Research on Model of Student Engagement in Online Learning
Wang Peng 1  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
China Business Executives Academy, Dalian (CBEAD). CHINA
Online publish date: 2017-06-18
Publish date: 2017-06-18
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(7):2869–2882
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
In this study, online learning refers students under the guidance of teachers through the online learning platform for organized learning. Based on the analysis of related research results, considering the existing problems, the main contents of this paper include the following aspects: (1) analyze and study the current student engagement model, In view of the characteristics of online learning activities and online student characteristics, this paper introduced the student engagement model from the student behavior engagement, knowledge engagement and emotional engagement three dimensions; (2) analysis student 's behavioral engagement. The degree of student engagement is mainly calculated by the student's learning behavior data. Then used related methods to calculate learning behavior of student engagement degree. To develop the evaluation indicators of these learning behaviors, to study the method of calculating student engagement through these behaviors. (3) Analysis of Students' Cognitive Engagement. Through study the relevant literature of students' cognitive engagement and analyze the contents of the student's course of study, To develop the corresponding evaluation index and evaluate the students' cognitive engagement degree. (4) Analysis of students' emotional experience degree. Used the self-evaluation method to obtain students e experience information during online learning, to quantify students emotional experience degree and analysis.
 
REFERENCES (9)
1.
Angus, L., & Snyder, I. (2003). Families, cultural resources and the digital divide: leTs and educational (dis)advantage, Australian Journal of Education, 47(1), 18–39.
 
2.
Basurto, X. (2013). Linking multi-level governance to local common-pool resource theory using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis: Insights from twenty years of biodiversity conservation in Costa Rica. Global Environmental Change, 23(3), 573–587. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.011.
 
3.
Çilan, Ç. A., Bolat, B. A., & Coşkun, E. (2008). Analyzing digital divide within and between member and candidate countries of European Union. In Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 98–105.
 
4.
Dickard, N., & Schneider, D. (2002). The digital divide: Where we are. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/digita....
 
5.
Eklöf, H. (2010). Skill and will: Test-taking motivation and assessment quality. Assessment in Education, 17(4), 345–356.
 
6.
Fairlie, R. W., & London, R. A. (2011). The effects of home computers on educational outcomes: Evidence from a field experiment with community college students. The Economic Journal, 122(561), 727–753.
 
7.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The Stratification of High School Learning Opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60(1), 135–155.
 
8.
Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). In-service teachers’ implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 63–76. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1306a.
 
9.
Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Special Issue - Emergent Learning, Connections, Design for Learning, 12(7), 74–93.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215