, Elavsky, & Heiberger, 2013 ; McKay, Sanko, Shekhter, & Birnbach, 2014 ). In both studies suggesting little to no influence on student engagement, Twitter use was voluntary and in one of the studies faculty involvement in Twitter was low, which may account for the negative findings (Junco et al., 2013 ; McKay et al., 2014 ). Conversely, in the studies that show positive findings, Twitter use was mandatory and often directly integrated with required assignments (Evans, 2014 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Junco et al., 2011 ). Therefore, making Twitter use mandatory, increasing faculty involvement in Twitter, and integrating Twitter into assignments may help to increase student engagement.

Studies pertaining to specific behavioral student engagement indicators also reveal mixed findings. For example, in studies where course-related Twitter use was voluntary, 45-91% of students reported using Twitter during the term (Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Junco et al., 2013 ; Ross, Banow, & Yu, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ), but only 30-36% reported making contributions to the course-specific Twitter page (Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Ross et al., 2015 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ). The study that reported a 91% participation rate was unique because the course-specific Twitter page was accessible via a public link. Therefore, students who chose only to view the content (58%), rather than contribute to the page, did not have to create a Twitter account (Hennessy et al., 2016 ). The convenience of not having to create an account may be one reason for much higher participation rates. In terms of low participation rates, a lack of literacy, familiarity, and interest in Twitter , as well as a preference for Facebook , are cited as contributing factors (Bista, 2015 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). However, when the use of Twitter was required and integrated into class discussions, the participation rate was 100% (Gagnon, 2015 ). Similarly, 46% of students in one study indicated that they would have been more motivated to participate in Twitter activities if they were graded (Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ), again confirming the power of extrinsic motivating factors.

Studies also show mixed results for the use of Twitter to promote interactions with peers and instructors. Researchers found that when instructors used Twitter to post updates about the course, ask and answer questions, and encourage students to tweet about course content, there was evidence of student-student and student-instructor interactions in tweets (Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). Some students echoed these findings, suggesting that Twitter is useful for sharing ideas and resources, discussing course content, asking the instructor questions, and networking (Chawinga, 2017 ; Evans, 2014 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; West et al., 2015 ) and is preferable over speaking aloud in class because it is more comfortable, less threatening, and more concise due to the 140 character limit (Gagnon, 2015 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). Conversely, other students reported that Twitter was not useful for improving interaction because they viewed it predominately for social, rather than academic, interactions and they found the 140 character limit to be frustrating and restrictive. A theme among the latter studies was that a large proportion of the sample had never used Twitter before (Bista, 2015 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ), which may have contributed to negative perceptions.

The literature on the use of Twitter for cognitive and emotional engagement is minimal but nonetheless promising in terms of promoting knowledge gains, the practical application of content, and a sense of belonging among users. For example, using Twitter to respond to questions that arose in lectures and tweet about course content throughout the term is associated with increased understanding of course content and application of knowledge (Kim et al., 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; West et al., 2015 ). While the underlying mechanisms pertaining to why Twitter promotes an understanding of content and application of knowledge are not entirely clear, Tiernan ( 2014 ) suggests that one possible reason may be that Twitter helps to break down communication barriers, encouraging shy or timid students to participate in discussions that ultimately are richer in dialogue and debate. In terms of emotional engagement, students who participated in a large, class-specific Twitter page were more likely to feel a sense of community and belonging compared to those who did not participate because they could more easily find support from and share resources with other Twitter users (Ross et al., 2015 ). Despite the positive findings about the use of Twitter for cognitive and emotional engagement, more studies are needed to confirm existing results regarding behavioral engagement and target additional engagement indicators such as motivation, persistence, and attitudes, interests, and values about learning. In addition, given the strong negative perceptions of Twitter that still exist, additional studies are needed to confirm Twitter ’s efficacy for promoting different types of behavioral engagement among both novice and experienced Twitter users, particularly when compared to more familiar tools such as Facebook or LMS discussion forums.

• Digital games

Digital games are “applications using the characteristics of video and computer games to create engaging and immersive learning experiences for delivery of specified learning goals, outcomes and experiences” (de Freitas, 2006 , p. 9). Digital games often serve the dual purpose of promoting the achievement of learning outcomes while making learning fun by providing simulations of real-world scenarios as well as role play, problem-solving, and drill and repeat activities (Boyle et al., 2016 ; Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012 ; Scarlet & Ampolos, 2013 ; Whitton, 2011 ). In addition, gamified elements, such as digital badges and leaderboards, may be integrated into instruction to provide additional motivation for completing assigned readings and other learning activities (Armier, Shepherd, & Skrabut, 2016 ; Hew, Huang, Chu, & Chiu, 2016 ). The pedagogical benefits of digital games are somewhat distinct from the other technologies addressed in this review, which are designed primarily for social interaction. While digital games may be played in teams or allow one player to compete against another, the focus of their design often is on providing opportunities for students to interact with academic content in a virtual environment through decision-making, problem-solving, and reward mechanisms. For example, a digital game may require students to adopt a role as CEO in a computer-simulated business environment, make decisions about a series of organizational issues, and respond to the consequences of those decisions. In this example and others, digital games use adaptive learning principles, where the learning environment is re-configured or modified in response to the actions and needs of students (Bower, 2016 ). Most of the studies on digital games focused on cognitive and emotional indicators of student engagement, in contrast to the previous technologies addressed in this review which primarily focused on behavioral indicators of engagement.

Existing studies provide support for the influence of digital games on cognitive engagement, through achieving a greater understanding of course content and demonstrating higher-order thinking skills (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Ke, Xie, & Xie, 2016 ; Marriott, Tan, & Marriott, 2015 ), particularly when compared to traditional instructional methods, such as giving lectures or assigning textbook readings (Lu, Hallinger, & Showanasai, 2014 ; Siddique, Ling, Roberson, Xu, & Geng, 2013 ; Zimmermann, 2013 ). For example, in a study comparing courses that offered computer simulations of business challenges (e.g, implementing a new information technology system, managing a startup company, and managing a brand of medicine in a simulated market environment) and courses that did not, students in simulation-based courses reported higher levels of action-directed learning (i.e., connecting theory to practice in a business context) than students in traditional, non-simulation-based courses (Lu et al., 2014 ). Similarly, engineering students who participated in a car simulator game, which was designed to help students apply and reinforce the knowledge gained from lectures, demonstrated higher levels of critical thinking (i.e., analysis, evaluation) on a quiz than students who only attended lectures (Siddique et al., 2013 ).

Motivation is another cognitive engagement indicator that is linked to digital games (Armier et al., 2016 ; Chang & Wei, 2016 ; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017 ; Grimley, Green, Nilsen, & Thompson, 2012 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Ibáñez, Di-Serio, & Delgado-Kloos, 2014 ; Ke et al., 2016 ; Liu, Cheng, & Huang, 2011 ; Nadolny & Halabi, 2016 ). Researchers found that incorporating gamified elements into courses, such as giving students digital rewards (e.g., redeemable points, trophies, and badges) for participating in learning activities or creating competition through the use of leaderboards where students can see how they rank against other students positively affects student motivation to complete learning tasks (Armier et al., 2016 ; Chang & Wei, 2016 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Nadolny & Halabi, 2016 ). In addition, students who participated in gamified elements, such as trying to earn digital badges, were more motivated to complete particularly difficult learning activities (Hew et al., 2016 ) and showed persistence in exceeding learning requirements (Ibáñez et al., 2014 ). Research on emotional engagement may help to explain these findings. Studies suggest that digital games positively affect student attitudes about learning, evident in student reports that games are fun, interesting, and enjoyable (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Zimmermann, 2013 ), which may account for higher levels of student motivation in courses that offered digital games.

Research on digital games and behavioral engagement is more limited, with only one study suggesting that games lead to greater participation in educational activities (Hew et al., 2016 ). Therefore, more research is needed to explore how digital games may influence behavioral engagement. In addition, research is needed to determine whether the underlying technology associated with digital games (e.g., computer-based simulations and virtual realities) produce positive engagement outcomes or whether common mechanisms associated with both digital and non-digital games (e.g., role play, rewards, and competition) account for those outcomes. For example, studies in which non-digital, face-to-face games were used also showed positive effects on student engagement (Antunes, Pacheco, & Giovanela, 2012 ; Auman, 2011 ; Coffey, Miller, & Feuerstein, 2011 ; Crocco, Offenholley, & Hernandez, 2016 ; Poole, Kemp, Williams, & Patterson, 2014 ; Scarlet & Ampolos, 2013 ); therefore, it is unclear if and how digitizing games contributes to student engagement.

Discussion and implications

Student engagement is linked to a number of academic outcomes, such as retention, grade point average, and graduation rates (Carini et al., 2006 ; Center for Postsecondary Research, 2016 ; Hu & McCormick, 2012 ). As a result, universities have shown a strong interest in how to increase student engagement, particularly given rising external pressures to improve learning outcomes and prepare students for academic success (Axelson & Flick, 2011 ; Kuh, 2009 ). There are various models of student engagement that identify factors that influence student engagement (Kahu, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2012 ; Nora et al., 2005 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013 ; Zepke & Leach, 2010 ); however, none include the overt role of technology despite the growing trend and student demands to integrate technology into the learning experience (Amirault, 2012 ; Cook & Sonnenberg, 2014 ; Revere & Kovach, 2011 ; Sun & Chen, 2016 ; Westera, 2015 ). Therefore, the primary purpose of our literature review was to explore whether technology influences student engagement. The secondary purpose was to address skepticism and uncertainty about pedagogical benefits of technology (Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015 ; Kopcha et al., 2016 ; Reid, 2014 ) by reviewing the literature regarding the efficacy of specific technologies (i.e., web-conferencing software, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, and digital games) for promoting student engagement and offering recommendations for effective implementation, which are included at the end of this paper. In the sections that follow, we provide an overview of the findings, an explanation of existing methodological limitations and areas for future research, and a list of best practices for integrating the technologies we reviewed into the teaching and learning process.

Summary of findings

Findings from our literature review provide preliminary support for including technology as a factor that influences student engagement in existing models (Table 1 ). One overarching theme is that most of the technologies we reviewed had a positive influence on multiple indicators of student engagement, which may lead to a larger return on investment in terms of learning outcomes. For example, digital games influence all three types of student engagement and six of the seven indicators we identified, surpassing the other technologies in this review. There were several key differences in the design and pedagogical use between digital games and other technologies that may explain these findings. First, digital games were designed to provide authentic learning contexts in which students could practice skills and apply learning (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Ke et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Lu et al., 2014 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ), which is consistent with experiential learning and adult learning theories. Experiential learning theory suggests that learning occurs through interaction with one’s environment (Kolb, 2014 ) while adult learning theory suggests that adult learners want to be actively involved in the learning process and be able apply learning to real life situations and problems (Cercone, 2008 ). Second, students reported that digital games (and gamified elements) are fun, enjoyable, and interesting (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Hew et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Zimmermann, 2013 ), feelings that are associated with a flow-like state where one is completely immersed in and engaged with the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988 ; Weibel, Wissmath, Habegger, Steiner, & Groner, 2008 ). Third, digital games were closely integrated into the curriculum as required activities (Farley, 2013 ; Grimley et al., 2012 , Ke et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ) as opposed to wikis, Facebook , and Twitter , which were often voluntary and used to supplement lectures (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 Nakamaru, 2012 ; Prestridge, 2014 ; Rambe, 2012 ).

Web-conferencing software and Facebook also yielded the most positive findings, influencing four of the seven indicators of student engagement, compared to other collaborative technologies, such as blogs, wikis, and Twitter . Web-conferencing software was unique due to the sheer number of collaborative features it offers, providing multiple ways for students to actively engage with course content (screen sharing, whiteboards, digital pens) and interact with peers and the instructor (audio, video, text chats, breakout rooms) (Bower, 2011 ; Hudson et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ; McBrien et al., 2009 ); this may account for the effects on multiple indicators of student engagement. Positive findings regarding Facebook ’s influence on student engagement could be explained by a strong familiarity and preference for the social networking site (Clements, 2015 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Hou et al., 2015 ; Kent, 2013 ; Manca & Ranieri, 2013 ), compared to Twitter which was less familiar or interesting to students (Bista, 2015 ; McKay et al., 2014 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ; Tiernan, 2014 ). Wikis had the lowest influence on student engagement, with mixed findings regarding behavioral engagement, limited, but conclusive findings, regarding one indicator of cognitive engagement (deep processing of information), and no studies pertaining to other indicators of cognitive engagement (motivation, persistence) or emotional engagement.

Another theme that arose was the prevalence of mixed findings across multiple technologies regarding behavioral engagement. Overall, the vast majority of studies addressed behavioral engagement, and we expected that technologies designed specifically for social interaction, such as web-conferencing, wikis, and social networking sites, would yield more conclusive findings. However, one possible reason for the mixed findings may be that the technologies were voluntary in many studies, resulting in lower than desired participation rates and missed opportunities for interaction (Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ; Nakamaru, 2012 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Ross et al., 2015 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ), and mandatory in a few studies, yielding higher levels of participation and interaction (Bahati, 2015 ; Gagnon, 2015 ; Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Another possible reason for the mixed findings is that measures of variables differed across studies. For example, in some studies participation meant that a student signed up for a Twitter account (Tiernan, 2014 ), used the Twitter account for class (Williams & Whiting, 2016 ), or viewed the course-specific Twitter page (Hennessy et al., 2016 ). The pedagogical uses of the technologies also varied considerably across studies, making it difficult to make comparisons. For example, Facebook was used in studies to share learning materials (Clements, 2015 ; Dyson et al., 2015 ), answer student questions about academic content or administrative issues (Rambe, 2012 ), prepare for upcoming exams and share study tips (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ), complete group work (Hou et al., 2015 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ), and discuss course content (Camus et al., 2016 ; Kent, 2013 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ). Finally, cognitive indicators (motivation and persistence) drew the fewest amount of studies, which suggests that research is needed to determine whether technologies affect these indicators.

Methodological limitations

While there appears to be preliminary support for the use of many of the technologies to promote student engagement, there are significant methodological limitations in the literature and, as a result, findings should be interpreted with caution. First, many studies used small sample sizes and were limited to one course, one degree level, and one university. Therefore, generalizability is limited. Second, very few studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs; therefore, very little evidence exists to substantiate a cause and effect relationship between technologies and student engagement indicators. In addition, in many studies that did use experimental or quasi-experimental designs, participants were not randomized; rather, participants who volunteered to use a specific technology were compared to those who chose not to use the technology. As a result, there is a possibility that fundamental differences between users and non-users could have affected the engagement results. Furthermore, many of the studies did not isolate specific technological features (e.g, using only the breakout rooms for group work in web-conferencing software, rather than using the chat feature, screen sharing, and breakout rooms for group work). Using multiple features at once could have conflated student engagement results. Third, many studies relied on one source to measure technological and engagement variables (single source bias), such as self-report data (i.e., reported usage of technology and perceptions of student engagement), which may have affected the validity of the results. Fourth, many studies were conducted during a very brief timeframe, such as one academic term. As a result, positive student engagement findings may be attributed to a “novelty effect” (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017 ) associated with using a new technology. Finally, many studies lack adequate details about learning activities, raising questions about whether poor instructional design may have adversely affected results. For example, an instructor may intend to elicit higher-order thinking from students, but if learning activity instructions are written using low-level verbs, such as identify, describe, and summarize, students will be less likely to engage in higher-order thinking.

Areas for future research

The findings of our literature review suggest that the influence of technology on student engagement is still a developing area of knowledge that requires additional research to build on promising, but limited, evidence, clarify mixed findings, and address several gaps in the literature. As such, our recommendations for future areas of research are as follows:

Examine the effect of collaborative technologies (i.e., web-conferencing, blogs, wikis, social networking sites ) on emotional and cognitive student engagement. There are significant gaps in the literature regarding whether these technologies affect attitudes, interests, and values about learning; a sense of belonging within a learning community; motivation to learn; and persistence to overcome academic challenges and meet or exceed requirements.

Clarify mixed findings, particularly regarding how web-conferencing software, wikis, and Facebook and Twitter affect participation in learning activities. Researchers should make considerable efforts to gain consensus or increase consistency on how participation is measured (e.g., visited Facebook group or contributed one post a week) in order to make meaningful comparisons and draw conclusions about the efficacy of various technologies for promoting behavioral engagement. In addition, further research is needed to clarify findings regarding how wikis and Twitter influence interaction and how blogs and Facebook influence deep processing of information. Future research studies should include justifications for the pedagogical use of specific technologies and detailed instructions for learning activities to minimize adverse findings from poor instructional design and to encourage replication.

Conduct longitudinal studies over several academic terms and across multiple academic disciplines, degree levels, and institutions to determine long-term effects of specific technologies on student engagement and to increase generalizability of findings. Also, future studies should take individual factors into account, such as gender, age, and prior experience with the technology. Studies suggest that a lack of prior experience or familiarity with Twitter was a barrier to Twitter use in educational settings (Bista, 2015 , Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 , Tiernan, 2014 ); therefore, future studies should take prior experience into account.

Compare student engagement outcomes between and among different technologies and non-technologies. For example, studies suggest that students prefer Facebook over Twitter (Bista, 2015 ; Osgerby & Rush, 2015 ), but there were no studies that compared these technologies for promoting student engagement. Also, studies are needed to isolate and compare different features within the same technology to determine which might be most effective for increasing engagement. Finally, studies on digital games (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Grimley et al., 2012 ; Ke et al., 2016 ; Lu et al., 2014 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ) and face-to-face games (Antunes et al., 2012 ; Auman, 2011 ; Coffey et al., 2011 ; Crocco et al., 2016 ; Poole et al., 2014 ; Scarlet & Ampolos, 2013 ) show similar, positive effects on student engagement, therefore, additional research is needed to determine the degree to which the delivery method (i.e.., digital versus face-to-face) accounts for positive gains in student engagement.

Determine whether other technologies not included in this review influence student engagement. Facebook and Twitter regularly appear in the literature regarding social networking, but it is unclear how other popular social networking sites, such as LinkedIn, Instagram, and Flickr, influence student engagement. Future research should focus on the efficacy of these and other popular social networking sites for promoting student engagement. In addition, there were very few studies about whether informational technologies, which involve the one-way transmission of information to students, affect different types of student engagement. Future research should examine whether informational technologies, such as video lectures, podcasts, and pre-recorded narrated Power Point presentations or screen casts, affect student engagement. Finally, studies should examine the influence of mobile software and technologies, such as educational apps or smartphones, on student engagement.

Achieve greater consensus on the meaning of student engagement and its distinction from similar concepts in the literature, such as social and cognitive presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007 )

Recommendations for practice

Despite the existing gaps and mixed findings in the literature, we were able to compile a list of recommendations for when and how to use technology to increase the likelihood of promoting student engagement. What follows is not an exhaustive list; rather, it is a synthesis of both research findings and lessons learned from the studies we reviewed. There may be other recommendations to add to this list; however, our intent is to provide some useful information to help address barriers to technology integration among faculty who feel uncertain or unprepared to use technology (Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015 ; Hauptman, 2015 ; Kidd et al., 2016 ; Reid, 2014 ) and to add to the body of practical knowledge in instructional design and delivery. Our recommendations for practice are as follows:

Consider context before selecting technologies. Contextual factors such as existing technological infrastructure and requirements, program and course characteristics, and the intended audience will help determine which technologies, if any, are most appropriate (Bullen & Morgan, 2011 ; Bullen, Morgan, & Qayyum, 2011 ). For example, requiring students to use a blog that is not well integrated with the existing LMS may prove too frustrating for both the instructor and students. Similarly, integrating Facebook- and Twitter- based learning activities throughout a marketing program may be more appropriate, given the subject matter, compared to doing so in an engineering or accounting program where social media is less integral to the profession. Finally, do not assume that students appreciate or are familiar with all technologies. For example, students who did not already have Facebook or Twitter accounts were less likely to use either for learning purposes and perceived setting up an account to be an increase in workload (Bista, 2015 , Clements, 2015 ; DiVall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Mysko & Delgaty, 2015 , Tiernan, 2014 ). Therefore, prior to using any technology, instructors may want to determine how many students already have accounts and/or are familiar with the technology.

Carefully select technologies based on their strengths and limitations and the intended learning outcome. For example, Twitter is limited to 140 characters, making it a viable tool for learning activities that require brevity. In one study, an instructor used Twitter for short pop quizzes during lectures, where the first few students to tweet the correct answer received additional points (Kim et al., 2015 ), which helped students practice applying knowledge. In addition, studies show that students perceive Twitter and Facebook to be primarily for social interactions (Camus et al., 2016 ; Ross et al., 2015 ), which may make these technologies viable tools for sharing resources, giving brief opinions about news stories pertaining to course content, or having casual conversations with classmates rather than full-fledged scholarly discourse.

Incentivize students to use technology, either by assigning regular grades or giving extra credit. The average participation rates in voluntary web-conferencing, Facebook , and Twitter learning activities in studies we reviewed was 52% (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Armstrong & Thornton, 2012 ; Bahati, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Divall & Kirwin, 2012 ; Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; Fagioli et al., 2015 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Junco et al., 2013 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Ross et al., 2015 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ). While there were far fewer studies on the use of technology for graded or mandatory learning activities, the average participation rate reported in those studies was 97% (Bahati2015; Gagnon, 2015 ), suggesting that grading may be a key factor in ensuring students participate.

Communicate clear guidelines for technology use. Prior to the implementation of technology in a course, students may benefit from an overview the technology, including its navigational features, privacy settings, and security (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Hurt et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2012 ) and a set of guidelines for how to use the technology effectively and professionally within an educational setting (Miller et al., 2012 ; Prestridge, 2014 ; Staines & Lauchs, 2013 ; West et al., 2015 ). In addition, giving students examples of exemplary and poor entries and posts may also help to clarify how they are expected to use the technology (Shraim, 2014 ; Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Also, if instructors expect students to use technology to demonstrate higher-order thinking or to interact with peers, there should be explicit instructions to do so. For example, Prestridge ( 2014 ) found that students used Twitter to ask the instructor questions but very few interacted with peers because they were not explicitly asked to do so. Similarly, Hou et al., 2015 reported low levels of knowledge construction in Facebook , admitting that the wording of the learning activity (e.g., explore and present applications of computer networking) and the lack of probing questions in the instructions may have been to blame.

Use technology to provide authentic and integrated learning experiences. In many studies, instructors used digital games to simulate authentic environments in which students could apply new knowledge and skills, which ultimately lead to a greater understanding of content and evidence of higher-order thinking (Beckem & Watkins, 2012 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Lu et al., 2014 ; Marriott et al., 2015 ; Siddique et al., 2013 ). For example, in one study, students were required to play the role of a stock trader in a simulated trading environment and they reported that the simulation helped them engage in critical reflection, enabling them to identify their mistakes and weaknesses in their trading approaches and strategies (Marriott et al., 2015 ). In addition, integrating technology into regularly-scheduled classroom activities, such as lectures, may help to promote student engagement. For example, in one study, the instructor posed a question in class, asked students to respond aloud or tweet their response, and projected the Twitter page so that everyone could see the tweets in class, which lead to favorable comments about the usefulness of Twitter to promote engagement (Tiernan, 2014 ).

Actively participate in using the technologies assigned to students during the first few weeks of the course to generate interest (Dougherty & Andercheck, 2014 ; West et al., 2015 ) and, preferably, throughout the course to answer questions, encourage dialogue, correct misconceptions, and address inappropriate behavior (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Hennessy et al., 2016 ; Junco et al., 2013 ; Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013 ). Miller et al. ( 2012 ) found that faculty encouragement and prompting was associated with increases in students’ expression of ideas and the degree to which they edited and elaborated on their peers’ work in a course-specific wiki.

Be mindful of privacy, security, and accessibility issues. In many studies, instructors took necessary steps to help ensure privacy and security by creating closed Facebook groups and private Twitter pages, accessible only to students in the course (Bahati, 2015 ; Bista, 2015 ; Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014 ; Esteves, 2012 ; Rambe, 2012 ; Tiernan, 2014 ; Williams & Whiting, 2016 ) and by offering training to students on how to use privacy and security settings (Hurt et al., 2012 ). Instructors also made efforts to increase accessibility of web-conferencing software by including a phone number for students unable to access audio or video through their computer and by recording and archiving sessions for students unable to attend due to pre-existing conflicts (Andrew et al., 2015 ; Martin et al., 2012 ). In the future, instructors should also keep in mind that some technologies, like Facebook and Twitter , are not accessible to students living in China; therefore, alternative arrangements may need to be made.

In 1985, Steve Jobs predicted that computers and software would revolutionize the way we learn. Over 30 years later, his prediction has yet to be fully confirmed in the student engagement literature; however, our findings offer preliminary evidence that the potential is there. Of the technologies we reviewed, digital games, web-conferencing software, and Facebook had the most far-reaching effects across multiple types and indicators of student engagement, suggesting that technology should be considered a factor that influences student engagement in existing models. Findings regarding blogs, wikis, and Twitter, however, are less convincing, given a lack of studies in relation to engagement indicators or mixed findings. Significant methodological limitations may account for the wide range of findings in the literature. For example, small sample sizes, inconsistent measurement of variables, lack of comparison groups, and missing details about specific, pedagogical uses of technologies threaten the validity and reliability of findings. Therefore, more rigorous and robust research is needed to confirm and build upon limited but positive findings, clarify mixed findings, and address gaps particularly regarding how different technologies influence emotional and cognitive indicators of engagement.

Abbreviations

Learning management system

Amirault, R. J. (2012). Distance learning in the 21 st century university. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13 (4), 253–265.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, M. (2016). More Americans using smartphones for getting directions, streaming TV . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/29/us-smartphone-use/ .

Anderson, M., & Horrigan, J. B. (2016). Smartphones help those without broadband get online, but don’t necessary bridge the digital divide . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/03/smartphones-help-those-without-broadband-get-online-but-dont-necessarily-bridge-the-digital-divide/ .

Andrew, L., Maslin-Prothero, S., & Ewens, B. (2015). Enhancing the online learning experience using virtual interactive classrooms. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (4), 22–31.

Antunes, M., Pacheco, M. R., & Giovanela, M. (2012). Design and implementation of an educational game for teaching chemistry in higher education. Journal of Chemical Education, 89 (4), 517–521. doi: 10.1021/ed2003077 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Armier, D. J., Shepherd, C. E., & Skrabut, S. (2016). Using game elements to increase student engagement in course assignments. College Teaching, 64 (2), 64–72 https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1094439 .

Armstrong, A., & Thornton, N. (2012). Incorporating Brookfield’s discussion techniques synchronously into asynchronous online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13 (1), 1–9.

Ashrafzadeh, A., & Sayadian, S. (2015). University instructors’ concerns and perceptions of technology integration. Computers in Human Behavior, 49 , 62–73. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.071 .

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (4), 297–308.

Auman, C. (2011). Using simulation games to increase student and instructor engagement. College Teaching, 59 (4), 154–161. doi: 10.1080/87567555 .

Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 43 (1), 38–43.

Bahati, B. (2015). Extending student discussions beyond lecture room walls via Facebook. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (15), 160–171.

Bakker, A. B., Vergel, A. I. S., & Kuntze, J. (2015). Student engagement and performance: A weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motivation and Emotion, 39 (1), 49–62. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9422-5 .

Beckem, J. I., & Watkins, M. (2012). Bringing life to learning: Immersive experiential learning simulations for online and blended courses. Journal if Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16 (5), 61–70 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i5.287 .

Bista, K. (2015). Is Twitter an effective pedagogical tool in higher education? Perspectives of education graduate students. Journal of the Scholarship Of Teaching And Learning, 15 (2), 83–102 https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i2.12825 .

Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38 (6), 713–722 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x .

Bower, M. (2011). Redesigning a web-conferencing environment to scaffold computing students’ creative design processes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14 (1), 27–42.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bower, M. (2016). A framework for adaptive learning design in a Web-conferencing environment. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2016 (1), 11 http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.406 .

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bowman, N. D., & Akcaoglu, M. (2014). “I see smart people!”: Using Facebook to supplement cognitive and affective learning in the university mass lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 23 , 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.003 .

Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., et al. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94 , 178–192. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003 .

Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (4), 349–362. doi: 10.1080/14703290701602748 .

Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computer in Higher Education, 25 (1), 1–11.

Bullen, M., & Morgan, T. (2011). Digital learners not digital natives. La Cuestión Universitaria, 7 , 60–68.

Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37 (1), 1–24.

Calabretto, J., & Rao, D. (2011). Wikis to support collaboration of pharmacy students in medication management workshops -- a pilot project. International Journal of Pharmacy Education & Practice, 8 (2), 1–12.

Camacho, M. E., Carrión, M. D., Chayah, M., & Campos, J. M. (2016). The use of wiki to promote students’ learning in higher education (Degree in Pharmacy). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13 (1), 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0025-y .

Camus, M., Hurt, N. E., Larson, L. R., & Prevost, L. (2016). Facebook as an online teaching tool: Effects on student participation, learning, and overall course performance. College Teaching, 64 (2), 84–94 https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1099093 .

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47 (1), 1–32. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9 .

Cassidy, E. D., Colmenares, A., Jones, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Vieira, S. (2014). Higher Education and Emerging Technologies: Shifting Trends in Student Usage. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40 , 124–133. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.003 .

Center for Postsecondary Research (2016). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education . Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2016_Results/pdf/NSSE_2016_Annual_Results.pdf .

Center for Postsecondary Research (2017). About NSSE. Retrieved on February 15, 2017 from http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm

Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE Journal, 16 (2), 137–159.

Chang, J. W., & Wei, H. Y. (2016). Exploring Engaging Gamification Mechanics in Massive Online Open Courses. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (2), 177–203.

Chawinga, W. D. (2017). Taking social media to a university classroom: teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14 (1), 3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0041-6 .

Chen, B., Seilhamer, R., Bennett, L., & Bauer, S. (2015). Students’ mobile learning practices in higher education: A multi-year study. In EDUCAUSE Review Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/students-mobile-learning-practices-in-higher-education-a-multiyear-study .

Chu, S. K., Chan, C. K., & Tiwari, A. F. (2012). Using blogs to support learning during internship. Computers & Education, 58 (3), 989–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.027 .

Clements, J. C. (2015). Using Facebook to enhance independent student engagement: A case study of first-year undergraduates. Higher Education Studies, 5 (4), 131–146 https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n4p131 .

Coates, H. (2008). Attracting, engaging and retaining: New conversations about learning . Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=ausse .

Coffey, D. J., Miller, W. J., & Feuerstein, D. (2011). Classroom as reality: Demonstrating campaign effects through live simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 7 (1), 14–33.

Coghlan, E., Crawford, J. Little, J., Lomas, C., Lombardi, M., Oblinger, D., & Windham, C. (2007). ELI Discovery Tool: Guide to Blogging . Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI8006.pdf .

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59 , 661–686. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004 .

Cook, C. W., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Technology and online education: Models for change. ASBBS E-Journal, 10 (1), 43–59.

Crocco, F., Offenholley, K., & Hernandez, C. (2016). A proof-of-concept study of game-based learning in higher education. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (4), 403–422. doi: 10.1177/1046878116632484 .

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15–13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2012 (Research Report). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf

de Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning . Retrieved from https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/aeedcd86-bc4c-40fe-bfdf-df22ee53a495/1/learning%20in%20immersive%20worlds.pdf .

Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14 (9), 1–36. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5 .

DiVall, M. V., & Kirwin, J. L. (2012). Using Facebook to facilitate course-related discussion between students and faculty members. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76 (2), 1–5 https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe76232 .

Dos, B., & Demir, S. (2013). The analysis of the blogs created in a blended course through the reflective thinking perspective. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13 (2), 1335–1344.

Dougherty, K., & Andercheck, B. (2014). Using Facebook to engage learners in a large introductory course. Teaching Sociology, 42 (2), 95–104 https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x14521022 .

Dyson, B., Vickers, K., Turtle, J., Cowan, S., & Tassone, A. (2015). Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase student engagement and understanding in lecture-based classes. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 69 (2), 303–313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9776-3.

Esteves, K. K. (2012). Exploring Facebook to enhance learning and student engagement: A case from the University of Philippines (UP) Open University. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14 (1), 1–15.

Evans, C. (2014). Twitter for teaching: Can social media be used to enhance the process of learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (5), 902–915 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12099 .

Fagioli, L., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Deil-Amen, R. (2015). Changing the context of student engagement: Using Facebook to increase community college student persistence and success. Teachers College Record, 17 , 1–42.

Farley, P. C. (2013). Using the computer game “FoldIt” to entice students to explore external representations of protein structure in a biochemistry course for nonmajors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41 (1), 56–57 https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20655 .

Francescucci, A., & Foster, M. (2013). The VIRI classroom: The impact of blended synchronous online courses on student performance, engagement, and satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43 (3), 78–91.

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059 .

Gagnon, K. (2015). Using twitter in health professional education: A case study. Journal of Allied Health, 44 (1), 25–33.

Gandhi, P., Khanna, S., & Ramaswamy, S. (2016). Which industries are the most digital (and why?) . Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/04/a-chart-that-shows-which-industries-are-the-most-digital-and-why .

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (3), 157–172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001 .

Garrity, M. K., Jones, K., VanderZwan, K. J., de la Rocha, A. R., & Epstein, I. (2014). Integrative review of blogging: Implications for nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 53 (7), 395–401. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20140620-01 .

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19 , 18–26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002 .

Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47 (1), 109–114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008 .

Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update 2016 . Washington.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/ .

Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T., & Thompson, D. (2012). Comparing computer game and traditional lecture using experience ratings from high and low achieving students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (4), 619–638 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.831 .

Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46 (1), 3–16 https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802588626 .

Haggis, T. (2009). What have we been thinking of? A critical overview of 40 years of student learning research in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (4), 377–390. doi: 10.1080/03075070902771903 .

Hauptman, P.H. (2015). Mobile technology in college instruction. Faculty perceptions and barriers to adoption (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (AAI3712404).

Hennessy, C. M., Kirkpatrick, E., Smith, C. F., & Border, S. (2016). Social media and anatomy education: Using twitter to enhance the student learning experience in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9 (6), 505–515 https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1610 .

Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. S., & Chiu, D. K. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education, 93 , 221–236. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.010 .

Hewege, C. R., & Perera, L. R. (2013). Pedagogical significance of wikis: Towards gaining effective learning outcomes. Journal of International Education in Business, 6 (1), 51–70 https://doi.org/10.1108/18363261311314953 .

Hou, H., Wang, S., Lin, P., & Chang, K. (2015). Exploring the learner’s knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (6), 610–620. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2013.847381 .

Hu, S., & McCormick, A. C. (2012). An engagement-based student typology and its relationship to college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 53 , 738–754. doi: 10.1007/s11162-012-9254-7 .

Hudson, T. M., Knight, V., & Collins, B. C. (2012). Perceived effectiveness of web conferencing software in the digital environment to deliver a graduate course in applied behavior analysis. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31 (2), 27–39.

Hurt, N. E., Moss, G. S., Bradley, C. L., Larson, L. R., Lovelace, M. D., & Prevost, L. B. (2012). The ‘Facebook’ effect: College students’ perceptions of online discussions in the age of social networking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 6 (2), 1–24 https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060210 .

Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7 (3), 291–301 https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2014.2329293 .

Ivala, E., & Gachago, D. (2012). Social media for enhancing student engagement: The use of facebook and blogs at a university of technology. South African Journal of Higher Education, 26 (1), 152–167.

Johnson, D. R. (2013). Technological change and professional control in the professoriate. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38 (1), 126–149. doi: 10.1177/0162243911430236 .

Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting Twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (2), 273–287. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x .

Junco, R., Heibergert, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27 (2), 119–132. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x .

Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 758–773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505 .

Kaware, S. S., & Sain, S. K. (2015). ICT Application in Education: An Overview. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies, 2 (1), 25–32.

Ke, F., Xie, K., & Xie, Y. (2016). Game-based learning engagement: A theory- and data-driven exploration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (6), 1183–1201 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12314 .

Kent, M. (2013). Changing the conversation: Facebook as a venue for online class discussion in higher education. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9 (4), 546–565 https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2015.0000 .

Kidd, T., Davis, T., & Larke, P. (2016). Experience, adoption, and technology: Exploring the phenomenological experiences of faculty involved in online teaching at once school of public health. International Journal of E-Learning, 15 (1), 71–99.

Kim, Y., Jeong, S., Ji, Y., Lee, S., Kwon, K. H., & Jeon, J. W. (2015). Smartphone response system using twitter to enable effective interaction and improve engagement in large classrooms. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58 (2), 98–103 https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2014.2329651 .

Kinchin. (2012). Avoiding technology-enhanced non-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (2), E43–E48.

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc..

Kopcha, T. J., Rieber, L. P., & Walker, B. B. (2016). Understanding university faculty perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (5), 945–957. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12361 .

Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (5), 493–505. doi: 10.1080/02602930701698892 .

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141 , 5–20.

Lam, S., Wong, B., Yang, H., & Yi, L. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a contextual model. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 403–419). New York: Springer.

Lawrence, B., & Lentle-Keenan, S. (2013). Teaching beliefs and practice, institutional context, and the uptake of Web-based technology. Distance Education, 34 (1), 4–20.

Leach, L. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in one institution. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40 (1), 23–47.

Lester, D. (2013). A review of the student engagement literature. Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 7 (1), 1–8.

Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established and emerging technologies in higher education: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 2 (2), 22–34 http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p22 .

Lin, C., Singer, R., & Ha, L. (2010). Why university members use and resist technology? A structure enactment perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22 (1), 38–59. doi: 10.1007/s12528-010-9028-1 .

Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., & Summers, L. L. (2015). Designing instruction in the face of technology transience. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16 (2), 107–118.

Liu, C., Cheng, Y., & Huang, C. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57 (3), 1907–1918 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002 .

Lu, J., Hallinger, P., & Showanasai, P. (2014). Simulation-based learning in management education: A longitudinal quasi-experimental evaluation of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 33 (3), 218–244. doi: 10.1108/JMD-11-2011-0115 .

Maben, S., Edwards, J., & Malone, D. (2014). Online engagement through Facebook groups in face-to-face undergraduate communication courses: A case study. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 29 (2), 1–27.

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (6), 487–504. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12007 .

Mansouri, S. A., & Piki, A. (2016). An exploration into the impact of blogs on students’ learning: Case studies in postgraduate business education. Innovations in Education And Teaching International, 53 (3), 260–273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.997777 .

Marriott, P., Tan, S. W., & Marriot, N. (2015). Experiential learning – A case study of the use of computerized stock market trading simulation in finance education. Accounting Education, 24 (6), 480–497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2015.1072728 .

Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13 (3), 227–261.

Martin, K., Goldwasser, M., & Galentino, R. (2017). Impact of Cohort Bonds on Student Satisfaction and Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 19 (3), 1–14.

Martínez, A. A., Medina, F. X., Albalat, J. A. P., & Rubió, F. S. (2013). Challenges and opportunities of 2.0 tools for the interdisciplinary study of nutrition: The case of the Mediterranean Diet wiki. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 10 (1), 210–225 https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1341 .

McBrien, J. L., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (3), 1–17 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605 .

McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2012). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from “CCSSE” validation research . Austin: Community College Survey of Student Engagement.

McKay, M., Sanko, J., Shekhter, I., & Birnbach, D. (2014). Twitter as a tool to enhance student engagement during an interprofessional patient safety course. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28 (6), 565–567 https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.912618 .

Miller, A. D., Norris, L. B., & Bookstaver, P. B. (2012). Use of wikis in pharmacy hybrid elective courses. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 4 (4), 256–261. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2012.05.004 .

Morley, D. A. (2012). Enhancing networking and proactive learning skills in the first year university experience through the use of wikis. Nurse Education Today, 32 (3), 261–266.

Mysko, C., & Delgaty, L. (2015). How and why are students using Twitter for #meded? Integrating Twitter into undergraduate medical education to promote active learning. Annual Review of Education, Communication & Language Sciences, 12 , 24–52.

Nadolny, L., & Halabi, A. (2016). Student participation and achievement in a large lecture course with game-based learning. Simulation and Gaming, 47 (1), 51–72. doi: 10.1177/1046878115620388 .

Naghdipour, B., & Eldridge, N. H. (2016). Incorporating social networking sites into traditional pedagogy: A case of facebook. TechTrends, 60 (6), 591–597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0118-4 .

Nakamaru, S. (2012). Investment and return: Wiki engagement in a “remedial” ESL writing course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44 (4), 273–291.

Nelson, R. (2016). Apple’s app store will hit 5 million apps by 2020, more than doubling its current size . Retrieved from https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-growth-forecast-2020 .

Nora, A., Barlow, E., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year in college. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention (pp. 129–154). Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Osgerby, J., & Rush, D. (2015). An exploratory case study examining undergraduate accounting students’ perceptions of using Twitter as a learning support tool. International Journal of Management Education, 13 (3), 337–348. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.10.002 .

Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2 , 10–16.

Pace, C. R. (1984). Student effort: A new key to assessing quality . Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.

Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and educational institutions: A holistic framework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14 (1), 49–62.

Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation, and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 157–170. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048 .

Poole, S. M., Kemp, E., Williams, K. H., & Patterson, L. (2014). Get your head in the game: Using gamification in business education to connect with Generation Y. Journal for Excellence in Business Education, 3 (2), 1–9.

Poushter, J. (2016). Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/ .

Prestridge, S. (2014). A focus on students’ use of Twitter - their interactions with each other, content and interface. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15 (2), 101–115.

Rambe, P. (2012). Activity theory and technology mediated interaction: Cognitive scaffolding using question-based consultation on “Facebook”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (8), 1333–1361 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.775 .

Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 19 (2), 383–407.

Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engagement learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12 (2), 113–124.

Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (1), 23–37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2001_3 .

Ross, H. M., Banow, R., & Yu, S. (2015). The use of Twitter in large lecture courses: Do the students see a benefit? Contemporary Educational Technology, 6 (2), 126–139.

Roussinos, D., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2013). Analysis of students’ participation patterns and learning presence in a wiki-based project. Educational Media International, 50 (4), 306–324 https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.863471 .

Salaber, J. (2014). Facilitating student engagement and collaboration in a large postgraduate course using wiki-based activities. International Journal of Management Education, 12 (2), 115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.006 .

Scarlet, J., & Ampolos, L. (2013). Using game-based learning to teach psychopharmacology. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 12 (1), 64–70 https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2013.12.1.64 .

Sharma, P., & Tietjen, P. (2016). Examining patterns of participation and meaning making in student blogs: A case study in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 30 (1), 2–13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1119605 .

Shraim, K. Y. (2014). Pedagogical innovation within Facebook: A case study in tertiary education in Palestine. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9 (8), 25–31. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v9i8.3805 .

Siddique, Z., Ling, C., Roberson, P., Xu, Y., & Geng, X. (2013). Facilitating higher-order learning through computer games. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135 (12), 121004–121010.

Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2016). Online Shopping and E-Commerce . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/19/online-shopping-and-e-commerce/ .

Staines, Z., & Lauchs, M. (2013). Students’ engagement with Facebook in a university undergraduate policing unit. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29 (6), 792–805 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.270 .

Sun, A., & Chen, X. (2016). Online education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15 , 157–190.

Tiernan, P. (2014). A study of the use of Twitter by students for lecture engagement and discussion. Education and Information Technologies, 19 (4), 673–690 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9246-4 .

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review . Lancaster: Lancaster University Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/trowler/StudentEngagementLiteratureReview.pdf .

Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary . Lancaster: Lancaster University Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/61680/1/Deliverable_2._Evidence_Summary._Nov_2010.pdf .

van Beynen, K., & Swenson, C. (2016). Exploring peer-to-peer library content and engagement on a student-run Facebook group. College & Research Libraries, 77 (1), 34–50 https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.34 .

Wang, S. (2008). Blogs in education. In M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking (2nd ed., pp. 134–139). Hershey: Information Sciences Reference.

Wdowik, S. (2014). Using a synchronous online learning environment to promote and enhance transactional engagement beyond the classroom. Campus — Wide Information Systems, 31 (4), 264–275. doi: 10.1108/CWIS-10-2013-0057 .

Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., & Groner, R. (2008). Playing online games against computer-vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2274–2291 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.002 .

West, B., Moore, H., & Barry, B. (2015). Beyond the tweet: Using Twitter to enhance engagement, learning, and success among first-year students. Journal of Marketing Education, 37 (3), 160–170. doi: 10.1177/0273475315586061 .

Westera, W. (2015). Reframing the role of educational media technologies. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16 (2), 19–32.

Whitton, N. (2011). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42 (5), 596–609.

Williams, D., & Whiting, A. (2016). Exploring the relationship between student engagement, Twitter, and a learning management system: A study of undergraduate marketing students. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 28 (3), 302–313.

Wimpenny, K., & Savin-Baden, M. (2013). Alienation, agency, and authenticity: A synthesis of the literature on student engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (3), 311–326. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.725223 .

Witkowski, P., & Cornell, T. (2015). An Investigation into Student Engagement in Higher Education Classrooms. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 10 , 56–67.

Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23 (3), 92–97.

Yang, C., & Chang, Y. (2012). Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28 (2), 126–135 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00423.x .

Zepke, N. (2014). Student engagement research in higher education: questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (6), 697–708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901956 .

Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11 (3), 167–177. doi: 10.1177/1469787410379680 .

Zickuhr, K., & Raine, L. (2014). E-reading rises as device ownership jumps . Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/01/16/e-reading-rises-as-device-ownership-jumps/ .

Zimmermann, L. K. (2013). Using a virtual simulation program to teach child development. College Teaching, 61 (4), 138–142. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2013.817377 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was supported in part by a Laureate Education, Incl. David A. Wilson research grant study awarded to the second author, “A Comparative Analysis of Student Engagement and Critical Thinking in Two Approaches to the Online Classroom”.

Availability of data and materials

Authors’ contributions.

The first and second authors contributed significantly to the writing, review, and conceptual thinking of the manuscript. The third author provided a first detailed outline of what the paper could address, and the fourth offer provided input and feedback through critical review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The parent study was approved by the University of Liverpool Online International Online Ethics Review Committee, approval number 04-24-2015-01.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Liverpool Online, Liverpool, UK

Laura A. Schindler & Osama A. Morad

Laureate Education, Inc., Baltimore, USA

Gary J. Burkholder

Walden University, Minneapolis, USA

University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

Craig Marsh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura A. Schindler .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Schindler, L.A., Burkholder, G.J., Morad, O.A. et al. Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 25 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0

Download citation

Received : 31 March 2017

Accepted : 06 June 2017

Published : 02 October 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social networking

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 09 May 2024

Looking back to move forward: comparison of instructors’ and undergraduates’ retrospection on the effectiveness of online learning using the nine-outcome influencing factors

• Yujie Su   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1444-1598 1 ,
• Xiaoshu Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0667-4511 1 ,
• Yunfeng Zhang 2 ,
• Xinyu Xu 1 &
• Shanshan Hao 3  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  594 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

This study delves into the retrospections of undergraduate students concerning their online learning experiences after the COVID-19 pandemic, using the nine key influencing factors: behavioral intention, instruction, engagement, interaction, motivation, self-efficacy, performance, satisfaction, and self-regulation. 46 Year 1 students from a comprehensive university in China were asked to maintain reflective diaries throughout an academic semester, providing first-person perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of online learning. Meanwhile, 18 college teachers were interviewed with the same questions as the students. Using thematic analysis, the research identified 9 factors. The research revealed that instruction ranked highest among the 9 factors, followed by engagement, self-regulation, interaction, motivation, and others. Moreover, teachers and students had different attitudes toward instruction. Thirdly, teacher participants were different from student participants given self-efficacy and self-regulation due to their variant roles in online instruction. Lastly, the study reflected students were not independent learners, which explained why instruction ranked highest in their point of view. Findings offer valuable insights for educators, administrators, and policy-makers involved in higher education. Recommendations for future research include incorporating a more diverse sample, exploring relationships between the nine factors, and focusing on equipping students with skills for optimal online learning experiences.

Introduction

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on education worldwide, leading to the widescale adoption of online learning. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), at the peak of the pandemic, 192 countries had implemented nationwide closures, affecting approximately 99% of the world’s student population (UNESCO 2020 a). In response, educational institutions, teachers, and students quickly adapted to online learning platforms, leveraging digital technologies to continue education amidst the crisis (Marinoni et al. 2020 ).

The rapid and unexpected shift to online learning brought about a surge in research aiming to understand its impact, effectiveness, and challenges. Researchers across the globe have been investigating various dimensions of online learning. Some focus on students’ experiences and perspectives (Aristovnik et al. 2021 ), technological aspects (Bao 2020 ), pedagogical strategies (Hodges et al. 2020 ), and the socio-emotional aspect of learning (Ali 2020 ). Tan et al. ( 2021 ) found that motivation and satisfaction were mostly positively perceived by students, and lack of interaction was perceived as an unfavorable online instruction perception. Some center on teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges (Lucas and Vicente, 2023 ; Mulla et al. 2023 ), post-pandemic pedagogisation (Rapanta et al. 2021 ), and post-pandemic further education (Kohnke et al. 2023 ; Torsani et al. 2023 ). It was worth noting that elements like interaction and engagement were central to the development and maintenance of the learning community (Lucas and Vincente 2023 ),

The rise of online learning has also posed unprecedented challenges. Studies have pointed out the digital divide and accessibility issues (Crawford et al. 2020 ), students’ motivation and engagement concerns (Martin and Bolliger 2018 ), and the need for effective online instructional practices (Trust and Whalen 2020 ). The rapid transition to online learning has highlighted the need for robust research to address these challenges and understand the effectiveness of online learning in this new educational paradigm.

Despite the extensive research on online learning during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains a notable gap in understanding the retrospective perspectives of both undergraduates and teachers. Much of the current literature has focused on immediate response strategies to the transition to online learning, often overlooking the detailed insights that reflective retrospection can provide (Marinoni et al. 2020 ; Bao 2020 ). In addition, while many studies have examined isolated aspects of online learning, they have not often employed a comprehensive framework, leaving undergraduates’ voices, in particular, underrepresented in the discourse (Aristovnik et al. 2021 ; Crawford et al. 2020 ). This study, situated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impetus toward online learning, seeks to fill this crucial gap. By exploring online learning from the perspectives of both instructors and undergraduates, and analyzing nine key factors that include engagement, motivation, and self-efficacy, the research contributes vital insights into the dynamics of online education (Wang and Wang 2021 ). This exploration is especially pertinent as digital learning environments become increasingly prevalent worldwide (UNESCO 2020b ). The findings of our study are pivotal for shaping future educational policies and enhancing online education strategies in this continuously evolving educational landscape (Greenhow et al. 2021 ). Thus, three research questions were raised:

Q1: How do undergraduates and teachers in China retrospectively perceive the effectiveness of online learning after the COVID-19 pandemic?

Q2: Which of the nine outcome influencing factors had the most significant impact on online learning experiences after the pandemic, and why?

Q3: What recommendations can be proposed to enhance the effectiveness of online learning in the future?

The research takes place at a comprehensive university in China, with a sample of 46 Year 1 students and 18 experienced teachers. Their reflections on the effectiveness of online learning were captured through reflective diaries guided by four questions. These questions investigated the students’ online learning states and attitudes, identified issues and insufficiencies in online learning, analyzed the reasons behind these problems, and proposed improvements. By assessing their experiences and perceptions, we seek to explore the significant factors that shaped online learning outcomes after the pandemic and the means to enhance its effectiveness.

This paper first presents a review of the existing literature, focusing on the impact of the pandemic on online learning and discussing the nine significant factors influencing online learning outcomes. Following this, the methodology utilized for this study is detailed, setting the stage for a deeper understanding of the research process. Subsequently, we delve into the results of the thematic analysis conducted based on undergraduate students and teachers’ retrospections. Finally, the paper concludes by offering meaningful implications of the findings for various stakeholders and suggesting directions for future research in this critical area.

Literature review

Online learning application and evaluation in higher education.

Online learning, also known as e-learning or distance learning, refers to education that takes place over the Internet rather than in a traditional classroom setting. It has seen substantial growth over the past decade and has been accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Trust and Whalen 2020 ). Online learning allows for a flexible learning environment, breaking the temporal and spatial boundaries of traditional classroom settings (Bozkurt and Sharma 2020 ). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, educational institutions globally have embraced online learning at an unprecedented scale. This has led to an immense surge in research focusing on the effects of the pandemic on online learning (Crawford et al. 2020 ; Marinoni et al. 2020 ).

Researchers were divided in their attitudes toward the effects of online learning, including positive, neutral, and negative. Research by Bahasoan et al. ( 2020 ), Bernard et al. ( 2004 ), Hernández-Lara and Serradell-López ( 2018 ), and Paechter and Maier ( 2010 ) indicated the effectiveness of online learning, including improved outcomes and engagement in online formats, providing flexibility and enhancing digital skills for instance. Research, including studies by Dolan Hancock and Wareing ( 2015 ) and Means et al. ( 2010 ), indicates that under equivalent conditions and with similar levels of support, there is frequently no substantial difference in learning outcomes between traditional face-to-face courses and completely online courses.

However, online learning was not without its challenges. Research showing less favorable results for specific student groups can be referenced in Dennen ( 2014 ), etc. The common problems faced by students included underdeveloped independent learning ability, lack of motivation, difficulties in self-regulation, student engagement and technical issues (Aristovnik et al. 2021 ; Martin and Bolliger 2018 ; Song et al. 2004 ; Zheng et al. 2022 ).

Moreover, factors like instructional strategies, course design, etc. were also linked to learning outcomes and successful online learning (Ali 2020 ; Hongsuchon et al. 2022 ). Careaga-Butter et al. ( 2020 ) critically analyze online education in pandemic and post-pandemic contexts, focusing on digital tools and resources for teaching in synchronous and asynchronous learning modalities. They discuss the swift adaptation to online learning during the pandemic, highlighting the importance of technological infrastructure, pedagogical strategies, and the challenges of digital divides. The article emphasizes the need for effective online learning environments and explores trends in post-pandemic education, providing insights into future educational strategies and practices.

Determinants of online learning outcomes

Online learning outcomes in this paper refer to the measurable educational results achieved through online learning methods, including knowledge acquisition, skill development, changes in attitudes or behaviors, and performance improvements (Chang 2016 ; Panigrahi et al. 2018 ). The literature review identified key factors influencing online learning outcomes, emphasizing their significant role in academic discourse. These factors, highlighted in scholarly literature, include student engagement, instructional design, technology infrastructure, student-teacher interaction, and student self-regulation.

Student Engagement: The level of a student’s engagement significantly impacts their learning outcomes. The more actively a student is engaged with the course content and activities, the better their performance tends to be. This underscores the importance of designing engaging course content and providing opportunities for active learning in an online environment (Martin and Bolliger 2018 ).

Instructional Design: How an online course is designed can greatly affect student outcomes. Key elements such as clarity of learning objectives, organization of course materials, and the use of diverse instructional strategies significantly impact student learning (Bozkurt and Sharma 2020 ).

Technology Infrastructure: The reliability and ease of use of the learning management system (LMS) also play a significant role in online learning outcomes. When students experience technical difficulties, it can lead to frustration, reduced engagement, and lower performance (Johnson et al. 2020 ).

Student-Teacher Interaction: Interaction between students and teachers in an online learning environment is a key determinant of successful outcomes. Regular, substantive feedback from instructors can promote student learning and motivation (Boling et al. 2012 ).

Student Self-Regulation: The autonomous nature of online learning requires students to be proficient in self-regulated learning, which involves setting learning goals, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Students who exhibit strong self-regulation skills are more likely to succeed in online learning (Broadbent 2017 ).

While many studies have investigated individual factors affecting online learning, there is a paucity of research offering a holistic view of these factors and their interrelationships, leading to a fragmented understanding of the influences on online learning outcomes. Given the multitude of experiences and variables encompassed by online learning, a comprehensive framework like is instrumental in ensuring a thorough investigation and interpretation of the breadth of students’ experiences.

Students’ perceptions of online learning

Understanding students’ perceptions of online learning is essential for enhancing its effectiveness and student satisfaction. Studies show students appreciate online learning for its flexibility and convenience, offering personalized learning paths and resource access (Händel et al. 2020 ; Johnson et al. 2020 ). Yet, challenges persist, notably in maintaining motivation and handling technical issues (Aristovnik et al. 2021 ; Händel et al. 2020 ). Aguilera-Hermida ( 2020 ) reported mixed feelings among students during the COVID-19 pandemic, including feelings of isolation and difficulty adjusting to online environments. Boling et al. ( 2012 ) emphasized students’ preferences for interactive and communicative online learning environments. Additionally, research indicates that students seek more engaging content and innovative teaching approaches, suggesting a gap between current online offerings and student expectations (Chakraborty and Muyia Nafukho 2014 ). Students also emphasize the importance of community and peer support in online settings, underlining the need for collaborative and social learning opportunities (Lai et al. 2019 ). These findings imply that while online learning offers significant benefits, addressing its shortcomings is critical for maximizing its potential.

The pandemic prompted a reconsideration of instructional modalities, with many students favoring face-to-face instruction due to the immediacy and focus issues (Aristovnik et al. 2021 ; Trust and Whalen 2020 ). Despite valuable insights, research gaps remain, particularly in long-term undergraduate reflections and the application of nine factors of comprehensive frameworks, indicating a need for more holistic research in online learning effectiveness.

Teachers’ perceptions of online learning

The pandemic has brought attention to how teachers manage instruction in virtual learning environments. Teachers and students are divided in terms of their attitudes toward online learning. Some teachers and students looked to the convenience and flexibility of online learning (Chuenyindee et al. 2022 ; Al-Emran and Shaalan 2021 ). They conceived that online learning provided opportunities to improve educational equality as well (Tenório et al. 2016 ). Even when COVID-19 was over, the dependence on online learning was likely here to stay, for some approaches of online learning were well-received by students and teachers (Al-Rahmi et al. 2019 ; Hongsuchon et al. 2022 ).

Teachers had shown great confidence in delivering instruction in an online environment in a satisfying manner. They also agreed that the difficulty of teaching was closely associated with course structures (Gavranović and Prodanović 2021 ).

Not all were optimistic about the effects of online learning. They sought out the challenges facing teachers and students during online learning.

A mixed-method study of K-12 teachers’ feelings, experiences, and perspectives that the major challenges faced by teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic were lack of student participation and engagement, technological support for online learning, lack of face-to-face interactions with students, no work-life balance and learning new technology.

The challenges to teachers’ online instruction included instruction technology (Maatuk et al. 2022 ; Rasheed et al. 2020 ), course design (Khojasteh et al. 2023 ), and teachers’ confidence (Gavranović and Prodanović 2021 ).

Self-regulation challenges and challenges in using technology were the key challenges to students, while the use of technology for teaching was the challenge facing teachers (Rasheed et al. 2020 ).

The quality of course design was another important factor in online learning. A research revealed the competency of the instructors and their expertise in content development contributed a lot to students’ satisfaction with the quality of e-contents.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical foundation of the research is deeply rooted in multifaceted framework for online learning, which provides a comprehensive and interwoven model encompassing nine critical factors that collectively shape the educational experience in online settings. This framework is instrumental in guiding our analysis and enhances the comparability and interpretability of our results within the context of existing literature.

Central to Yu’s framework is the concept of behavioral intention, which acts as a precursor to student engagement in online learning environments. This engagement, inherently linked to the students’ intentions and motivations, is significantly influenced by the quality of instruction they receive. Instruction, therefore, emerges as a pivotal element in this model, directly impacting not only student engagement but also fostering a sense of self-efficacy among learners. Such self-efficacy is crucial as it influences both the performance of students and their overall satisfaction with the learning process.

The framework posits that engagement, a derivative of both strong behavioral intention and effective instruction, plays a vital role in enhancing student performance. This engagement is tightly interlaced with self-regulation, an indispensable skill in the autonomous and often self-directed context of online learning. Interaction, encompassing various forms such as student-teacher and peer-to-peer communications, further enriches the learning experience. It significantly contributes to the development of motivation and self-efficacy, both of which are essential for sustaining engagement and fostering self-regulated learning.

Motivation, especially when intrinsically driven, acts as a catalyst, perpetuating engagement and self-regulation, which ultimately leads to increased satisfaction with the learning experience. In this framework, self-efficacy, nurtured through effective instruction and meaningful interactions, has a positive impact on students’ performance and satisfaction, thereby creating a reinforcing cycle of learning and achievement.

Performance in this model is viewed as a tangible measure of the synergistic interplay of engagement, instructional quality, and self-efficacy, while satisfaction reflects the culmination of the learning experience, shaped by the quality of instruction, the extent and nature of interactions, and the flexibility of the learning environment. This satisfaction, in turn, influences students’ future motivation and their continued engagement with online learning.

Yu’s model thus presents a dynamic ecosystem where changes in one factor can have ripple effects across the entire spectrum of online learning. It emphasizes the need for a holistic approach in the realm of online education, considering the complex interplay of these diverse yet interconnected elements to enhance both the effectiveness and the overall experience of online learning.

The current study employed a qualitative design to explore teachers’ and undergraduates’ retrospections on the effectiveness of online learning during the first semester of the 2022–2023 school year, which is in the post-pandemic period. Data were collected using reflective diaries, and thematic analysis was applied to understand the experiences based on the nine factors.

Sample and sampling

The study involved 18 teachers and 46 first-year students from a comprehensive university in China, selected through convenience sampling to ensure diverse representation across academic disciplines. To ensure a diverse range of experiences in online learning, the participant selection process involved an initial email inquiry about their prior engagement with online education. The first author of this study received ethics approval from the department research committee, and participants were informed of the study’s objectives two weeks before via email. Only those participants who provided written informed consent were included in the study and were free to withdraw at any time. Pseudonyms were used to protect participants’ identities during the data-coding process. For direct citations, acronyms of students’ names were used, while “T+number” was used for citations from teacher participants.

The 46 students are all first-year undergraduates, 9 females and 37 males majoring in English and non-English (see Table 1 ).

The 18 teachers are all experienced instructors with at least 5 years of teaching experience, 13 females and 5 male, majoring in English and Non-English (see Table 2 ).

Data collection

Students’ data were collected through reflective diaries in class during the first semester of the 2022–2023 school year. Each participant was asked to maintain a diary over the course of one academic semester, in which they responded to four questions.

The four questions include:

What was your state and attitude toward online learning?

What were the problems and shortcomings of online learning?

What do you think are the reasons for these problems?

What measures do you think should be taken to improve online learning?

This approach provided a first-person perspective on the participants’ online teaching or learning experiences, capturing the depth and complexity of their retrospections.

Teachers were interviewed separately by responding to the four questions the same as the students. Each interview was conducted in the office or the school canteen during the semester and lasted about 20 to 30 min.

Data analysis

We utilized thematic analysis to interpret the reflective diaries, guided initially by nine factors. This method involved extensive engagement with the data, from initial coding to the final report. While Yu’s factors provided a foundational structure, we remained attentive to new themes, ensuring a comprehensive analysis. Our approach was methodical: familiarizing ourselves with the data, identifying initial codes, systematically searching and reviewing themes, and then defining and naming them. To validate our findings, we incorporated peer debriefing, and member checking, and maintained an audit trail. This analysis method was chosen for its effectiveness in extracting in-depth insights from undergraduates’ retrospections on their online learning experiences post-pandemic, aligning with our research objectives.

According to the nine factors, the interviews of 18 teachers and 46 Year 1 undergraduates were catalogued and listed in Table 3 .

Behavioral intention towards online learning post-pandemic

Since the widespread of the COVID-19 pandemic, both teachers and students have experienced online learning. However, their online teaching or learning was forced rather than planned (Baber 2021 ; Bao 2020 ). Students more easily accepted online learning when they perceived the severity of COVID-19.

When entering the post-pandemic era, traditional teaching was resumed. Students often compared online learning with traditional learning by mentioning learning interests, eye contact, face-to-face learning and learning atmosphere.

“I don’t think online learning is a good form of learning because it is hard to focus on learning.” (DSY) “In unimportant courses, I would let the computer log to the platform and at the same time do other entertains such as watching movies, listening to the music, having snacks or do the cleaning.” (XYN) “Online learning makes it impossible to have eye contact between teachers and students and unable to create a face-to-face instructional environment, which greatly influences students’ initiative and engagement in classes.” (WRX)

They noted that positive attitudes toward online learning usually generated higher behavioral intention to use online learning than those with negative attitudes, as found in the research of Zhu et al. ( 2023 ). So they put more blame on distractions in the learning environment.

“Online learning relies on computers or cell phones which easily brings many distractions. … I can’t focus on studying, shifting constantly from study and games.” (YX) “When we talk about learning online, we are hit by an idea that we can take a rest in class. It’s because everyone believes that during online classes, the teacher is unable to see or know what we are doing.” (YM) “…I am easily disturbed by external factors, and I am not very active in class.” (WZB)

Teachers reported a majority of students reluctantly turning on their cameras during online instruction and concluded the possible reason for such behavior.

“One of the reasons why some students are unwilling to turn on the camera is that they are worried about their looks and clothing at home, or that they don’t want to become the focus.” (T4)

They also noticed students’ absent-mindedness and lazy attitude during online instruction.

“As for some students who are not self-regulated, they would not take online learning as seriously as offline learning. Whenever they are logged onto the online platform, they would be unable to stay focused and keep their attention.” (T1)

Challenges and opportunities in online instruction post-pandemic

Online teaching brought new challenges and opportunities for students during and after the pandemic. The distractions at home seemed to be significantly underestimated by teachers in an online learning environment (Radmer and Goodchild 2021 ). It might be the reason why students greatly expected and heavily relied on teachers’ supervision and management.

“The biggest problem of online learning is that online courses are as imperative as traditional classes, but not managed face to face the same as the traditional ones.” (PC) “It is unable to provide some necessary supervision.” (GJX) “It is incapable of giving timely attention to every student.” (GYC) “Teachers can’t understand students’ conditions in time in most cases so teachers can’t adjust their teaching plan.” (MZY) “Some courses are unable to reach the teaching objectives due to lack of experimental conduction and practical operation.” (YZH) “Insufficient teacher-student interaction and the use of cell phones make both groups unable to engage in classes. What’s more, though online learning doesn’t put a high requirement for places, its instructional environment may be crucial due to the possible distractions.” (YCY)

Teachers also viewed online instruction as an addition to face-to-face instruction.

“Online learning cannot run as smoothly as face-to-face instruction, but it can provide an in-time supplement to the practical teaching and students’ self-learning.” (T13, T17) “Online instruction is an essential way to ensure the normal function of school work during the special periods like the pandemic” (T1, T15)

Factors influencing student engagement in online learning

Learning engagement was found to contribute to gains in the study (Paul and Diana 2006 ). It was also referred to as a state closely intertwined with the three dimensions of learning, i.e., vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al. 2002 ). Previous studies have found that some key factors like learning interaction, self-regulation, and social presence could influence learning engagement and learning outcomes (Lowenthal and Dunlap 2020 ; Ng 2018 ). Due to the absence of face-to-face interaction like eye contact, facial expressions and body language, both groups of interviewees agreed that the students felt it hard to keep their attention and thus remain active in online classes.

“Students are unable to engage in study due to a lack of practical learning environment of online learning.” (ZMH, T12) “Online platforms may not provide the same level of engagement and interaction as in-person classrooms, making it harder for students to ask questions or engage in discussions.” (HCK) “The Internet is cold, lack of emotional clues and practical connections, which makes it unable to reproduce face-to-face offline learning so that teachers and students are unlikely to know each other’s true feelings or thoughts. In addition, different from the real-time learning supervision in offline learning, online learning leaves students more learning autonomy.” (XGH) “Lack of teachers’ supervision and practical learning environment, students are easily distracted.” (LMA, T9)

Just as Zhu et al. ( 2023 ) pointed out, we had been too optimistic about students’ engagement in online learning, because online learning relied more on students’ autonomy and efforts to complete online learning.

Challenges in teacher-student interaction in online learning

Online learning has a notable feature, i.e., a spatial and temporal separation among teachers and students. Thus, online teacher-student interactions, fundamentals of relationship formation, have more challenges for both teachers and students. The prior studies found that online interaction affected social presence and indirectly affected learning engagement through social presence (Miao and Ma 2022 ). In the present investigation, both teachers and students noted the striking disadvantage of online interaction.

“Online learning has many problems such as indirect teacher-student communication, inactive informative communication, late response of students and their inability to reflect their problems. For example, teachers cannot evaluate correctly whether the students have mastered or not.” (YYN) “Teachers and students are separated by screens. The students cannot make prompt responses to the teachers’ questions via loudspeakers or headphones. It is not convenient for students to participate in questioning and answering. …for most of the time, the students interact with teachers via typing.” (ZJY) “While learning online, students prefer texting the questions to answering them via the loudspeaker.”(T7)

Online learning interaction was also found closely related to online learning engagement, performance, and self-efficacy.

“Teachers and students are unable to have timely and effective communication, which reduces the learning atmosphere. Students are often distracted. While doing homework, the students are unable to give feedback to teachers.” (YR) “Students are liable to be distracted by many other side matters so that they can keep their attention to online learning.” (T15)

In the online learning environment, teachers need to make efforts to build rapport and personalizing interactions with students to help them perform better and achieve greater academic success (Harper 2018 ; Ong and Quek 2023 ) Meanwhile, teachers should also motivate students’ learning by designing the lessons, giving lectures and managing the processes of student interactions (Garrison 2003 ; Ong and Quek 2023 ).

Determinants of self-efficacy in online learning

Online learning self-efficacy refers to students’ perception of their abilities to fulfill specific tasks required in online learning (Calaguas and Consunji 2022 ; Zimmerman and Kulikowich 2016 ). Online learning self-efficacy was found to be influenced by various factors including task, learner, course, and technology level, among which task level was found to be most closely related (Xu et al. 2022 ). The responses from the 46 student participants reveal a shared concern, albeit without mentioning specific tasks; they highlight critical aspects influencing online learning: learner attributes, course structure, and technological infrastructure.

One unifying theme from the student feedback is the challenge of self-regulation and environmental distractions impacting learning efficacy. For instance, participant WSX notes the necessity for students to enhance time management skills due to deficiencies in self-regulation, which is crucial for successful online learning. Participant WY expands on this by pointing out the distractions outside traditional classroom settings, coupled with limited teacher-student interaction, which hampers idea exchange and independent thought, thereby undermining educational outcomes. These insights suggest a need for strategies that bolster students’ self-discipline and interactive opportunities in virtual learning environments.

On the technological front, participants WT and YCY address different but related issues. Participant WT emphasizes the importance of up-to-date course content and learning facilities, indicating that outdated materials and tools can significantly diminish the effectiveness of online education. Participant YCY adds to this by highlighting problems with online learning applications, such as subpar functionalities that can introduce additional barriers to learning.

Teacher participants, on the other hand, shed light on objective factors predominantly related to course content and technology. Participant T5’s response underscores the heavy dependency on technological advancement in online education and points out the current inability of platforms or apps to adequately monitor student engagement and progress. Participant T9 voices concerns about course content not being updated or aligned with contemporary trends and student interests, suggesting a disconnect between educational offerings and learner needs. Meanwhile, participant T8 identifies unstable network services as a significant hindrance to online teaching, highlighting infrastructure as a critical component of online education’s success.

Teachers also believed the insufficient mastery of facilities and unfamiliarity with online instruction posed difficulty.

“Most teachers and students are not familiar with online instruction. For example, some teachers are unable to manage online courses so they cannot design the courses well. Some students lack self-regulation, which leads to their distraction or avoidance in class.” (T9)

Influences on student performance in online learning

Students’ performance during online lessons is closely associated with their satisfaction and self-efficacy. Most of the student participants reflected on their distractions, confusion, and needs, which indicates their dissatisfaction with online learning.

“During online instruction, it is convenient for the students to make use of cell phones, but instead, cell phones bring lots of distraction.” (YSC) “Due to the limits of online learning, teachers are facing the computer screen and unable to know timely students’ needs and confusion. Meanwhile, it’s inconvenient for teachers to make clear explanations of the sample questions or problems.” (HZW)

They thought their low learning efficiency in performance was caused by external factors like the learning environment.

“The most obvious disadvantage of online learning goes to low efficiency. Students find it hard to keep attention to study outside the practical classroom or in a relaxing environment.” (WY) “Teachers are not strict enough with students, which leads to ineffective learning.” (WRX)

Teacher participants conceived students’ performance as closely related to valid online supervision and students’ self-regulation.

“Online instruction is unable to create a learning environment, which helps teachers know students’ instant reaction. Only when students well regulate themselves and stay focused during online learning can they achieve successful interactions and make good accomplishments in the class.” (T11) “Some students need teachers’ supervision and high self-regulation, or they were easily distracted.” (T16)

Student satisfaction and teaching effectiveness in online learning

Online learning satisfaction was found to be significantly and positively associated with online learning self-efficacy (Al-Nasa’h et al. 2021 ; Lashley et al. 2022 ). Around 46% of student participants were unsatisfied with teachers’ ways of teaching.

“Comparatively, bloggers are more interesting than teachers’ boring and dull voices in online learning.” (DSY) “Teachers’ voice sounds dull and boring through the internet, which may cause listeners to feel sleepy, and the teaching content is not interesting enough to the students.” (MFE)

It reflected partly that some teachers were not adapted to online teaching possibly due to a lack in experience of online teaching or learning (Zhu et al. 2022 ).

“Some teachers are not well-prepared for online learning. They are particularly unready for emergent technological problems when delivering the teaching.” (T1) “One of the critical reasons lies in the fact that teachers and students are not well trained before online learning. In addition, the online platform is not unified by the college administration, which has led to chaos and difficulty of online instruction.” (T17)

Teachers recognized their inadequate preparation and mastery of online learning as one of the reasons for dissatisfaction, but student participants exaggerated the role of teachers in online learning and ignored their responsibility in planning and managing their learning behavior, as in the research of (Xu et al. 2022 ).

The role of self-regulation in online learning success

In the context of online learning, self-regulation stands out as a crucial factor, necessitating heightened levels of student self-discipline and autonomy. This aspect, as Zhu et al. ( 2023 ) suggest, grants students significant control over their learning processes, making it a vital component for successful online education.

“Online learning requires learners to be of high discipline and self-regulation. Without good self-regulation, they are less likely to be effective in online learning.” (YZJ) “Most students lack self-control, unable to control the time of using electronic products. Some even use other electronic products during online learning, which greatly reduces their efficiency in learning.” (GPY) “Students are not well developed in self-control and easily distracted. Thus they are unable to engage fully in their study, which makes them unable to keep up with others” (XYN)

Both groups of participants had a clear idea of the positive role of self-regulation in successful learning, but they also admitted that students need to strengthen their self-regulation skills and it seemed they associated with the learning environment, learning efficiency and teachers’ supervision.

“If they are self-motivated, online learning can be conducted more easily and more efficiently. However, a majority are not strong in regulating themselves. Teachers’ direct supervision in offline learning can do better in motivating them to study hard…lack of interaction makes students less active and motivated.” (LY) “Students have a low level of self-discipline. Without teachers’ supervision, they find it hard to listen attentively or even quit listening. Moreover, in class, the students seldom think actively and independently.” (T13)

The analysis of participant responses, categorized into three distinct attitude groups – positive, neutral, and negative – reveals a multifaceted view of the disadvantages of online learning, as shown in Tables 4 and 5 . This classification provides a clearer understanding of how attitudes towards online learning influence perceptions of self-regulation and other related factors.

In Table 4 , the division among students is most pronounced in terms of interaction and self-efficacy. Those with neutral attitudes highlighted interaction as a primary concern, suggesting that it is less effective in an online setting. Participants with positive attitudes noted a lack of student motivation, while those with negative views emphasized the need for better self-efficacy. Across all attitudes, instruction, engagement, self-regulation, and behavior intention were consistently identified as areas needing improvement.

Table 5 sheds light on teachers’ perspectives, revealing a consensus on the significance and challenges of instruction, motivation, and self-efficacy in online learning. Teachers’ opinions vary most significantly on self-efficacy and engagement. Those with negative attitudes point to self-efficacy and instructional quality as critical areas needing attention, while neutral attitudes focus on the role of motivation.

Discussions

Using a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the questionnaire data showed that among the 18 college teachers and 46 year 1 undergraduate students of various majors taking part in the interview, about 38.9% of teachers and about 30.4% of students supported online learning. Only two teachers were neutral about online learning, and 50% of teachers did not support virtual learning. The percentages of students who expressed positive and neutral views on online learning were the same, i.e., 34.8%. This indicates that online learning could serve as a complementary approach to traditional education, yet it is not without challenges, particularly in terms of student engagement, self-regulation, and behavioral intention, which were often attributed to distractions inherent in online environments.

In analyzing nine factors, it was evident that both teachers and students did not perceive these factors uniformly. Instruction was a significant element for both groups, as validated by findings in Tables 3 and 5 . The absence of face-to-face interactions in online learning shifted the focus to online instruction quality. Teachers cited technological challenges as a central concern, while students criticized the lack of engaging content and teaching methods. This aligns with Miao and Ma ( 2022 ), who argued that direct online interaction does not necessarily influence learner engagement, thus underscoring the need for integrated approaches encompassing interactions, self-regulation, and social presence.

Furthermore, the role of technology acceptance in shaping self-efficacy was highlighted by Xu et al. ( 2022 ), suggesting that students with higher self-efficacy tend to challenge themselves more. Chen and Hsu ( 2022 ) noted the positive influence of using emojis in online lessons, emphasizing the importance of innovative pedagogical approaches in online settings.

The study revealed distinct priorities between teachers and students in online learning: teachers emphasized effective instruction delivery, while students valued learning outcomes, self-regulation, and engagement. This divergence highlights the unique challenges each group faces. Findings by Dennen et al. ( 2007 ) corroborate this, showing instructors focusing on content and guidance, while students prioritize interpersonal communication and individualized attention. Additionally, Lee et al. ( 2011 ) found that reduced transactional distance and increased student engagement led to enhanced perceptions of learning outcomes, aligning with students’ priorities in online courses. Understanding these differing perspectives is crucial for developing comprehensive online learning strategies that address the needs of both educators and learners.

Integrating these findings with broader contextual elements such as technological infrastructure, pedagogical strategies, socio-economic backgrounds, and environmental factors (Balanskat and Bingimlas 2006 ) further enriches our understanding. The interplay between these external factors and Yu’s nine key aspects forms a complex educational ecosystem. For example, government interventions and training programs have been shown to increase teachers’ enthusiasm for ICT and its routine use in education (Balanskat and Bingimlas 2006 ). Additionally, socioeconomic factors significantly impact students’ experiences with online learning, as the digital divide in connectivity and access to computers at home influences the ICT experience, an important factor for school achievement (OECD 2015 ; Punie et al. 2006 ).

In sum, the study advocates for a holistic approach to understanding and enhancing online education, recognizing the complex interplay between internal factors and external elements that shape the educational ecosystem in the digital age.

Conclusion and future research

This study offered a comprehensive exploration into the retrospective perceptions of college teachers and undergraduate students regarding their experiences with online learning following the COVID-19 pandemic. It was guided by a framework encompassing nine key factors that influence online learning outcomes. To delve into these perspectives, the research focused on three pivotal questions. These questions aimed to uncover how both undergraduates and teachers in China view the effectiveness of online learning post-pandemic, identify which of the nine influencing factors had the most significant impact, and propose recommendations for enhancing the future effectiveness of online learning.

In addressing the first research question concerning the retrospective perceptions of online learning’s effectiveness among undergraduates and teachers in China post-COVID-19 pandemic, the thematic analysis has delineated clear divergences in attitude between the two demographics. Participants were primarily divided into three categories based on their stance toward online learning: positive, neutral, and negative. The results highlighted a pronounced variance in attitude distribution between teachers and students, with a higher percentage of teachers expressing clear-cut opinions, either favorably or unfavorably, towards the effectiveness of online learning.

Conversely, students displayed a pronounced inclination towards neutrality, revealing a more cautious or mixed stance on the effectiveness of online learning. This prevalent neutrality within the student body could be attributed to a range of underlying reasons. It might signify students’ uncertainties or varied experiences with online platforms, differences in engagement levels, gaps in digital literacy, or fluctuating quality of online materials and teaching methods. Moreover, this neutral attitude may arise from the psychological and social repercussions of the pandemic, which have potentially altered students’ approaches to and perceptions of learning in an online context.

In the exploration of the nine influential factors in online learning, it was discovered that both teachers and students overwhelmingly identified instruction as the most critical aspect. This was closely followed by engagement, interaction, motivation, and other factors, while performance and satisfaction were perceived as less influential by both groups. However, the attitudes of teachers and students towards these factors revealed notable differences, particularly about instruction. Teachers often attributed challenges in online instruction to technological issues, whereas students perceived the quality of instruction as a major influence on their learning effectiveness. This dichotomy highlights the distinct perspectives arising from their different roles within the educational process.

A further divergence was observed in views on self-efficacy and self-regulation. Teachers, with a focus on delivering content, emphasized the importance of self-efficacy, while students, grappling with the demands of online learning, prioritized self-regulation. This reflects their respective positions in the online learning environment, with teachers concerned about the efficacy of their instructional strategies and students about managing their learning process. Interestingly, the study also illuminated that students did not always perceive themselves as independent learners, which contributed to the high priority they placed on instruction quality. This insight underlines a significant area for development in online learning strategies, emphasizing the need for fostering greater learner autonomy.

Notably, both teachers and students concurred that stimulating interest was a key factor in enhancing online learning. They proposed innovative approaches such as emulating popular online personalities, enhancing interactive elements, and contextualizing content to make it more relatable to students’ lives. Additionally, practical suggestions like issuing preview tasks and conducting in-class quizzes were highlighted as methods to boost student engagement and learning efficiency. The consensus on the importance of supervisory roles underscores the necessity for a balanced approach that integrates guidance and independence in the online learning environment.

The outcomes of our study highlight the multifaceted nature of online learning, accentuated by the varied perspectives and distinct needs of teachers and students. This complexity underscores the necessity of recognizing and addressing these nuances when designing and implementing online learning strategies. Furthermore, our findings offer a comprehensive overview of both the strengths and weaknesses of online learning during an unprecedented time, offering valuable insights for educators, administrators, and policy-makers involved in higher education. Moreover, it emphasized the intricate interplay of multiple factors—behavioral intention, instruction, engagement, interaction, motivation, self-efficacy, performance, satisfaction, and self-regulation—in shaping online learning outcomes. presents some limitations, notably its reliance on a single research method and a limited sample size.

However, the exclusive use of reflective diaries and interviews restricts the range of data collection methods, which might have been enriched by incorporating additional quantitative or mixed-method approaches. Furthermore, the sample, consisting only of students and teachers from one university, may not adequately represent the diverse experiences and perceptions of online learning across different educational contexts. These limitations suggest the need for a cautious interpretation of the findings and indicate areas for future research expansion. Future research could extend this study by incorporating a larger, more diverse sample to gain a broader understanding of undergraduate students’ retrospections across different contexts and cultures. Furthermore, research could also explore how to better equip students with the skills and strategies necessary to optimize their online learning experiences, especially in terms of the self-regulated learning and motivation aspects.

Data availability

The data supporting this study is available from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25583664.v1 . The data consists of reflective diaries from 46 Year 1 students from a comprehensive university in China and 18 college teachers. We utilized thematic analysis to interpret the reflective diaries, guided initially by nine factors. The results highlight the critical need for tailored online learning strategies and provide insights into its advantages and challenges for stakeholders in higher education.

Aguilera-Hermida AP (2020) College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 1:100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Emran, M, & Shaalan, K (2021, October 27). E-podium technology: A medium of managing knowledge at Al Buraimi University College via M-learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd BCS International IT Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 2014. Retrieved October 17, 2023, from https://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/conf/bcsit/EmranS14.html

Ali W (2020) Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. High. Educ. Stud. 10(3):16–25. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n3p16

Al-Nasa’h M, Al-Tarawneh L, Awwad FMA, Ahmad I (2021) Estimating Students’ Online Learning Satisfaction during COVID-19: A Discriminant Analysis. Heliyon 7(12):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.helyon.2021.e08544

Al-Rahmi WM, Yahaya N, Aldraiweesh AA, Alamri MM, Aljarboa NA, Alturki U (2019) Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use E-learning systems. IEEE Access 7:26797–26809. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899368

Aristovnik A, Keržič D, Ravšelj D, Tomaževič N, Umek L (2021) Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability 12(20):8438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Baber H (2021) Modelling the Acceptance of E-learning during the Pandemic Of COVID-19-A Study of South Korea. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 19(2):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bahasoan AN, Ayuandiani W, Mukhram M, Rahmat A (2020) Effectiveness of online learning in pandemic COVID-19. Int. J. Sci., Technol. Manag. 1(2):100–106

Google Scholar  

Balanskat A, Bingimlas KA (2006) Barriers to the Successful Integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 5(3):235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75275

Bao W (2020) COVID-19 and Online Teaching in Higher Education: A Case Study of Peking University. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2(2):113–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191

Bernard RM et al. (2004) How Does Distance Education Compare with Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Rev. Educ. Res. 74(3):379–439

Boling EC, Hough M, Krinsky H, Saleem H, Stevens M (2012) Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. Internet High. Educ. 15:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006

Bozkurt A, Sharma RC (2020) Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to Coronavirus pandemic. Asian J. Distance Educ. 15(1):i–vi

Broadbent J (2017) Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. Internet High. Educ. 33:24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.004

Calaguas NP, Consunji PMP (2022) A Structural Equation Model Predicting Adults’ Online Learning Self-efficacy. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27:6233–6249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10871-y

Careaga-Butter M, Quintana MGB, Fuentes-Henríquez C (2020) Critical and Prospective Analysis of Online Education in Pandemic and Post-pandemic Contexts: Digital Tools and Resources to Support Teaching in synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Modalities. Aloma: evista de. psicologia, ciències de. l’educació i de. l’esport Blanquerna 38(2):23–32

Chakraborty M, Muyia Nafukho F (2014) Strengthening Student Engagement: What do Students Want in Online Courses? Eur. J. Train. Dev. 38(9):782–802

Chang V (2016) Review and Discussion: E-learning for Academia and Industry. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36(3):476–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.12.007

Chen YJ, Hsu LW (2022) Enhancing EFL Learners’ Self-efficacy Beliefs of Learning English with emoji Feedbacks in Call: Why and How. Behav. Sci. 12(7):227. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12070227

Chuenyindee T, Montenegro LD, Ong AKS, Prasetyo YT, Nadlifatin R, Ayuwati ID, Sittiwatethanasiri T, Robas KPE (2022) The Perceived Usability of the Learning Management System during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Integrating System Usability Scale, Technology Acceptance Model, and Task-technology Fit. Work 73(1):41–58. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-220015

Crawford J, Butler-Henderson K, Rudolph J, Malkawi B, Glowatz M, Burton R, Lam S (2020) COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. J. Appl. Teach. Learn. 3(1):120. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7

Dennen VP (2014) Becoming a blogger: Trajectories, norms, and activities in a community of practice. Computers Hum. Behav. 36:350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.028

Dennen VP, Darabi AA, Smith LJ (2007) Instructor–learner Interaction in Online Courses: The Relative Perceived Importance of Particular Instructor Actions on Performance and Satisfaction. Distance Educ. 28(1):65–79

Dolan E, Hancock E, Wareing A (2015) An evaluation of online learning to teach practical competencies in undergraduate health science students. Internet High. Educ. 24:21–25

Garrison DR (2003) Cognitive Presence for Effective Asynchronous Online Learning: The Role of Reflective. Inq., Self-Direction Metacognition. Elem. Qual. Online Educ.: Pract. Direction 4(10):47–58

Gavranović V, Prodanović M (2021) ESP Teachers’ Perspectives on the Online Teaching Environment Imposed in the Covid-19 Era-A Case Study. N. Educ. Rev. 2:188–197. https://doi.org/10.15804/TNER.2021.64.2.15

Greenhow C, Lewin C, Staudt Willet KB (2021) The Educational Response to Covid-19 across Two Countries: a Critical Examination of Initial Digital Pedagogy Adoption. Technol., Pedagog. Educ. 30(1):7–25

Händel M, Stephan M, Gläser-Zikuda M, Kopp B, Bedenlier S, Ziegler A (2020) Digital readiness and its effects on higher education students’ socio-emotional perceptions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 53(2):1–13

Harper B (2018) Technology and Teacher-student Interactions: A Review of Empirical Research. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 50(3):214–225

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hernández-Lara AB, Serradell-López E (2018) Student interactions in online discussion forums: their perception on learning with business simulation games. Behav. Inf. Technol. 37(4):419–429

Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond A (2020) The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Rev. 27:1–12

Hongsuchon T, Emary IMME, Hariguna T, Qhal EMA (2022) Assessing the Impact of Online-learning Effectiveness and Benefits in Knowledge Management, the Antecedent of Online-learning Strategies and Motivations: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 14(5):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052570 . (2020)

Johnson N, Veletsianos G, Seaman J (2020) US faculty and administrators’ experiences and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learn. 24(2):6–21

Khojasteh L, Karimian Z, Farahmandi AY, Nasiri E, Salehi N (2023) E-content Development of English Language Courses during COVID-19: A Comprehensive Analysis of Students’ Satisfaction. J. Computer Educ. 10(1):107–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00224-0

Kohnke, L, & Foung, D (2023). Exploring Microlearning for Teacher Professional Development: Voices from Hong Kong. In Tafazoli, D, M Picard (Eds.). Handbook of CALL Teacher Education Professional Development (pp. 279-292). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd

Lai CH, Lin HW, Lin RM, Tho PD (2019) Effect of Peer Interaction among Online Learning Community on Learning Engagement and Achievement. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. (IJDET) 17(1):66–77

Lashley PM, Sobers NP, Campbell MH, Emmanuel MK, Greaves N, Gittens-St Hilaire M, Murphy MM, Majumder MAA (2022) Student Satisfaction and Self-Efficacy in a Novel Online Clinical Clerkship Curriculum Delivered during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 13:1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S374133

Lee SJ, Srinivasan S, Trail T, Lewis D, Lopez S (2011) Examining the Relationship among Student Perception of Support, Course Satisfaction, and Learning Outcomes in Online Learning. Internet High. Educ. 14(3):158–163

Lowenthal PR, Dunlap JC (2020) Social Presence and Online Discussions: A Mixed Method Investigation. Distance Educ. 41:490–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821603

Lucas M, Vicente PN (2023) A Double-edged Sword: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Benefits and Challenges of Online Learning and Learning in Higher Education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23:5083–5103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11363-3

Maatuk AM, Elberkawi EK, Aljawarneh S, Rashaideh H, Alharbi H (2022) The COVID-19 Pandemic and E-learning: Challenges and Opportunities from the Perspective of Students and Instructors. J. Comput. High. Educ. 34:21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09274-2

Marinoni G, Van’t Land H, Jensen T (2020) The Impact of Covid-19 on Higher Education around the World. IAU Glob. Surv. Rep. 23:1–17

Martin F, Bolliger DU (2018) Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learn. 22(1):205–222

Means B, et al. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education

Miao J, Ma L (2022) Students’ Online Interaction, Self-regulation, and Learning Engagement in Higher Education: The Importance of Social Presence to Online Learning. Front. Psychol. 13:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815220

Mulla T, Munir S, Mohan V (2023) An Exploratory Study to Understand Faculty Members’ Perceptions and Challenges in Online Teaching. Int. Rev. Educ. 69:73–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-023-100

Ng EW (2018) Integrating Self-regulation Principles with Flipped Classroom Pedagogy for First Year University Students. Computer Educ. 126:65–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9082-8

Ong SGT, Quek GCL (2023) Enhancing teacher–student interactions and student online engagement in an online learning environment. Learn. Environ. Res. 26:681–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09447-5

Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2015). The g20 skills strategy for developing and using skills for the 21st century. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/employment-andsocial-policy/The-G20-Skills-Strategy-for-Developing-and-Using-Skills-for-the-21st-Century.pdf

Paechter M, Maier B (2010) Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. internet High. Educ. 13(4):292–297

Panigrahi R, Srivastava PR, Sharma D (2018) Online Learning: Adoption, Continuance, and Learning Outcome—A Review of Literature. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 43:1–14

Paul C, Diana M (2006) Teaching Methods and Time on Task in Junior Classrooms. Educ. Res. 30:90–97

Punie, Y, Zinnbauer, D, & Cabrera, M (2006). A review of the impact of ICT on learning. European Commission, Brussels, 6(5), 635-650

Radmer F, Goodchild S (2021) Online Mathematics Teaching and Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Perspective of Lecturers and Students. Nord. J. STEM Educ. 5(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.5324/njsteme.v5i1.3914

Rapanta C, Botturi L, Goodyear P, Guadia L, Koole M (2021) Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 3:715–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

Rasheed, RA, Kamsin, A, & Abdullah, NA (2020) Challenges in the Online Component of Blended Learning: A Systematic Review. Computers & Education, 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701

Schaufeli W, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V (2002) The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3:71–92

Song L, Singleton ES, Hill JR, Koh MH (2004) Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet High. Educ. 7(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003

Tan HT, Chan PP, Said NM (2021) Higher Education Students’ Online Instruction Perceptions: A Quality Virtual Learning Environment. Sustainability 13:10840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910840

Tenório T, Bittencourt II, Isotani S, Silva AP (2016) Does peer assessment in online learning environments work? A systematic review of the literature. Computers Hum. Behav. 64:94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.020

Torsani, S (2023) Teacher Education in Mobile Assisted Language Learning for Adult Migrants: A Study of Provincial Centers for Adult Education in Italy. In Tafazoli, D, & M Picard (eds.). Handbook of CALL Teacher Education Professional Development (pp. 179-192). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd

Trust T, Whalen J (2020) Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 28(2):189–199

UNESCO (2020a) COVID-19 Impact on education. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

UNESCO (2020b) Education: From Disruption to Recovery. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

Wang M, & Wang F (2021, August) Comparative Analysis of University Education Effect under the Traditional Teaching and Online Teaching Mode. In The Sixth International Conference on Information Management and Technology (pp. 1-6)

Xu Q, Wu J, Peng HY (2022) Chinese EFL University Students’ Self-efficacy for Online Self-regulated Learning: Dynamic Features and Influencing Factors. Front. Psychol. 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.912970

Zheng RK, Li F, Jiang L, Li SM (2022) Analysis of the Current Situation and Driving Factors of College Students’ Autonomous Learning in the Network Environment. Front. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2(7):44–50

Zhu XM, Gong Q, Wang Q, He YJ, Sun ZQ, Liu FF (2023) Analysis of Students’ Online Learning Engagement during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of a SPOC-Based Geography Education Undergraduate Course. Sustainability 15(5):4544. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054544

Zhu Y, Geng G, Disney L, Pan Zihao (2023) Changes in University Students’ Behavioral intention to learn online throughout the COVID-19: Insights for Online Teaching in the Post-pandemic Era. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28:3859–3892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11320-0

Zhu YH, Xu YY, Wang XY, Yan SY, Zhao L (2022) The Selectivity and Suitability of Online Learning Resources as Predictor of the Effects of Self-efficacy on Teacher Satisfaction During the COVID-19 Lockdown. Front. Psychol. 13:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.765832

Zimmerman WA, Kulikowich JM (2016) Online Learning Self-efficacy in Students with and Without Online Learning Experience. Am. J. Distance Educ. 30(3):180–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1193801

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Corresponding author received the National Social Science Foundation of China for Education General Program (BGA210054) for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Studies, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China

Yujie Su, Xiaoshu Xu & Xinyu Xu

Faculty of Languages and Translation, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, China

Yunfeng Zhang

Faculty of Applied Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, China

Shanshan Hao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

XSX was responsible for conceptualization and, alongside YFZ, for data curation. YJS and XYX conducted the formal analysis. Funding acquisition was managed by YFZ. The investigation was carried out by YJS and YFZ. Methodology development was a collaboration between YJS and XSX. XSX and YJS also managed project administration, with additional resource management by SSH and XYX. YJS handled the software aspect, and supervision was overseen by XSX. SSH and XYX were responsible for validation, and visualization was managed by YJS. The original draft was written by XSX and YJS, while the review and editing were conducted by YFZ and SSH.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoshu Xu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The questionnaire and methodology for this study were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Wenzhou University (Ethics approval number WGY202302).

Informed consent

Informed consent was diligently obtained from all participants involved in the study, ensuring adherence to ethical standards. Detailed consent forms, outlining the study’s scope and participants’ rights, were signed by participants. Documentation of this process is well-maintained and can be provided upon request during peer review or post-publication.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Su, Y., Xu, X., Zhang, Y. et al. Looking back to move forward: comparison of instructors’ and undergraduates’ retrospection on the effectiveness of online learning using the nine-outcome influencing factors. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 594 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03097-z

Download citation

Received : 24 October 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 09 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03097-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Defining Student Engagement: A Literature Review

• Post author By Adam F.C. Fletcher
• Post date March 29, 2015
• No Comments on Defining Student Engagement: A Literature Review

Student engagement is increasingly seen as an indicator of successful classroom instruction(1), and is increasingly valued as an outcome of school improvement activities. Students are engaged when they are attracted to their work, persist in despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible delight in accomplishing their work.(2)

Definitions and Differences

Student engagement also refers to a “student’s willingness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in, the learning process.”(3) Definitions In a number of studies student engagement has been identified as a desirable trait in schools; however, there is little consensus among students and educators as to how to define it.(4) They frequently include a psychological and behavioral component. Student engagement is used to discuss students’ attitudes towards school, while student disengagement identifies withdrawing from school in any significant way.(5)

SoundOut defines student engagement as “any sustained connection a learner has towards any aspect of learning, schools or education.”

A number of studies have shown that student engagement overlaps with, but is not the same as, student motivation.(6) The term “student engagement” has been used to depict students’ willingness to participate in routine school activities, such as attending classes, submitting required work, and following teachers’ directions in class.(7)

That includes participating in the activities offered as part of the school program8 and student participation in school reform activities.(9)

“[Students] who are engaged show sustained behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by a positive emotional tone. They select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest.”(10)

Another study identified five indicators for student engagement in college. They include:

• the level of academic challenge
• active and collaborative learning
• student-faculty interaction
• enriching education experiences and
• a supportive learning environment.(11)

Indicators of the absence of student engagement include unexcused absences from classes, cheating on tests, and damaging school property.(12)

“The opposite of engagement is disaffection. Disaffected [students] are passive, do not try hard, and give up easily in the face of challenges… [they can] be bored, depressed, anxious, or even angry about their presence in the classroom; they can be withdrawn from learning opportunities or even rebellious towards teachers and classmates.”(13)

Requirements

In listing their definitions of student engagement, many studies list requirements that must exist for student engagement to occur. These studies consistently imply that educators actively create the conditions that foster student engagement. The first step to whole-school improvement in the area of student engagement is for the entire building faculty to share a definition of student engagement.(14)

Other steps include teachers clearly articulating learning criteria and providing students with clear, immediate, and constructive feedback; clear and systematic demonstrations to students of the skills they need to be successful, and; demonstration of engagement in learning as a valuable aspect of their personalities.(15)

Relationships between students and adults in schools, and among students themselves, are a critical factor of student engagement. This is especially true among students considered to be at-risk and without other positive adult interaction.(16)

There are several strategies for developing these relationships, including acknowledging student voice, increasing intergenerational equity between students and adults in schools, and sustaining student/adult partnerships throughout the learning environment.(17)

A variety of teaching approaches, including didactic, experiential and other forms, can foster student engagement.(18) Some instruments, including the popular National Survey of Student Engagement , identify dozens of everyday indicators of student engagement, including hand-raising, technology usage and verbal interactions with peers.(19)

Assessing Student Engagement

Assessing student engagement is seen as an essential step towards a school becoming a successful proponent.(20) A teacher’s ability to engage students has been proposed as an element of teacher certification, and an essential component of teacher preparation curricula.(21, 22)

There are concerns that definitions and assessments of student engagement are often exclusive to the values represented by dominant groups within the learning environment where the analysis is conducted.(23)

There have been studies where students from minority groups within the learning environment and larger community have been central to the assessment of student engagement. Researchers in these activities have identified several elements of their activities that overlap with previous findings around student voice and student/adult partnerships.(24, 25)

There are several methods to measure student engagement. They include self-reporting, such as surveys, questionnaires, checklists and rating scales. Researchers also use direct observations, work sample analyses, and focused case studies.(26) There is an increasing amount of interest and commitment among researchers and educators to use students as assessment designers, evaluators and assessors. Studies that have used this “students as evaluators” model consistently report high levels of efficacy and depth in their findings, and researchers consistently attribute these outcomes to the participation of student evaluators.(27)

Critics have long been concerned about the lack of student engagement in schools, let alone school improvement. In the 1930s John Dewey proposed the radical transformation of schools that led to the creation of career and technical education courses over the next ninety years, all in the name of student engagement.(28)

In the early 1990s Jonathan Kozol observed that,

“[W]e have not been listening much to children in these recent years of summit conferences on education, of severe reports, and ominous prescriptions. The voices of children, frankly, have been missing from the whole discussion.”(29)

With these longstanding and powerful indictments, it is tantamount that all schools continue to evolve towards becoming more engaging, more meaningful and more powerful learning environments for all students.

Related Content

• Intro to Student Engagement
• SoundOut Student Engagement Conditions Assessment
• Kenny, G. Kenny, D. and Dumont, R. (1995) Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community Through Campus Design. Oryx/Greenwood. p. 37
• Schlecty, P. (1994). “Increasing Student Engagement.” Missouri Leadership Academy. p. 5.
• Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). “The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation.” Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. p. 294.
• Farmer-Dougan, Farmer-Dougan and McKinney, K. (nd) ìExamining Student Engagement at Illinois State University: An Exploratory Investigation.î Center for Teaching and Learning with Technology. Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://www.teachtech.ilstu.edu/resources/teachTopics/examEngage.php .
• Willms, J.D. (2003) Student Engagement at School: a sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. p. i.
• Sharan, S. Shachar, H. and Levine, T. (1999) ‘The Innovative School: organization and instruction. Praeger/Greenwood. p. 85.
• 7 Chapman, E. (2003). ìAlternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates,î Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13 .
• Natriello, G. (1984). ìProblems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement from secondary schools,î Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17. p. 14.
• Fletcher, A. (2005) Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners in school change. Olympia, WA: CommonAction. p. 4. Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://www.soundout.org/MSIGuide.pdf
• Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). ìMotivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year,î Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4). p. 572.
• Kenny, G. Kenny, D. and Dumont, R. (1995) p. 37
• Chapman, E. (2003).
• Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993).
• Berardi, L. and Gerschick, T. (nd) ìUniversity Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Student Engagement: An Interview Study.î Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology. Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://www.teachtech.ilstu.edu/additional/tips/facEngage.php .
• Strong, R. Silver, H. and Robinson, A. (1995) ìWhat do students want (and what really motivates them)?î Educational Leadership. September. p. 25.
• McCombs, B.L., & Pope, J.E. (1994). Motivating hard to reach students. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Fletcher, A. (2005) Stories of meaningful student involvement. Olympia, WA: CommonAction. p. 19. Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://www.soundout.org/MSIStories.pdf
• Schunk, D. and Meece, J. (1992) Student Perceptions in the Classroom. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 27.
• (nd) Definitions from the National Survey of Student Engagement. Longwood University. Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://www.longwood.edu/assessment/Survey/Freshman/NSSE_Definitions.htm .
• (2005) ìUTC working to enhance student engagement.î University of Tennessee – Chattanooga. Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://www.utc.edu/news/qep.php .
• Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Re(in)forming the conversations: Student position, power, and voice in teacher education. Radical Teacher 64(2002), 21-28.
• Cook-Sather, A. (2001). Negotiating Worlds and Words: Writing About Studentsí Experiences of School. In Shultz, J. & Cook-Sather, A. (eds.). In our own words: Studentsí perspectives on school. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Hurtado, S. (1999) ìReaffirming Educators Judgment: Educational Value of Diversity.î Liberal Education. Spring, p. 28.
• Cervone, B. & Cushman, K. (2002). “Moving youth participation into the classroom: Students as allies.” New Directions for Youth Development 2002 (96) 83-100.
• Rubin, B. & Silva, E. (Eds.) (2003). Critical voices in school reform: Students living through change. New York & London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful Student Involvement Research Guide. Olympia, WA: CommonAction. Retrieved 7/2/07 from http://www.soundout.org/MSIResearch.pdf
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. (Collier edition first published 1963).
• Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequities. New York: Crown Publishers. p. 5.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Development of a Quantitative Survey on Barriers to Employment for Foreign Born and Native American Students with Disabilities

This service learning project, undertaken in collaboration with PRIDE (Partners of Refugees in Illinois Disability Employment) and ADOPT (The Asian with Disabilities Outreach Project Think-Tank), explores the multifaceted employment barriers faced by students at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) who are both foreign-born or Native American and living with disabilities. The primary objective of the project is to identify and understand the unique challenges these students encounter in securing employment due to an intricate interplay of factors including acculturation, educational attainment, language proficiency, and discrimination.

Through a comprehensive literature review and community engagement efforts, the project aims to construct a detailed quantitative survey to capture the nuanced experiences of these students. The project's design is rooted in the principles of disability studies, emphasizing the social model of disability which advocates for environmental transformations to improve access rather than focusing solely on individual adaptations.

The anticipated outcomes of the project include a deeper understanding of the specific barriers to employment, the development of targeted interventions, and the establishment of supportive policies that consider the distinct needs of foreign-born and Native American students with disabilities. Ultimately, this project seeks to contribute to reducing the employment gap for these marginalized communities, fostering a more inclusive and equitable labor market.

Usage metrics

• Health sciences
• Allied health and rehabilitation science
• Development studies
• People with disability
• Employment equity and diversity

Literature reviews

Student engagement through partnership: a literature review.

'Student engagement through partnership' forms part of Advance HE's review of the Student Success Framework and centres around a literature review. This review of the literature from 2017-2022, synthesises evidence about student engagement through partnership and its demonstrable impacts on students’ outcomes and experiences in higher education.

Student-staff partnerships are reciprocal initiatives where students can take joint responsibility for directing their learning and development, and staff can benefit from student expertise in being a current learner in higher education. 

The review by Northumbria University focuses on peer-reviewed journal articles about student engagement through partnership, with an emphasis on partnerships that impact students beyond just the partners themselves.

Find out more about Advance HE's review of the Student Success Framework here.

Advance HE members can download Student engagement through partnership: a literature review below.

Internationalisation and students' outcomes or experiences

Another strand of Advance HE's review of the Student Success Framework, ' Internationalisation and students’ outcomes or experiences: A review of the literature 2011-2021 ' illustrates 11 dominant themes in internationalisation literature since 2011, which are categorised according to their level of demonstrable impact on students.

©Advance HE 2020. Company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 04931031 | Company limited by guarantee registered in Ireland no. 703150 | Registered charity, England and Wales 1101607 | Registered charity, Scotland SC043946 | VAT Registered number GB 152 1219 50. Registered UK Address: Advance HE, Innovation Way, York Science Park, Heslington, York, YO10 5BR, United Kingdom | Registered Ireland Address: Advance HE, First Floor, Penrose 1, Penrose Dock, Cork, T23 Kw81, Ireland.

• May 9, 2024 | Bipartisan House Vote Advances Bill Targeting TikTok, Senate Vote Looms
• May 9, 2024 | The World of Networking: Networking Fair 2024
• May 9, 2024 | The Good and Bad of Asante 2024
• May 9, 2024 | In-Person IMSAloquium
• May 9, 2024 | Diplomatic Showdown: Ecuador-Mexico Embassy Raid Shakes Latin America

Applications of AI in Research – An Interview with Dr. Dong

Posted By: Riyan Jain May 9, 2024

AI is increasingly pervasive in our everyday lives, from using it as a personal assistant to writing college essays or even enhancing student research projects. While very useful and exciting, AI also raises important questions about its implications for scientific research, ethical considerations, and the challenges and risks that young researchers must navigate. In an interview with the Acronym, Dr. Peter Dong–one of the IMSA SIR program coordinators, leading stellar research in the field of Particle Physics, and highly experienced with various AI tools suitable for research applications–shares his insights on these matters.

To summarize, Dr. Dong recognizes the significant benefits AI brings by automating routine tasks, thereby freeing up researchers to focus on more complex and creative aspects of their work. However, he cautions that AI’s capacity to contribute might reach its limits when moving from these “busy” tasks to roles requiring creativity and problem-solving. Despite this, he highlights the substantial long-term implications of AI in research, stressing the importance for students and young researchers to view AI as a tool rather than a replacement for their own curiosity and eagerness to learn new concepts. Below are excerpts from the interview, shedding light on these perspectives.

Applications in Research 

AI applications in science are mostly going to be removing busy work, the things that humans don’t want to do, or tasks such as removing noise from signals or separating signal and background. In his words, “There’s so much time wasted and duplicated effort that happens at the lab right now. If we could get rid of that, that would be really great. So I hope that’s the direction. You know, it’s the same thing as automation and mechanization. We learned and figured that out, and in the long run, that was a huge gain for society, for humanity, to be able to mechanize stuff. So in the same way, I hope it works out.”

While Dr. Dong sees AI (or expects future versions of AI) to be adept at doing the routine stuff we have already done or catching stuff that humans might have forgotten, AI is just a long way off from doing creative tasks. As he sees it, “ And all it [ChatGPT or Gen AI] could do was give me vague boilerplate. And so that’s what I am seeing, it breaks down when you get too specific and isn’t able to handle it. It can only do simple stuff. Because what it does so far is it’s good at making stuff that looks right, but not so good at the stuff that is right.  And so if it’s trying to come up with the design, it’ll look like the right design, but it may not be what you actually wanted, it may not work very well.”

Applications in the Specific Steps of the Research Process

Source collection .

“Absolutely. That’s what all search engines are designed for. Search engines such as Perplexity are doing the same thing as Google search, i.e. trying to remove all the difficulty in finding the sources you want.”

Literature review

“Useful, but a researcher needs to be very careful. You just give AI engines a web page to read, and they will give you a good summary. And you could tell it how detailed you want the summary to be. So it’s good at it. But there are some key dangers here. One is the hallucination problem [when AI generates exaggerated or untrue information] . Then, if you want it to write literature review for you, you should have read all those papers. And you should read over what it says and make sure it all makes sense. Ultimately, you will have to double check the references – AI is a random process. You can’t trust it to be right all the time.”

Report writing  

“Some aspects of report writing aren’t very intellectual and can be easily automated. For example, if you upload Chemistry data, and say, ‘I did a titration; write me a lab report,’ AI software will be able to do that and do a pretty good job.”

But evidently, other portions of creating a report may not lend themselves well to be automated.  

“To me, the biggest danger is accountability. Making sure what’s in there is right. The discussion portion of a research paper is the hardest part- that part, I think should never be automated.”

Could it Hinder Learning?  

Applications of AI in research and learning poses various challenges. For example, a large argument against developments in AI argues that it would hinder the learning of students. Dr. Dong compares it to using calculators, and believes it will make certain tasks easier but it’s not replacing everything. That said, he also advises students to understand its limitations.

“There’s going to be an adjustment period where we figure out how to teach students, and more importantly, where students realize what they need to know and what they don’t. As long as this generation of kids like you who are being raised with GPT, understand what GPT is and what it’s not, then we’re fine. And if you treat GPT as God, then we’re in trouble. The problem with Skynet in Terminator 2 wasn’t the AI. The problem was that someone gave AI control over nuclear weapons.”

Dr. Dong also emphasized that just because AI can do certain tasks, we as students still need to build those skills. 

“GPT can write better than you. But you need to learn how to write. And frankly, I think that’s already where most students are. I don’t see students believing that this replaces their need to know how to write.”

General Words of Wisdom

“ I think all technologies hit a wall. Notice that the vacuum cleaner was invented 50 years ago, and no one’s been able to make any real big improvements. And it’s just run slightly more efficiently, quieter, or longer battery life. Even Roomba isn’t a game changer because it can’t go up stairs. Similarly, AI will be able to find and point out interesting connections that humans might not have known, but it will still need humans to verify those.”

“ AI is merely a tool – it’s like a knife. When you make a knife, you figure out safeguards: you store it in a knife block or you keep it out of reach of children. We need to stop thinking about AI as a consciousness, or an alien mind that we’re communicating with. It’s just a tool, and it’s a useful one. And we’re gonna make a few mistakes. But the biggest thing is to put safeguards on your tools.”

  “ It’s okay to lose some skills. For example, COBOL programming. So people, in fact, are looking at using AI to update their COBOL code base without humans, because the old COBOL programmers are retiring. That’s what we want to happen. So what will happen is some skills get lost, and it’s okay. There will be a transitionary period where you find people short on some skills, but you know what will happen? They’ll discover them, and then they’ll learn them. Because you don’t have to learn everything before you’re age 20. You can learn something when you’re 35.”

Something Worth Sharing Beyond AI

During our conversation, I gained a new perspective on appreciating the dynamic nature of impacts and potential solutions when assessing challenges. Throughout our 40-minute discussion, Dr. Dong never assessed challenges based on the status quo; instead, he recognized problems and offered insights on how he expects the ecosystem might evolve. For example, he acknowledged how increasing the use of AI could potentially hinder skill development in future researchers, but also understood that students will nevertheless learn the skills when needed. Similarly, he views hallucinations in AI as a challenge, but he sees them as bugs that will be fixed once they become significant constraints. To this extent, he offered his perspective that an increased focus on AI will lead us to figure out how to manage it. The key takeaway was that it’s acceptable to encounter unintended consequences, provided we act and learn from them.

Related Articles

The Effectiveness of Mental Health Days and Stress Mods

Special Editions

The State of the Academy

The Dangers of IMSA’s Echo Chamber

Call it Hell, Call it Stress, Call it Torture… I Call it Home

Be the first to comment on "applications of ai in research – an interview with dr. dong", leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.