À¶Ý®ÊÓƵ

Project Team

Taru Malhotra, Engineering

Carolyn MacGregor, Engineering

Richard Li, Centre for Teaching Excellence

Project Summary

The theory of student involvement highlights the importance of involving students at physical and psychological levels for better experience and learning (Astin, 1999). While using hands-on instructor-designed activities may increase student participation, such strategies may not always translate to meaningful interactions, meet the needs of all students, or satisfy them (Owston et al., 2019; Malhotra, 2022). Offering choice of learning activities to students may cater to diverse learning styles, increase engagement, and deepen learning (Gay & Betts, 2020).

Thus, this project investigates student experiences (learning, course engagement and satisfaction) and if and how it varies when students are offered choices in their course activities. This student experience is measured in the Fall 2022 and Winter 2023 offerings of ExpecTAtions, a teaching assistant (TA) training in the Faculty of Engineering. Findings will help create a professional development workshop for instructors interested in adopting a student involvement strategy. ÌýÌý

References

Aji, C. A., & Khan, M. J. (2019). The impact of active learning on students’ academic performance.ÌýOpen Journal of Social Sciences,Ìý7(03). Retrieved fromÌý

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.ÌýJournal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.

Douglas, J.,ÌýÌý²¹²Ô»åÌýÌý(2006), "Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university",Ìý, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 251-267.Ìý

Fielding, A., Dunleavy, P. J., & Langan, A. M. (2010). Interpreting context to the UK’s National Student (Satisfaction) Survey data for science subjects.ÌýJournal of Further and Higher Education,Ìý34(3), 347-368.

Gay, G. H., & Betts, K. (2020). From Discussion Forums to eMeetings: Integrating High Touch Strategies to Increase Student Engagement, Academic Performance, and Retention in Large Online Courses.ÌýOnline Learning,Ìý24(1), 92-117.ÌýRetrieved fromÌýhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1249245.pdf

Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education.ÌýEducation Sciences,Ìý9(4), 276.

Malhotra, T. (2022). University Instructors Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practices Across Stem and Non-Stem Blended Courses.ÌýDissertation, York University.

Muñoz, M., Martínez, C., Cárdenas, C., & Cepeda, M. (2013). Active learning in first-year engineering courses at Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Chile.ÌýAustralasian Journal of Engineering Education,Ìý19(1), 27-38.

National Survey of Student Engagement, (2018).ÌýNSSE 2018 Overview.ÌýRetrieved fromÌý

Owston, R., York, D. N., & Malhotra, T. (2019). Blended learning in large enrolment courses: Student perceptions across four different instructional models.ÌýAustralasian Journal of Educational Technology,Ìý35(5), 29-45.

Owston, R., & York, D. (2018). The nagging question when designing blended courses: How much time should be devoted to online activities?ÌýInternet & Higher Education, 36, 22 – 32.Ìý

Prince, M., Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2020). Active student engagement in online STEM classes: Approaches and recommendations.ÌýAdvances in Engineering Education,Ìý8(4), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.kfupm.edu.sa/deanships/dad/Documents/ActiveLearningInOnlineClasses.pdf

Razinkina, E., Pankova, L., Trostinskaya, I., Pozdeeva, E., Evseeva, L., & Tanova, A. (2018). Student satisfaction as an element of education quality monitoring in innovative higher education institution. InÌýE3S Web of ConferencesÌý(Vol. 33, p. 03043). EDP Sciences. Retrieved fromÌý

Wegmann, S., & Thompson, K. (2014). Scoping out interactions in blended environments. InÌýBlended Learning: Research Perspectives, Vol. 2Ìý(pp. 73-92). New York, NY: Routledge.