Academic Exchange Quarterly Fall 2012 ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 16, Issue 3
To cite, use print source rather than this
on-line version which may not reflect print copy
format requirements or text lay-out and pagination.
|
This
article should not be reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale
without author's explicit permission. Anyone may view, reproduce or store
copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by the
"Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright
law. For any other use and for reprints, contact article's author(s) who may
impose usage fee.. See also electronic
version copyright clearance CURRENT VERSION COPYRIGHT © MMXII AUTHOR
& ACADEMIC EXCHANGE QUARTERLY |
Engaging
Students: Strategies for Digital Natives
Katherine J. Janzen,
Mount Royal University
Beth Perry, Athabasca
University
Margaret Edwards,
Athabasca University
Janzen, MN, is Assistant Professor Faculty of Health
and Community Studies, Perry, PhD is Professor Faculty of Health Disciplines,
and Edwards, PhD, is Dean and Professor Faculty of Health Disciplines,
Athabasca University.
Abstract
What
do millennial learners want most in their classes? Research demonstrates that
engagement is a high priority for students and one of the biggest challenges
for educators. Traditional instruction has been dominated by a lecture format
for centuries. Engaging students requires a shift towards innovative,
interactive pedagogies. Strategies utilized to promote engagement in a second
year nursing theory course are described.
A vast number of
post-secondary students today can be described as digital natives (Van Eck,
2006). For the digital native, technology is omnipresent and penetrates almost
every facet of students’ out-of-school lives (Prensky,
2010). Faced with traditional forms of instruction, digital natives are bored
and restless—resulting in high rates of absenteeism and academic incompletion
(Kim & Bonk, 2006; Young, 2011; Van Eck, 2006).
What do digital
natives want most? To be engaged (Soria
& Stebleton, 2012; Svanum
& Bigatti, 2009). Despite this plea, study
after study reports that student disengagement prevails in our post-secondary
educational system (Van Eck, 2006; Houston & George-Jackson, 2012; Kuh, 2007; Soria & Stebleton, 2012; Svanum & Bigatti, 2009). The solution prescribed by Van Eck (2006)
may be to “find [the] synergy between pedagogy and
engagement” (pp. 1-2).
The purpose of
this paper is to investigate solutions to student disengagement in today’s
face-to-face (F2F) classroom. To more fully understand engagement, a review of
related literature explores of the interrelated concepts of ‘traditional
instruction,’ ‘engagement,’ and ‘innovative pedagogy.’ Janzen’s Quantum Perspective of Learning
(Janzen, Perry & Edwards, 2011a; 2012; Perry, Edwards, Janzen & Menzies, 2012) is briefly described as a theoretical
framework for creating innovative pedagogical strategies for students. Five innovative strategies that were utilized to
promote engagement in a second year nursing F2F theory course are presented.
Literature
Review
Traditional
Instruction
The roots of
traditional instruction are attributed to the ancient Greeks and recorded in
history prior to the Persian Wars in 475 BC (Cubberley,
2004). Cubberley notes that first formal lessons
started at age seven. Lessons were given by a pedagogue who was typically an elderly slave who instructed boys in
literacy and music. This individual instruction employed receiving and reciting
lessons “by a telling and learning-by-heart procedure” (p.26). Isocrates
(436-338 BC) established the first known classrooms with an emphasis on
organizing “instruction… into a well graded sequence of studies with definite
aims and work” (p. 38). Eventually professorships evolved and universities were
created (Cubberley, 2004) propagating a lecture
format which has continued in institutions of greater learning for millennia (Shachar & Neumann, 2003).
The first known
use of the word ‘lecture’ comes from the Greek word legein from the works of Homer which
means to “say, speak, tell or declare” (Online
Etymology Dictionary, 2012, para 3). Academic
lecturing conventionally encompasses teacher-speaking and
student-listening/taking notes where “interaction between the professor and
student [is] viewed as an essential learning element within this arrangement” (Shachar & Neumann, 2003, p. 1). “Traditional teaching
methods [in the 21st century] include…. textbooks, didactic lecture with or
without PowerPoint presentations, objective testing…. and student critique”
(McCurry & Martins, 2010, p. 276). Limitations of lecture include minimal
use of technology and lecture-based learning “involves knowing rather than
doing” (p. 277).
Killian (2004)
cites additional limitations of the lecture format. These include not being
able to control the pace of individualized learning, restricted opportunity for
creative learning, the inability to attend to individualized learning needs,
the production of “passive learning behaviors,” and the presence of primarily
“extrinsic rewards for student motivation” (p. 210). Further, lectures limit opportunities
for students to reflect and can be “marred by power structures” where the
discussion is dominated by either the teacher or specific students leaving the
majority of students silent (Pederson, 2004, p. 166)
While lecture is
considered to be “time honored” and “revered” in academia (Killian, 2004, p.
209), there has been a call for educators to eliminate lecture as the principal
method of instruction (Lang, 2006; Lo, 2010). Lecture is felt to severely
restrict deep learning and presents a “one way [passive] passage” rather than
an “active passage” to learning (p. 239). Today’s learners want more from their
classroom experience than lecturing, as a sole approach, can provide (Lang,
2006). What millennial learners (individuals born after 1982) are really
seeking is engagement.
Engagement
Millennial
learners are much different than their predecessors. According to Statistics
Canada, these Generation Y (Gen Y) learners make up 75% of all post-secondary
students (Dale, 2010). Gen Y learners
have grown up in a digital world where computers and technological advances are
ubiquitous. Ninety seven percent of these students own a computer (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007), 99.8% possess a cell phone (Ziegler,
2011), 97% utilize instant messaging (De Jonge &
Kemp, 2012), and 86% are active on Facebook (Alexander, 2011). Rapid
developments in technology presents educational institutions with students who
have experienced “increased mobility, social networking, mass media,
globalization and multiculturalism [which has] amplified [the] learner’s social
connections and their exposure to diverse practices… resources and an
unprecedented amount of autonomy in their own learning experiences” (O’Neill,
2010, p. 26).
Disengagement is
reported to be one of the most pervasive challenges in education today (Parsons & Taylor 2011). Research
estimates that between 25% (Willms, 2003) and 66% (Cothran & Ennis, 2000) of students are disengaged in
classrooms making engagement a salient issue for millennial learners. While
traditional pedagogy has been deemed ‘tried and true’ for centuries, Kim and
Bonk (2006) note that “bored students are dropping out of… classes while
pleading for richer and more engaging experiences” (p. 22). Further, students
question the value attending F2F class when they can access class notes or
PowerPoint presentations online (Young, 2011). Van Eck (2006) sees that one of
the primary causes of this is that “digital natives [have] become disengaged
with traditional instruction” (p. 1). In response to this trend, students are
beginning to require and even demand alternative instructional approaches
(Brown, Kirkpatrick, Mangum & Avery, 2008).
Students desire
entertainment, excitement, technology, teamwork, structure, interactivity, and
experiential activities (Cardenar, 2011; McCurry
& Martins, 2010). As digital natives, millennial learners “require multiple
streams of information, prefer inductive reasoning, want frequent and quick
interactions with content, and have exceptional visual literacy skills” (Van
Eck, 2006, pp. 1-2). Ultimately, students desire ‘flow’ (Van Eck, 2006; Liao,
2006).
Flow is
described as a process of engagement
in/with a mental, physical (or both) activity which necessitates a “level of
immersion that causes [students] to lose track of time and the outside world,
when [students] are performing at an optimal level” (Van Eck, 2006, p. 11). Van
Eck describes this immersion occurring in a learning environment where
cognitive disequilibrium and resolution exist in a constant and continuous
cyclical manner. The dance of disequilibrium and resolution require a sense of
psychological investment, challenges and obstacles, and culminate in a positive
sense of accomplishment for students (AISI, 2012). While some educators are
able to create this sense of flow utilizing a lecture format (Olorunnisola, Ramasubramanian, Russill & Dumas, 2003), given the high degree of
student disengagement with this traditional form of instruction, there is a
call for educators to renew emphasis on developing innovative and interactive
pedagogy to enhance flow (Hernandez-Ramos & La Pas, 2009).
Innovative
Pedagogy
Teaching
practices can “have a powerful effect on [active] engagement [and] student
motivation” (AISI, 2011, para 3). Pedagogies that are
engaging are characterized by inspiring critical thinking, immersion in
disciplinary inquiry, authenticity and relevancy, interaction, meaningful
involvement, and intellectual rigour (AISI, 2011). Mandernach,
Forrest, Babutzke and Manker
(2009) report that the “mode of delivery, [whether it be online or F2F] is not
as influential as the instructor’s level of interactivity in promoting active
engagement with the course materials” (p. 49). Active engagement, coupled with
an ability of the teachers to “know and connect with students” within the
learning environment, creates a milieu where partnerships are formed between
students and teachers (Brown et al., 2008, p. 283). Highly interactive
partnerships between students and instructor, among students, and between
students and course materials result (Sugar, Martindale & Crawley, 2007).
While no
pedagogy is considered superior (Killian, 2004), “educators are challenged to
use the best of the old and the best of the new as they reform the way they
teach to enhance… education” (Brown et al., 2008, p. 285; Cardenar,
2011). The key to successful teaching lies in finding and enhancing the synergy
which exists between pedagogy and engagement (Van Eck, 2006). Utilizing the
most effectual teaching technologies to potentiate this synergic relationship (Steinweg, Davis & Thomson, 2005) helps reduce the
divide between engagement and disengagement.
Theoretical
Foundations
To further
understand engagement, Janzen’s (Janzen et al., 2011a; 2012; Edwards et al.,
2012) Quantum Perspective of Learning (QL) suggests that learning is
multidimensional and occurs on multiple planes simultaneously. Further, the
potential for learning, which is patterned after holographic/holistic
realities, is infinite. Hence, learning environments become living systems that
grow, adapt, and evolve. Engagement is a large part of the dynamic processes
within the classroom to which learning is connected.
QL
is based upon the assumption that students are multidimensional beings.
Learners do not simply learn in a single dimension such as social or cognitive
realms. Janzen et al. (2012) propose that the quantum dimensions of cognition,
corporeality, experience, behaviour, sociality, spirituality, technology,
emotions, and culture become the cues and conduits of student engagement (see
Figure 1). Simply put, the more quantum dimensions that an educator can reach,
potentially the more engaged students will become. This engagement involves
student ‘doing’ rather than merely passively ‘listening.’ Multidimensional
interaction (teacher-student, student-student, student-content) is posited to
promote deep learning. Creative and innovative strategies have the potential to
reach multiple dimensions enhancing engagement and learning.
Practical
Application of Quantum Perspective of Learning: Strategies to Promote
Engagement
The assumptions
of QL are readily transferrable to the F2F classroom through the use of
Artistic Pedagogical Technologies (APTs) (Perry & Edwards, 2010; Perry, Janzen
& Edwards, 2012) and other creative strategies. APTs are teaching
strategies founded in the arts and may include elements of music, literature,
poetry, visual arts, and drama (Perry et al., 2012). These teaching
technologies provide a real and authentic medium for students to engage with
instructors, one another, technology, and educational content (Janzen et al.,
2011a; 2011b; 2012). Further, APTs create inviting learning environments,
initiate, sustain and enhance interaction between students and instructors, and
help to develop community (Perry & Edwards, 2010; 2012).
Thirteen
innovative teaching technologies (APTs and other creative strategies) were
utilized in a second year nursing course which centered on theoretical
foundations of nursing. In this particular course, concepts such as human
health experience, safety, legal issues in nursing, ethics, and death and dying
were covered. Students who had taken these
classes in the past had reported that the content can be boring and as a result
absenteeism was high (M. Kalia & A. Kalia, personal communication, January 9, 2012). This is
consistent with literature that high absenteeism rates reflect student
disengagement (Kim & Bonk, 2006, Young, 2011; Van Eck, 2006). Reaching for
a solution, it was posited that engaging students with the instructor, peers,
and the content might begin to ameliorate disengagement and associated
absenteeism. Five of the 13 teaching strategies are described that were
utilized to help increase engagement in the classroom.
Strategy One:
Courtroom Scenes
Content related
to legal issues in nursing necessitated a strategy other than lecture. In an
effort to engage students in multiple QL dimensions (corporeality,
experiential, cognitive, behavioural, and social dimensions) the “Courtroom
Scenes” teaching activity was created. The class activity began with students
being divided into four groups. Each group received a sealed envelope which
contained adhesive name tags, an instructor-created scenario, and activity
instructions. The students were aware that each of the scenarios was drawn from
real-life law suits. Groups were given 20 minutes to prepare to present their
courtroom scene to the class. Students chose a role for each group member
consistent with roles in a real courtroom. Each role was written on each
student’s name tag so it was clear to other students what role individuals were
playing. Roles included: plaintiff,
defendant, prosecution, defence, jury members, and a judge.
During the
courtroom case activity, plaintiffs and defendants (along with corresponding
lawyers) had to create a viable courtroom case with three questions and
rebuttals to examine and cross examine. Juries were to deliberate on the case
itself using principles drawn from pre-reading materials about legalities in
Canada. The students used laptop computers to access pre-class reading
materials to substantiate their knowledge and the claims that they would make
during the court case enactment. Judges awarded damages.
While students
were preparing their cases, the instructor created a physical set up of a
courtroom in the classroom including places for the jury, plaintiffs,
defendants, lawyers, and the judge to sit.
Each place was labelled with a small placard which designated the
corresponding role of the person occupying each place. Judges utilized a gavel
to promote order in the court and to aid in the pronouncement of decisions.
Each group of students then dramatized their court room scene. Commonly lawyers objected to questions and judges
called for order in the court. Each of
the four courtroom scenes culminated in the instructor informing the students
about the outcomes of the actual law suits.
Strategy Two:
Ethics-opoly
Post-instructional
games assist students to assess and synthesize learning
(Van Eck, 2006). In a class related to ethics, the game of Ethics-opoly was created by the instructor (Janzen, created/used
2012) to solidify concepts presented. The game, patterned after Monopoly, had
properties to buy and sell which corresponded to terms common to ethics such as
‘Beneficence Bay’ and ‘Non-Maleficence Meadows.’ The goal of the game was to
collect properties valued in ‘Ethic$ Buck$.’ The game winner accumulated the
most ‘Ethic$ Buck$.’ As players landed on game squares they drew cards where
were labelled either ‘Ethics Cards’ or ‘Values Cards.’ The cards provided
opportunities for students to test their knowledge of ethics and created
opportunities for players to discuss ethical decision making in their nursing
practice. For example, an ethics card might read, “Define nonmaleficence
— Advance two squares for correct answer.” A values card might read, “Your personal
values conflict with the actions of a client you are caring for. Describe the
course of action you will take. Move
three squares.” Forty five minutes was allotted to each Ethics-opoly game. There were no more than 8 participants per game
group. This learning strategy employed QL dimensions of sociality, cognition,
and culture.
Strategy Three:
Photovoice
Photovoice, the
teaching strategy, was pioneered by Perry and Edwards (2010) for use in the
online learning environments. Photovoice involves the posting of a photographic
image and a corresponding reflective question drawn from course content.
Students are invited to respond to the reflective question in writing.
Photovoice is not graded.
Photovoice was
undertaken during a lecture about safety and focused on cultural, social,
technology, and cognitive dimensions of QL. For this activity a photographic image
of a nurse in hospital taking a patient’s pulse was posted on a PowerPoint
slide. The accompanying question, posted on the same slide was, “How will I
develop professional relationships in clinical to keep me, my patients, and my
colleagues safe?” Students took an average of 15 minutes to write personal
responses and were invited to share their responses the class. This process
helped promote individual and collective student-content and student-student
engagement. Photovoice prompted active learning which included problem-solving,
cognitive information gathering, critical thinking and self-expression (Olorunnisola et al., 2003).
Strategy Four:
Narratives/Parallel Poetry
Narrative
pedagogy, while not a new concept in education, serves as “an adjunct to course
content [and] focuses on processes such as teaching, interpreting and analyzing
concepts, ideas and situations” (Brown et al., 2008, p. 283). Narrative
pedagogy assists instructors to “know and connect with students and becomes to
focus of the learning environment” (p. 283).
Brown et al. cite that partnerships are formed between students and
instructors in a public milieu for the purpose of sharing and interpreting
experience. Narratives can complement and provide a segue for parallel poetry. Narratives
as well as parallel poetry are felt to center on spiritual, cultural,
experiential, and emotional quantum dimensions of QL. In parallel poetry, the
instructor presents a poem (one of their own or another’s poem) and students
are invited to write the last one or two stanzas of the poem.
In a lecture
devoted to exploring ethics, the instructor told the story of an elderly
gentleman who she had cared for as a new graduate nurse. The patient had an
infected amputation of his left femur and a revision of the stump was badly
needed. Unfortunately the surgeon and
the patient’s son had argued and the surgeon refused to do the surgery. A
dressing change was required each day. During this procedure, the man would
scream repeatedly despite Morphine being administered prior to the dressing
change. Being a new graduate, the now instructor, did not know what to do
ethically as she knew the man was in agony and yet having the surgery seemed
impossible.
After telling
the story, the instructor presented a poem she had written based on this
experience. The students were invited to write one or two stanzas to complete
the instructors’ poem. The students were given 15 minutes for this activity and
were subsequently invited to share their feelings about their stanzas. Learners
expressed a sense of sadness resulting from the inability to change the outcome
for this man. The instructor then shared the actual outcome of the situation,
noting that the actions she took enabled the man to have surgery and resulted
in a significant pain decrease. This activity assisted students to know that
they could act as patient advocates and that even as second year students they
could influence patient outcomes.
Strategy Five:
Obituaries/Music
In a lecture
related to death and dying, the instructor played a YouTube music video by
Sarah McLaughlin entitled “I Will Remember You.”
Students were asked what they would want to be remembered for and then were
invited to write their own obituaries. The scenario for their obituary was that
they were 92 years old and had lived a productive life. Students knew that
their own obituaries were a personal activity that would not be shared with the
class. Quantum dimensions that were captured in this activity included
spirituality, culture, emotion, cognition, technology, and corporeality. The
students took 20 minutes for this activity. Upon completion, a powerful
discussion ensued that focused on what dying patients might want to be
remembered for and nursing interventions to assist patients to come to terms
with not only their lives, but also their deaths.
Conclusion
In
this paper, concepts of traditional instruction, engagement and innovative
pedagogy were explored using relevant literature. Janzen’s QL provided a
theoretical framework. Five strategies to promote student engagement that were
employed in a second year nursing theory course were described.
The face of
education is changing. Embracing this change presents opportunities for
educators to develop new and innovative pedagogies that not only engage, but
also facilitate interactivity between students, teachers, technology and
content. This shift may assist in decreasing the epidemic of disengagement that
exists in the post-secondary learning environment. The authors challenge educators
to move beyond lecture as a primary form of instruction and to reach the
multiple QL dimensions that have the capacity to influence, inspire, and engage
millennial learners.
References
AISI (2011). Engaging students. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin /aisi/ themes/student-engagement.aspx
Alexander,
A. (2011). Technology usage statistics of university
students. Retrieved from http://ansonalex.com/infographics/technology-usage-statistics-of-university-students- infographic/
Brown, S.T., Kirkpatrick, M.K., Mangum, D., &
Avery, J. (2008). A review of
narrative pedagogy strategies to transform traditional nursing
education. Journal of Nursing Education, 47(6), 283-286.
Cardenar, D. (2011). Blurring the boundaries between online and traditional
classroom pedagogy. Community College Week.
May 2. Retrieved from
www.ccweek.com
Cothran, D. J., &
Ennis, C.D. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement:
Communicating respect and care for students in urban
high schools. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 33(4), 106-117.
Cubberley, E.P. (2004). The history of education. Whitefish, MN: Kessinger.
Dale, M. (2010). Trends in the age composition of college and university students and graduates. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2010005/article/11386- eng.htm#c
De Jonge,
S., & Kemp, N. (2012). Text-message
abbreviations and language skills in high school and
university students. Journal of
Research in Reading, 35(1), 49-68.
Edwards, M., Perry, B, Janzen, K.J.,
& Menzies, C. (2012) Using the artistic
pedagogical technology of photovoice to promote
interaction in the online post-secondary classroom: The student perspective. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 10(1), 32-43.
Hernandez-Ramos, P., & La Paz, S. (2009). Learning history in
middle school by designing multimedia in a project-based
learning experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(2), 151-173.
Houston, D. A., &
George-Jackson, C. E. (2012). Academic engagement of
undergraduate students majoring in STEM. American Educational Research Association. April 13-17,
2012. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Janzen,
K.J., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011a). Aligning quantum learning to instructional
design:
Exploring the seven definitive questions.
International Review of Research
in Distance
Learning, 12(7), 56-73.
Janzen,
K.J., Perry, B., & Edwards, M.
(2011b). Becoming real:
Using the artistic pedagogical technology of photovoice
as a medium to becoming real to one another in the online educative environment. International Journal of
Nursing Education Scholarship, 8(1),
1- 17.
Janzen, K.J., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2012). The
entangled web: The quantum perspective of
learning, quantum learning
environments and web technology. Ubiquitous
Learning: An International Journal, 4(2), 1-15.
Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa,
J. (2007). Connecting to the net.generation: What higher
education professional need to know
about today’s students. Washington
DC: NASPA.
Killian, T. (2004). Pedagogical
experimentation: Combining traditional, distance and service learning.
Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(3),
209-224.
Kim,
K., & Bonk, C.J. (2006). The future of online teaching
and learning. Educause Quarterly, 29(4),
22-30.
Kuh,
G.D. (2007). What student engagement data tell us about college readiness. AAC&U
Peer Review,
Winter 2007, p. 4-7.
Lang,
J.M. (2006). Beyond lecturing. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(6), 1-5.
Liao,
L. (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation
and behavior in distance education. Distance Education, 27(1), 45-62.
Lo,
C.C. (2010). Student learning and student satisfaction in an
interactive classroom. The Journal
of General Education, 59(4), 238-263.
Mandernach,
B.J., Forrest, K.D., Babutzke, J.L., & Manker, L.R. (2007). The role of instructor interactivity in promoting critical thinking
in online and face-to-face classrooms. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1),
49-62.
McCurry, M.K., & Martins, D.C. (2010). Teaching undergraduate research: A comparison of traditional
and innovative approaches for success with millennial learners. Journal of Nursing
Education,49(5), 276-279.
Olorunnisola, A.A., Ramasubramanian, S., Russill, C.,
& Dumas, J. (2003). Case study effectiveness
in a team teaching and general education environment. The Journal of General Education, 52(3), 175-198.
O’Neill,
S. (2010). Aliens in the classroom? Promoting
effective knowledge exchange. Canadian Music
Educator, 52(1), 26-28.
Online Etymology Dictionary (2012). Lecture. Retrieved from http://www.etymonline.com /index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lecture&searchmode=none
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/6459431/student_engagement_literature_review_2011. pdf
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for
real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Willms, J. D.
(2003). Student engagement at school: A
sense of belonging and
participation. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development
(OECD).Retrieved from http://www.unb.ca/crisp/pdf/0306.pdf