Promoting distance learners’ cognitive engagement and learning outcomes: Design-based research in the Costa Rican National University of Distance Education

Abstract

<p>To explore effective learning design for students’ cognitive engagement, a design-based case study was conducted in a quality control course in the Costa Rican National University of Distance Education between the 2011 and 2012 academic years. The course was revised for the 2012 provision in terms of the assignment structure, the number of face-to-face sessions, and facilitation strategies. This study documents how the course redesign impacted the distance learners’ cognitive engagement and learning outcomes. Theories of cognitive engagement and transactional distance informed the design-based investigation. Research findings indicate that the design revisions positively influenced both students’ cognitive engagement and learning outcomes within this distance higher education context; however, the student performance represented by their assessment grades might not always reflect this improvement.</p>

A Narrative Review of Design-Based Research in Engineering Education: Opportunities and Challenges

“…Three studies were conducted within blended course contexts (i.e., remote access or online tools used in face-to-face courses) (Huang et al, 2006;Kong et al, 2008;Yueh et al, 2014). Three studies were conducted within/for purely online courses contexts or through the exclusive use of an online tool (Bower, 2011;Joo et al, 2014;Todd et al, 2011).…”

“…Specifically, we noted a variety of theories that were used to conjecture about design innovations. These theories include Variation Learning Theory (Bernhard, 2010); Inquiry-Oriented Instruction, Socially Relevant Design, and Collaborative Learning (Blanchard et al, 2015); Multimedia Design Principles and Social Constructivism (Bower, 2011); Experiential Learning (Dewey) and Constructionism (Papert) (Charlton & Avramides, 2016;Hira & Hynes, 2019); Cognitive Constructivism (Piaget) (Charlton & Avramides, 2016); Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Friedrichsen et al, 2017); Ethics of Care (Gomez & Svihla, 2019); Organismic Integration Theory (Guloy et al, 2017); Community of Practice (Lave and Wenger) (Huang et al, 2006); Transactional Distance (Joo et al, 2014); Observational Learning Theory (Kong et al, 2009); Conformity and Expertise Theories (Liu & Yu, 2019); Cognitive Apprenticeship Model (Newstetter, 2005); and Work-Integrated Learning Models (Todd et al, 2011).…”

“…Provides evidence of the potential for open source software courses to address concerns generated by more traditional computing courses Joo et al (2014) Course redesign impacted the distance learners' cognitive engagement and learning outcomes through a heightened level of structure Provides evidence to support theory that states that the appropriate balance between dialogue and structure in online instruction must account for the educational sophistication of the learner and the content Kong et al (2009) Teacher guidelines for teachers implementing remote experiments…”

“…(We note that none of these studies are situated within an engineering education context.) In our review, we found that 10/24 (42%) of DBR in EER studies focused on development of technology-based interventions, including online or technology-based courses and course environments (Bower, 2011;Charlton & Avramides, 2016;Huang et al, 2006;Joo et al, 2014), digital courseware (Yueh et al, 2014), technology-based laboratory activities (Bernhard, 2010;Kong et al, 2009), an online community support website (Todd et al, 2011), and online systems to support conceptual learning and formative assessment in large classrooms (Friedrichsen et al, 2017;Liu & Yu, 2019). In addition, 18/24 (75%) interventions described in this review were developed for in-person (face-to-face) learning environments.…”

“…The studies in our review offer a few hints of this challenge of DBR. While several studies were conducted by DBR teams comprising just a few people (e.g., Bernhard, 2010;Bower, 2011;Dasgupta, 2019;Gomez & Svihla, 2019;Huang et al, 2006;Joo et al, 2014;Tang, 2013), other studies involved teams of stakeholder from multiple disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., Blanchard et al, 2015;Charlton & Avramides, 2016;Diefes-Dux et al, 2010;Friedrichsen et al, 2017;Hardré et al, 2010;Weber et al, 2014). To highlight the range of DBR team sizes present in our review, we compare studies by Dasgupta (2019) and Blanchard et al (2015).…”