Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework

Abstract

The concept of student engagement has become somewhat of an enigma for educators and researchers, with ongoing discussions about its nature and complexity, and criticism about the depth and breadth of theorising and operationalisation within empirical research. This equally applies to research conducted in the field of educational technology and its application in schools and higher education. Recognising the inherent role that technology now plays in education, and the potential it has to engage students, this paper draws on a range of student engagement literature and conceptualises a provisional bioecological framework of student engagement that explicitly includes technology as one influential factor. This paper first proposes a definition of student engagement and provides an exploration of positive student engagement indicators. It then presents a bioecological framework, and the microsystemic facets of technology, teacher and curriculum are further explored in their relation to fostering student engagement. Based on this framework, implications for further theory-based research into student engagement and its relation to educational technology are discussed and recommendations for educators are given.

Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map

“…This also includes the careful alignment of theory and methodological design, in order to both adequately analyse the phenomenon under investigation, as well as contributing to the soundly executed body of research within the field of educational technology. Further research is invited in particular into how educational technology affects cognitive and affective engagement, whilst considering how this fits within the broader sociocultural framework of engagement (Bond, 2019a). Further research is also invited into how educational technology affects student engagement within fields of study beyond Arts & Humanities, Education and Natural Sciences, Mathematics & Statistics, as well as within graduate level courses.…”

Editorial Special Collection on Doctoral Research: Learning in an Open World

“…Similarly, a wide range of innovative research methods are demonstrated by doctoral researchers in this field, including analysis of video data (Murphy, Coiro, & Killi, 2019), affective computing approaches (Hillaire, Iniesto, & Rienties, 2019), action research (Boyd, 2019), and mixed methods approaches (Baas, Admiraal, & van den Bert, 2019;Foley & Marr, 2019). We also note the strong conceptual foundation of the works included in this special issue across a wide range of topics, (see Baas, Admiraal, & van den Bert, 2019;Conde Gafaro, 2019;Bond & Bedenlier, 2019).…”

“…Altogether, we argue that innovation is present in this research on a number of different levels. The most immediately obvious is the wide range of diverse topics present in this collection, from macro-level focuses on open educational resources (see: Baas, Admiraal, & van den Bert, 2019;Paskevicius & Irvine, 2019), to learning design supports at the institutional level (see: Bond & Bedenlier, 2019;Boyd, 2019;Foley & Marr, 2019;Hillaire, Iniesto, & Rienties, 2019), and students' more micro experiences with various technology-supported curriculum features (see: Conde Gafaro, 2019;Foster, 2019;Murphy, Coiro, & Kiili, 2019), among others. Similarly, a wide range of innovative research methods are demonstrated by doctoral researchers in this field, including analysis of video data (Murphy, Coiro, & Killi, 2019), affective computing approaches (Hillaire, Iniesto, & Rienties, 2019), action research (Boyd, 2019), and mixed methods approaches (Baas, Admiraal, & van den Bert, 2019;Foley & Marr, 2019).…”

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research

“…Mode of delivery "distance education" OR "blended learning" OR "virtual universit*" OR "open education" OR "online course*" OR "distance learning" OR "collaborative learning" OR "cooperative learning" OR "game-based learning" that this would seriously limit the ability of the search to return adequate literature, and the decision was made to leave any phrase relating to engagement out of the initial string. Instead, the engagement and disengagement facets that had been uncovered-published elsewhere (Bond and Bedenlier, 2019)-were used to search within the initial corpus of results.…”

“…Developing a search string, which is appropriate for the purpose of the review and ensures that relevant research can be identified, is an advanced endeavor in itself, as the detailed account by Campbell et al (2018) shows. Resulting from our initially broad review question, we were subsequently faced with the task to create a search string that would reflect the possible breadth of both student engagement (facets) (see Bond and Bedenlier, 2019) as well as be inclusive of a diverse range of educational technology tools. The educational technology tools were, in the end, identified in a brainstorming session of the three researchers and the guiding professors; trying to be comprehensive whilst simultaneously realizing the limitations of this attempt.…”