From Distance Learning to Integrated Digital Learning: A Fuzzy Cognitive Analysis Focused on Engagement, Motivation, and Participation During COVID-19 Pandemic

Technology, Knowledge and Learning - Tập 27 Số 4 - Trang 1259-1289 - 2022
Roberto Capone1, Mario Lepore2
1Dip. Matematica, University of Salerno, Fisciano, SA, Italy
2Consorzio di Ricerca Sistemi ad Agenti CORISA, University of Salerno, Fisciano, SA, Italy

Tóm tắt

AbstractThis work focuses on Distance Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve students’ motivation, participation, and engagement, trying to contain the drop-out phenomenon. Distance Learning at the time of COVID-19 is an educational methodology and it can be considered the only occasion to keep an educational connection between students and teachers. Experimentation in a Mathematics STEM class was carried out evaluating the impact of Distance Learning on students’ levels of motivation, participation, and engagement, computed through a Fuzzy Cognitive Map. Specifically, it was performed on some affective and interaction parameters derived from using an adaptive e-learning platform and from the answers of a semi-structured questionnaire. The results, which have been analysed through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Instrumental Genesis theories, show on one hand that Distance Learning is valid as an additional and support methodology but, on the other hand, they highlight the ineffectiveness of completely remote teaching. Therefore, a teaching method that integrates moments of distance teaching with activities carried out in the presence, in the classroom, or in other university environments, is hoped to be used as soon as the emergency is over: a mix of styles, a fluid flow of knowledge between the physical classroom and the virtual classroom. We will call this Integrated Digital Learning.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abeer, W., & Miri, B. (2014). Students preferences and views about learning in a MOOC. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 318–323.

Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., et al. (2020). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education. In: A Theoretical and Systematic Review. Tech Know Learning

Baudrillard, J. (1992). Pataphysics of year 2000. Originally published in French as part of Jean Baudrillard, L’Illusion. de la fin: ou la greve des evenements, Galilee: Paris, 1992 (Charles Dudas, Trans.) York University, Canada

Bergmark, Ulrika, & Westman, Susanne. (2018). Student participation within teacher education: emphasising democratic values, engagement and learning for a future profession. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(7), 1352–1365.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2010). Applying constructive alignment to outcomes-based teaching and learning. In: Training material for “quality teaching for learning in higher education” workshop for master trainers, Ministry of Higher Education, Kuala Lumpur (pp. 23–25)

Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Branchetti, L., Capone, R., & Tortoriello, F. S. (2018). Unesperienza didattica half-flipped in un ambiente di apprendimento SCALE-UP. Annali online della Didattica e della Formazione Docente, 9(14), 355–371.

Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2016). Enhancing student engagement through the affordances of mobile technology: a 21st century learning perspective on Realistic Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 173–197.

Capone, R., & Lepore, M. (2020). Augmented reality to increase interaction and participation: A case study of undergraduate students in mathematics class. In: International Conference on Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Computer Graphics (pp. 185–204). Springer, Cham

Capone, R., De Caterina, P., & Mazza, G. (2017). Blended learning, flipped classroom and virtual environment: challenges and opportunities for the 21st century students. In: Proceedings of EDULEARN17 Conference (pp. 10478–10482)

Capone, R., Del Regno, F., & Tortoriello, F. (2018). E-Teaching in mathematics education: The teacher’s role in online discussion. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society,14(3)

Capone, R., Adesso, M. G., Del Regno, F., Lombardi, L., & Tortoriello, F. S. (2021). Mathematical competencies: a case study on semiotic systems and argumentation in an Italian High School. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(6), 896–911.

Chang, M., DAniello, G., Gaeta, M., Orciuoli, F., Sampson, D., & Simonelli, C. (2020). Building ontology-driven tutoring models for intelligent tutoring systems using data mining. IEEE Access, 8, 48151–48162.

Codara, L. (1998). Le mappe cognitive: uno strumento di analisi per la ricerca sociale e per l’intervento organizzativo. Carocci

D’Aniello, G., De Falco, M., Gaeta, M., & Lepore, M. (2020a). A situation-aware learning system based on fuzzy cognitive maps to increase learner motivation and engagement. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) (pp. 1–8)

D’Aniello, G., de Falco, M., Gaeta, M., & Lepore, M. (2020b). Feedback generation using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps to reduce dropout in situation-aware e-Learning systems. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA) (pp. 195–199). IEEE

De Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471.

De Witte, K., & Rogge, N. (2014). Does ICT matter for effectiveness and efficiency in mathematics education? Computers and Education, 75, 173–184.

Dominguez, R. G. (2012). Participatory learning. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 2556–2560

Faggiano, E., Ferrara, F., & Montone, A. (2017). Innovation and Technology Enhancing Mathematics Education. New York: Springer.

Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Boston: Springer.

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

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Springer.

Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. emphInternational Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175–191.

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 285–292.

Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. (2005). Emotional intelligence in the context of learning and achievement (pp. 233–253). Emotional intelligence: An international handbook.

Harandi, S. R. (2015). Effects of e-learning on students motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181(2015), 423–430.

Heid, M. K. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Tapping into visions of the future. Technology-Supported Mathematics Learning Environments, 67, 345.

Hidalgo, F. J. P., & Abril, C. A. H. (2020). MOOCs: Origins, Concept and Didactic Applications: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2012–2019) (pp. 1–27). Knowledge and Learning: Technology.

Jacobsen, D. Y. (2019). Dropping out or dropping in? A connectivist approach to understanding participants strategies in an e-learning MOOC pilot. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(1), 1–21.

Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCS). Computers and Education, 122, 9–22.

Kaput, J. J., & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years in the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 676–684.

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational technology, 38(5), 20–23.

Kim, C., Park, S. W., Cozart, J., & Lee, H. (2015). From motivation to engagement: The role of effort regulation of virtual high school students in mathematics courses. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 18(4), 261–272.

Kokar, M. M., & Endsley, M. R. (2012). Situation awareness and cognitive modeling. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(3), 91–96.

Kong, Q. P., Wong, N. Y., & Lam, C. C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4–21.

Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24(1), 65–75.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What were learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32.

Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.

Lepore, M., & Petruzziello, A. (2021). A situation-aware DSS to support assisted reproductive technology outcome prediction. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA) (pp. 103–107). IEEE.

Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 289–309.

Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers and Education, 48(2), 185–204.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology.

Li, J., Wong, S. C., Yang, X., & Bell, A. (2020). Using feedback to promote student participation in online learning programs: evidence from a quasi-experimental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 485–510.

Martin, A. J. (2012). Part II commentary: Motivation and engagement: Conceptual, operational, and empirical clarity. Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 303–311). Boston, MA: Springer.

Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: insights into higher education students experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 138–150.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2214–2226). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413–430.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.

Rabardel, P. (2005). Instrument, activité et développement du pouvoir d’agir. Entre connaissance et organisation: l’activité collective, 251–265.

Rabardel, P., & Samurcay, R. (2001). From artifact to instrument-mediated learning. In: Symposium on New challenges to research on Learning (pp. 21–23).

Ramesh, A., Goldwasser, D., Huang, B., Daumé III, H., & Getoor, L. (2013). Modeling learner engagement in MOOCs using probabilistic soft logic. In: NIPS workshop on data driven education (Vol. 21, p. 62).

Roberts, L. D., Howell, J. A., & Seaman, K. (2017). Give me a customizable dashboard: Personalized learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Technical Knowledge Learning, 22, 317–333.

Sarder, B., & MD, B. (2014). Improving student engagement in online courses. In: Proceedings of the Annual ASEE: Conference

Shonfeld, M., & Magen-Nagar, N. (2020). The impact of an online collaborative program on intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and attitudes towards technology. Technical Knowledge and Learning, 25, 297–313.

Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40–65.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765.

Stanford-Bowers, D. E. (2008). Persistence in online classes: A study of perceptions among community college stakeholders. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 37–50.

Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 77–101.

Vérillon, P. (2000). Revisiting piaget and vygotsky. In search of a learning model for technology education. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 3–10.

Wolcott, L. L. (2003). Dynamics of faculty participation in distance education: Motivations, incentives, and rewards. Handbook of Distance Education, 549–565.

Xiong, Y., Li, H., Kornhaber, M. L., Suen, H. K., Pursel, B., & Goins, D. D. (2015). Examining the relations among student motivation, engagement, and retention in a MOOC: A structural equation modeling approach. Global Education Review, 2(3), 23–33.

Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge, 3(1), 97–114.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321–332.