Search

Background: Blended online courses, which combine synchronous and asynchronous online activities, have expanded rapidly in higher education. How to enhance student engagement in such courses is unclear, although it is recognized that student engagement is malleable through instructional strategies. Objectives: Given the above, this study aims to examine the influence of categories of strategies on student engagement in blended online courses. Methods: A conceptual framework of instructional strategies indicated as fostering student engagement in the relevant literature was first presented, divided in eight categories (structure, pace, relevance, active, choice, relationships, explanations, guide). Then a research framework linking the categories of strategies to student engagement dimensions (emotional‐cognitive, social, behavioral) was built and tested in blended online courses. Data collected in various disciplines and university levels at four universities (n = 482) were examined using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results and Conclusions: The structural model examination confirmed the combined effects of categories of instructional strategies on student engagement in such courses in all disciplines. Particularly, this study revealed that 1) establishing trusting relationships, 2) demonstrating the relevance of activities, content, and resources, and 3) maintaining a sustained course pace significantly impacted student engagement in blended online courses in all disciplines. Takeaways: This study draws upon the blended learning literature to bring together key instructional strategies that foster student engagement while highlighting empirical quantitative evidence of their effects on student engagement in blended online courses. Detailed measures of categories of instructional strategies and student engagement dimensions also provide reliable instruments for future research. Lay Description: What is currently known about the subject matter?: Student engagement has important repercussions on perseverance, in‐depth learning, satisfaction, and academic success.Blended online courses merge the benefits of synchronous interactions and online flexibility in terms of time, place, or even study pace.Student engagement is influenced by contextual variations like course modalities and instructional strategies.The literature lacks a quantitative large‐scale portrait of how instructional strategies influence student engagement in blended online courses in higher education. What does this paper add to the existing body of research?: Partial least squares structural equation modelling was used to examine the effects of eight categories of instructional strategies on emotional‐cognitive, social, and behavioural dimensions of student engagement.Emotional‐cognitive engagement is largely affected by instructional strategies, while social and behavioural engagement are moderately affected by these.Establishing trusting relationships; demonstrating the relevance of activities, content, and resources; and maintaining a sustained course pace have the most significant effects on student engagement in blended online courses. Implications of study findings for practitioners: Teachers should explicitly support students in the process of developing interpersonal relationships in blended online courses to foster student social engagement, that is, interactions and sense of connectedness between them.Ensuring a sustained pace, dynamism, and a diversity of teaching and learning activities, both synchronously and asynchronously, promotes student engagement in blended online courses.Highlighting or demonstrating the relevance of activities and contents fosters emotional‐cognitive and behavioural student engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The juvenile justice system's interventions are expected to help reduce recidivism. However, previous studies suggest that official processing in juvenile court fails to reduce adolescents' criminal behavior in the following year. Longer term effects have not yet been investigated with a rigorous method. This study used propensity score matching to assess the impact of juvenile court processing into young adulthood. Method: Participants were part of a prospective longitudinal study of 1,037 boys from low- socioeconomic areas of Montreal, followed from ages 6-25 years. During their adolescence, 176 participants were processed in juvenile court, whereas 225 were arrested, but not sent to court. Propensity score matching was used to balance the group of participants exposed to juvenile court and the unexposed comparison group on 14 preadolescent child, family and peer characteristics. The two groups were compared on their official adult criminal outcomes. Results: The risk of conviction for an adult offence was 50.0% for court-processed participants compared with 24.3% for their matched counterparts, OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.80-5.44. Court-processed participants committed an average of 0.39 violent crimes, compared with 0.15 for their matched counterparts; Poisson model IRR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.39-4.87. They also committed an average of 2.38 nonviolent crimes, compared to 1.30 for their matched counterparts, IRR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.19-2.93. Conclusions: Rather than decreasing recidivism, juvenile court intervention increased both violent and nonviolent future crimes. Along with previous studies, this study highlights a pressing need for more research and knowledge transfer about effective interventions to reduce recidivism among youths who commit crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]