Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research
- The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Theory and Research on Undergraduate Research
- Part II Implementation, Approaches, Methods
- Part III Disciplines
- Part IV International Perspective
- Part V Avenues for Developing Undergraduate Research
- 73 Synopsis and Introduction
- 74 Community-Based Undergraduate Research
- 75 Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research
- 76 Undergraduate Research in Digital Learning Environments
- 77 Crosscultural Undergraduate Research
- Index
- References
76 - Undergraduate Research in Digital Learning Environments
from Part V - Avenues for Developing Undergraduate Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research
- The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Theory and Research on Undergraduate Research
- Part II Implementation, Approaches, Methods
- Part III Disciplines
- Part IV International Perspective
- Part V Avenues for Developing Undergraduate Research
- 73 Synopsis and Introduction
- 74 Community-Based Undergraduate Research
- 75 Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research
- 76 Undergraduate Research in Digital Learning Environments
- 77 Crosscultural Undergraduate Research
- Index
- References
Summary
Digitalization is strongly affecting the field of higher education. This chapter investigates the implications of digital tools for the future development of undergraduate research (UR). It asks how the design of digital learning environments and the provision of digital tools can contribute to UR. The chapter starts with outlining digitalization in higher education and the use of digital technology in undergraduate studies. Then, teaching and learning scenarios are presented that serve as design options to integrate digital learning environments in teaching for UR. Moreover, digital tools are analyzed that can support different phases and objectives of UR. Overall, the chapter stresses the importance to critically consider the added value of digital technology for learning in general and for the case of teaching and learning UR in particular. A well-elaborated instructional design plays a key role to develop and implement digital learning environments in UR, to spur student engagement and to foster social interaction successfully. The chapter concludes by discussing future trajectories for UR in the light of digitalization.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research , pp. 695 - 708Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Baldwin, S., Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528–017-0215-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, S., & Otto, D. (2019). Digital learning and sustainable development. In Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education (pp. 1–10). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_374-1.pdfGoogle 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, 126–150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., & Tamim, R. M. (2018). Gauging the effectiveness of educational technology integration in education: What the best-quality meta-analyses tell us. In Spector, M. J., Lockee, B. B., & Childress, M. D. (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_109–2Google Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528–013-9077-3Google Scholar
Bettinger, E. P., Fox, L., Loeb, S., & Taylor, E. S. (2017). Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2855–2875. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151193Google Scholar
Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: Student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(article 48). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239–018-0130-1Google Scholar
Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In Spector, M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_7Google Scholar
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Pedaste, M., & Zacharia, Z. (2018). Simulations, games, and modeling tools for learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 256–266). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572Google Scholar
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239–017-0087-5Google Scholar
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528–013-0698-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaber, J. (2007). Simulating planning: SimCity as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X07305791Google Scholar
Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Bunescu, L., & Stoeber, H. (2018). Trends 2018: Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area. European University Association.Google Scholar
He, Y., Lu, J., Huang, H., He, S., Ma, N., Sha, Z., Sun, Y., & Li, X. (2019). The effects of flipped classrooms on undergraduate pharmaceutical marketing learning: A clustered randomized controlled study. PLOS ONE, 14(4), e0214624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214624Google Scholar
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Higher Education Academy. www.academia.edu/download/33402294/DevelopingUndergraduate_Final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of “useful” digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567–1579. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and “usefulness.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: A meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909–018-1144-zGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. F. (2015). Digital natives and other myths. In Henderson, M. & Romeo, G. (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies. Big issues and critical questions (pp. 11–22 M4-Citavi). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008Google Scholar
Kerres, M., & de Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165032000165653Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001Google Scholar
Koltay, T., Špiranec, S., & Karvalics, L. Z. (2015). The shift of information literacy towards research 2.0. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACALIB.2014.11.001Google Scholar
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of computer based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50, 524–544.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. I. (2014). The pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of virtual tools for teaching and learning laboratory practices in the biological sciences. The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
Martin, B. E., & Mahaffy, P. G. (2013). Using visualizations of the science behind climate change to change the climate of science teaching. In Suits, J. P. & Sanger, M. J. (Eds.), Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses (pp. 411–440). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/doi:10.1021/bk-2013-1142.ch017Google Scholar
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Bakia, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.Google Scholar
Otto, D. (2018). Using virtual mobility and digital storytelling in blended learning: Analyzing students’ experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.471657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, D., & Becker, S. (2018). E-Learning and sustainable development. In Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0_211Google Scholar
Otto, D., Bollmann, A., Becker, S., & Sander, K. (2018). It’s the learning, stupid! Discussing the role of learning outcomes in MOOCs. Open Learning, 33(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486183Google Scholar
Ozay, S. B. (2012). The dimensions of research in undergraduate learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.641009Google Scholar
Rasheed, R., Kamsin, A., Abdullah, N., Zakari, A., & Haruna, K. (2019). A systematic mapping study of the empirical MOOC literature. IEEE Access, 7, 124809–124827. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2938561Google Scholar
Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Joint Research Centre (JRC). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770Google Scholar
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2012). Instructional design (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022Google Scholar
Tømte, C. E., Fossland, T., Aamodt, P. O., & Degn, L. (2019). Digitalization in higher education: Mapping institutional approaches for teaching and learning. Quality in Higher Education, 25(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1603611Google Scholar
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2019). Learning management systems: An overview (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_248–1Google Scholar
Wiley, D. (2015). The MOOC misstep and the open education infrastructure. In Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 3–11). Routledge.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by