Approaches to Measuring Attendance and Engagement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i13.2767Keywords:
Student Engagement, Learning Analytics, Computing Education,Abstract
In this paper, we argue that, where we measure student attendance, this creates an extrinsic motivator in the form of a reward for (apparent) engagement and can thus lead to undesirable behaviour and outcomes. We go on to consider a number of other mechanisms to assess or encourage student engagement – such as interactions with a learning environment – and whether these are more benign in their impact on student behaviour i.e. they encourage the desired impact as they are not considered threatening, unlike the penalties associated with non-attendance. We consider a case study in Computer Science to investigate student behaviour, assessing different metrics for student engagement, such as the use of source control commits and how this measure of engagement differs from attendance.
References
Fitzgerald, H.E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S.T., Furco, A. & Swanson, L., (2016). The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education outreach and engagement, 20(1), pp. 245-254.
Gneezy, U., Meier, S. & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don't) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), pp.191-210. DOI: 10.1257/jep.25.4.191
Gordon, N., (2009). Enabling personalised learning through formative and summative assessment. in Technology-supported Environments for Personalized Learning: Methods and Case Studies. Hershey: Information Science Publishing, pp.268-283. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-884-0.ch015
Gordon, N., (2014). Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning. From the report series Flexible Pedagogies: Preparing for the Future. The Higher Education Academy, January. Online at: http://www. Heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/flexiblelearning/flexiblepedagogies/tech_enhanced_learning/main_report (accessed 20 June 2014).
Gordon, N., Brayshaw, M. & Grey, S. (2013). Maximising gain for minimal pain: Utilising natural game mechanics. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 12(1), pp.27-38. DOI: 10.11120/ital.2013.00004
The Guardian (2018). Why are students faking attendance? They feel cheated by the system. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2018/apr/13/why-are-students-faking-attendance-they-feel-cheated-by-the-system [Accessed 10 October 2018].
Hanus, M.D. & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, pp.152-161. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
Nowell, C. (2017). The influence of motivational orientation on the satisfaction of university students. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), pp. 855-866. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1319811
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), pp. 54-67. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Visaria, S., Dehejia, R., Chao, M.M. & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2016). Unintended consequences of rewards for student attendance: Results from a field experiment in Indian classrooms. Economics of Education Review, 54, pp.173-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.08.001
Woodfield, R. (2014). Undergraduate retention and attainment across the disciplines. Higher Education Academy, p.45.
Zepke, N. (2014). Student engagement research in higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), pp.697-708. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.901956
