Abstract
AbstractIn this study, we investigated the relationship between perceived learner control and student engagement in a blended course. Data were collected from 110 s-year bachelor students through weekly questionnaires to gather information about how they perceived their learner control and engagement in various study activities, including reading literature, watching knowledge clips, doing assignments, attending workgroups, and attending lectures. Most students perceived the knowledge clips and workgroups positively because of their clear structure and interactive elements, respectively. In addition, perceived learner control, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement varied across different activities, whereas cognitive engagement had a similar moderate score across the activities. No significant positive relationships were found between students' perceived learner control and engagement. However, negative relationships between perceived learner control and cognitive and behavioral engagement were found for reading literature, and a negative relationship between perceived learner control and cognitive engagement was identified for attending lectures. We conclude that, in general, perceived learner control is not a significant factor for student engagement in blended learning. However, for particular activities, student engagement may increase as their perceived learner control decreases. The results extend the understanding of the relationship between perceived learner and student engagement, which varied at an activity level. Additionally, the findings suggest that teachers could consider enhancing student engagement by assigning different levels of learner control to students based on their needs.
Funder
China Scholarship Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference59 articles.
1. Barratt, J. M., & Duran, F. (2021). Does psychological capital and social support impact engagement and burnout in online distance learning students? The Internet and Higher Education, 51, 100821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100821
2. De Boer, W., & Collis, B. (2005). Becoming more systematic about flexible learning: beyond time and distance. Research in Learning Technology, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v13i1.10971
3. Bonk, C. J., Kim, K. J., & Zeng, T. (2005). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In P. Kommers, & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3644–3649). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 10, 2023, from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/20646/.
4. Bossant, L., Madou, T., Theodosiou, F., & Sagaert, Y. (2022). The effects of self-regulation and instructional control on learning behaviour and performance of undergraduate nursing students. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, USA, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3572549.3572556
5. Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why? Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00093.x