|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|178479||459278||2015||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Students highly unaligned in level of self-perceived engagement with lecture.
• Six engagement styles identified.
• ‘Spikes’ in individual student engagement do not correlate with learning.
• Students’ self-perceived engagement is not a good predictor of learning.
An attempt has been made to reveal a detailed anatomy of students’ self-perceived engagement with material in a lecture and their learning of a key course threshold concept. A cohort of 80 students in a third year chemical engineering (64% response rate) course voluntarily recorded their engagement using a Likert-type scale at intervals of 5 min in a (nominally 50 min) lecture, together with written comments. Marks were awarded for a substantial, follow-up summative assignment to test their understanding of the threshold concept. It was found students were highly unaligned in their level of engagement with the lecture. A key reason was that individuals’ engagement varied highly significantly during the lecture. Six engagement styles were identified. Some 33% exhibited Type 1 (engage strongly at the start and slowly disengage) and 23% exhibited Type 2 (remain at a more or less fixed engagement). Significantly, there was no correlation between students’ engagement scores and marks awarded; in particular there was no correlation with specific lecture intervals in which material was identified as most important. Further, there was no correlation between the number of written comments made by an individual and their marks. It is concluded that student self-perceived engagement is not a good predictor of learning as assessed by marks awarded on a summative assignment. It is not known whether student engagement is predicated on particular lecture material and type of lecturer, or other contributing factors. The experimental design could be readily widely applied.
Journal: Education for Chemical Engineers - Volume 11, April 2015, Pages e1–e20