Abstract
Group discussions can be beneficial to keep students engaged during online learning provided that group members form a good match. For instance, the success of the group depends to a great extent on the engagement of its group members. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became possible to automatically detect engagement using students learning data as all the teaching and learning processes can be recorded. This paper presents an exploratory study that compares the grouping of students with homogeneous engagement levels together to the grouping of students with heterogeneous engagement levels together. We measured the student engagement using their activity logs in an e-book system. We conducted a study with 23 students enrolled in an online class and analyzed the impact of different grouping styles on the learning achievement and student satisfaction of low, mid, and high engagement students. The results show that grouping students with homogeneous engagement levels together is associated with a significant increase in the learning achievement of low-engagement students and the satisfaction of high-engagement students.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abou-Khalil, V., Helou, S., Khalifé, E., Chen, M.A., Majumdar, R., Ogata, H.: Emergency online learning in low-resource settings: effective student engagement strategies. Educ. Sci. 11(1), 24 (2021). Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Abou-Khalil, V., Helou, S., Khalifé, E., Majumdar, R., Ogata, H.: Emergency remote teaching in low-resource contexts: how did teachers adapt? In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computers in Education, vol. I, pp. 686–688, November 2020
Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R.: Learning in a networked world: new roles and responsibilties. In: Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes. Atwood, Madison (1998)
Berelson, B.: Content analysis in communication research (1952). Publisher: Free press
Bernard, R.M., et al.: A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev. Educ. Res. 79(3), 1243–1289 (2009). Publisher: Sage Publications
Bonanno, H., Jones, J., English, L.: Improving group satisfaction: making groups work in a first-year undergraduate course. Teach. High. Educ. 3(3), 365–382 (1998). Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Drury, H., Kay, J., Losberg, W.: Student satisfaction with groupwork in undergraduate computer science: do things get better? In: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Conference on Computing Education, vol. 20, pp. 77–85 (2003)
Isotani, S., Inaba, A., Ikeda, M., Mizoguchi, R.: An ontology engineering approach to the realization of theory-driven group formation. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 4(4), 445–478 (2009). Publisher: Springer
Krippendorff, K.: Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage publications, California (2018)
Lin, C.C., Tsai, C.C.: Participatory learning through behavioral and cognitive engagements in an online collective information searching activity. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 7(4), 543–566 (2012). Publisher: Springer
Moore, M.G.: Three Types of Interaction. Taylor & Francis, London (1989)
Naughton, C.L.: Effects of synchronous group work on learning and community in online mathematics at community colleges (2020)
Ogata, H., et al.: E-Book-based learning analytics in university education. In: International Conference on Computer in Education (ICCE 2015), pp. 401–406 (2015)
Sanz-MartÃnez, L., Er, E., MartÃnez-Monés, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Bote-Lorenzo, M.L.: Creating collaborative groups in a MOOC: a homogeneous engagement grouping approach. Behav. Inf. Technol. 38(11), 1107–1121 (2019). Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Sanz-MartÃnez, L., MartÃnez-Monés, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M.L., Muñoz-Cristóbal, J.A., Dimitriadis, Y.: Automatic group formation in a MOOC based on students’ activity criteria. In: Lavoué, É., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., Broisin, J., Pérez-SanagustÃn, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2017. LNCS, vol. 10474, pp. 179–193. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_14
Sharma, P., Maleyeff, J.: Internet education: potential problems and solutions. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 17, 19–25 (2003). Publisher: MCB UP Ltd
Vytasek, J.M., Patzak, A., Winne, P.H.: Analytics for student engagement. In: Machine Learning Paradigms, pp. 23–48. Springer (2020)
Wichmann, A., Hecking, T., Elson, M., Christmann, N., Herrmann, T., Hoppe, H.U.: Group formation for small-group learning: are heterogeneous groups more productive? In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, pp. 1–4 (2016)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Abou-Khalil, V., Ogata, H. (2021). Homogeneous Student Engagement: A Strategy for Group Formation During Online Learning. In: Hernández-Leo, D., Hishiyama, R., Zurita, G., Weyers, B., Nolte, A., Ogata, H. (eds) Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing. CollabTech 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12856. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85071-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85071-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85070-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85071-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)