Using interactive technologies to enhance student engagement in higher education online learning

References

• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arslan-Ari, I., & Başer, D. (2023). Assistive technology training within an educational technology course: Perceptions of preservice special education teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2022.2137606
   Google Scholar
• Badilla Quintana, M. G., Vera Sagredo, A., & Lytras, M. D. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ skills and perceptions about the use of virtual learning environments to improve teaching and learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(6), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1266388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, B., & Engle, R. (2007). Analyzing data derived from video records. In S. J. Derry (Ed.), Guidelines for video research in education: Recommendations from an expert panel (pp. 28–37). Data Research and Development Center. https://drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research-guidelines.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 126–150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., & Gómez-Sánchez, E. (2017). Predicting the decrease of engagement indicators in a MOOC [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada. March 13-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027387
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, C., & Cable, J. (2017). Eight principles of effective online teaching: A decade-long lessons learned in project management education. PM World Journal: A Global Resource for Sharing Knowledge in Program and Project Management, 6(7), 1–16. https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/57780765/Eight_Principles_of_Effective_Online_Teaching.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deeley, S. J. (2018). Using technology to facilitate effective assessment for learning and feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dianati, S., Nguyen, M., Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2020). Student perceptions of technological tools for flipped instruction: The case of Padlet, Kahoot! and Cirrus. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(5), 4. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.5.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology enhanced learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 137, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, D. (2015). Using Padlet to increase student engagement in lectures [Paper presentation]. 14th European Conference on e-Learning: ECEl2015, Hatfield, UK, 29-30 October.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R. (2018). Designing a community of inquiry. Community of Inquiry. https://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial9
   Google Scholar
• Geri, N., Winer, A., & Zaks, B. (2017). Challenging the six-minute myth of online video lectures: Can interactivity expand the attention span of learners? Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 5(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.36965/ojakm.2017.5(1)101-111
   Google Scholar
• Getenet, S., Worsley, S., Tualaulelei, E., & Pillay, Y. (2022).The role of technologies to enhance pre-service teachers’ engagement in an online mathematics education course. In N. Fitzallen, C. Murphy, V. Hatisaru, & N. Maher (Eds.), Mathematical confluences and journeys: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 241‒249). The Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v9i3.293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2012). Real thinking with virtual hats: A role-playing activity for pre-service teachers in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(3), 420–440. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, E. P., Wahlquist, A. E., Hortman, M., & Wisniewski, C. S. (2021). Motivating students to engage in preparation for flipped classrooms by using embedded quizzes in pre-class videos. Innovations in Pharmacy, 12(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v12i1.3353
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, D., & Ireland, A. (2016). Enhancing teacher education with simulations. TechTrends, 60(3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0049-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumi-Yeboah, A., Kim, Y., Sallar, A. M., & Kiramba, L. K. (2020). Exploring the use of digital technologies from the perspective of diverse learners in online learning environments. Online Learning, 24(4), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, L.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2017). Accessing online learning material: Quantitative behavior patterns and their effects on motivation and learning performance. Computers & Education, 114, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubrick, M., Zhou, G., & Zhang, J. (2019). Is the future bright? The potential of lightboard videos for student achievement and engagement in learning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1735. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108437
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery, A. P., Hayward, D. V., Dunn, W., Carbonaro, M., & Amrhein, C. G. (2015). Blending for student engagement: Lessons learned for MOOCs and beyond. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panopto. (2022). Panopto. https://www.panopto.com/
   Google Scholar
• Pool, J., & Laubscher, D. (2016). Design-based research: Is this a suitable methodology for short-term projects? Educational Media International, 53(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2016.1189246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince, T. (2016). “Panopto” for lecture capture–A first time user’s perspective [Paper presentation]. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Savannah, GA, United States, March 21–26.
   Google Scholar
• Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Currency.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, V., Padmanabhan, B., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Andel, S., Spector, P. E., Benfield, S., & Aslami, A. (2018, June 26–28) A content engagement score for online learning platforms [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, London, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231644.3231683
   Google Scholar
• Southard, S. M., & Young, K. (2018). An exploration of online students’ impressions of contextualization, segmentation, and incorporation of light board lectures in multimedia instructional content. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 10(1), 7. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=jpps
   Google Scholar
• Stone, C., Freeman, E., Dyment, J. E., Muir, T., & Milthorpe, N. (2022). Equal or equitable? The role of flexibility within online education. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 29(2), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.47381/aijre.v29i2.221
   Google Scholar
• Stone, C., O’Shea, S., May, J., Delahunty, J., & Partington, Z. (2016). Opportunity through online learning: Experiences of first-in-family students in online open-entry higher education. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 56(2), 146–169. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.198122827614037?casa_token=iZ0HjARDjR8AAAAA:8mQFci8SswfrGR1IEk5jfx9_r0LEyzDTv22BQX5TsYy6v8V9HAvYW7SEmraf_iUrVC2aFT80f9Gl4Y0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, C. M. M., & O’Shea, S. E. (2019). My children… think it’s cool that Mum is a uni student: Women with caring responsibilities studying online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google docs on students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(2), 148–156. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1022935.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, K., & Lodge, J. (2020). 2020 vision: What happens next in education technology research in Australia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallwisher. (2022). Padlet. https://padlet.com/
   Google Scholar
• Wang, H.-Y., Duh, H. B.-L., Li, N., Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). An investigation of university students’ collaborative inquiry learning behaviors in an augmented reality simulation and a traditional simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9494-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2009). Addressing diverse learner preferences and intelligences with emerging technologies: Matching models to online opportunities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne de L’apprentissage et de la Technologie, 34(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.21432/t2530k
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, L. (2015). A systematic literature review of design-based research from 2004 to 2013. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0036-z
   Google Scholar
• Zoom Video Communications. (2022). Zoom. https://zoom.us/.
   Google Scholar