Search

Academic procrastination refers to individuals' unnecessary postponement of their coursework and is harmful for academic performance. When situated in self‐placed and remote learning environments, students' tendency to procrastinate increases. Therefore, understanding why students procrastinate and identifying who is more likely to delay unnecessarily in online learning environments is an important area to study. The goal of this study was to respond to this call by examining the structural relations between conscientiousness, prior online learning experience, achievement emotions and academic procrastination in online learning environments using structural equation modelling. In particular, two main facets of conscientiousness—proactive and inhibitive—were examined in order to understand which facet was more responsible for procrastination, how each facet was related to procrastination and to determine which facet of conscientiousness should be the primary target for intervention in future experimental research. A total of 746 students from 49 secondary and postsecondary schools participated in the current study. The results showed that the proactive aspect of conscientiousness was negatively related to academic procrastination through the pathway of enjoyment. The inhibitive aspect of conscientiousness was negatively related to academic procrastination through the pathways of negative emotions. Although prior online learning experience did not have a significant and direct association with academic procrastination, it was indirectly related to students' tendency to put off coursework through the pathways of enjoyment and negative emotions. Of all the paths, negative emotions had the strongest associations with academic procrastination in online learning environments. The findings of indirect effects suggest that students with low conscientiousness, the inhibitive aspect in particular, and few prior online learning experiences are more likely to procrastinate in online classes possibly owing to the suboptimal emotional experiences aroused during their learning processes. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicConscientiousness has a direct association with academic procrastination in in‐person classes.Prior online learning experience has direct associations with students' adaptive regulatory processes in online classes.Achievement emotion is an integral part of online learning.What this paper addsConscientiousness has a direct association with academic procrastination in online learning environments.Prior online learning experience has no direct associations with academic procrastination in online learning environments.Conscientiousness indirectly relates to academic procrastination through achievement emotions in online learning environments.Prior online learning experience indirectly relates to academic procrastination through achievement emotions in online learning environments.Implications for practice and/or policyInstructors are suggested to pay attention to students with low conscientiousness and few prior online learning experiences since they are more likely to procrastinate in online learning environments.Students' tendency to procrastinate in online learning environments is strongly associated with their emotional experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The promise of using immersive technologies in learning has increasingly been attracting researchers' and practitioners' attention. However, relevant empirical works are usually conducted in fully controlled Virtual Reality (VR) laboratories, as opposed to conventional settings. This quasi‐experimental study compares the effectiveness of video learning resources to that of stereoscopic 360° VR, as supplements to the traditional instructional approach. The potential of such methods was examined in high school settings, in the context of the 'Life and Evolution' module, with participants (n = 70) divided equally into control and experimental groups. As a point of reference (control condition), we considered the adoption of Video Learning Resources, as students are more acquainted with this instructional method. In the intervention approach (experimental condition), students adopted the use of low‐end mobile‐VR (VeeR Mini VR Goggles). The key findings indicate differences in the learning motivation, confidence and satisfaction, but no statistically significant difference was identified regarding the factual or conceptual knowledge gains. The study offers insights on the potential of the investigated technologies in the subject of secondary school Biology and further provides implications for theory and practice. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicResearchers' interest over the potential of Virtual Reality on different STEM disciplines is increasing consistently.An increasing number of efforts can be identified discussing the integration of multimedia learning resources in the secondary school context.Empirical studies on the subject of Biology are focusing on students' academic performance and achievement but not on learning motivation and satisfaction.What this paper addsThis quasi‐experimental study comparatively examines academic performance, with the focus being on learning motivation and satisfaction, across different modalities (stereoscopic 360° Virtual Reality applications‐VR, Video Learning Recourses‐VLR).The findings demonstrate that both instructional methods are sufficient in enhancing students' knowledge acquisition and academic performance.The adoption of stereoscopic 360° VR influences students' learning motivation and impacts long‐term memory retention.Implications for practice and policyEducators are advised to consider the systematic adoption of "immersive" multimedia tools to enhance the subject of Biology as they can greatly encourage scientific inquiry.Instructional designers are advised to adopt open educational resources aligned to the curriculum of the local context.Educational researchers are advised to integrate stereoscopic 360°‐VR solutions in the conventional classroom settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gamification is typically implemented digitally. However, digital gamification is not always possible because of limited resources and logistical problems. It is thus necessary to explore low‐threshold gamification methods that can be easily adopted in classrooms. One such method is non‐digital gamification using physical game design elements. Currently, the literature provides a limited understanding of the design and effects of non‐digital gamification. It is also unclear whether mixed gamification (ie, a combination of digital and non‐digital gamification) is better than purely non‐digital gamification. We explored these topics using an explanatory sequential mixed‐methods design to compare the effectiveness of non‐digital gamification in a face‐to‐face course and mixed gamification in a blended course in terms of student learning achievement, cognitive engagement and course satisfaction. Two secondary grade classes were randomly assigned to the mixed (N = 52) or non‐digital (N = 52) gamification conditions. Contrary to our expectations, the quantitative results showed that the two approaches improved the students' learning achievement to the same extent. Although the students in the non‐digital gamification condition reported significantly higher‐course satisfaction than those in the mixed condition, the improvement in student cognitive engagement was significantly greater in the mixed gamification condition than in the non‐digital condition. Through focus group interviews, we analysed the students' learning experiences and synthesised the factors that influenced student cognitive engagement and course satisfaction. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic Gamification is increasingly being used to increase student engagement and enhance learning.Gamification studies have mostly focused on digital modes, which often require gamified digital platforms or applications.Non‐digital gamification can be an effective method to foster learning, but the design and evaluation of non‐digital gamification is at an early stage.What this paper adds We designed non‐digital and mixed (ie, a combination of digital and non‐digital) gamification programmes and compared their effects using an explanatory sequential mixed‐methods design.Both gamification approaches led to a similar improvement in learning achievement.While non‐digital gamification fostered students' course satisfaction, mixed gamification was more effective in improving students' cognitive engagement.Implications for practice and/or policy Non‐digital gamification can be an effective low‐threshold solution for instructors. It is worth further improving the non‐digital gamification approach in school settings as it is cost‐effective and can be transferred between classrooms.The benefits of mixed gamification should not be ignored because of its affordances that improve students' cognitive engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supporting productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) in low‐achieving students is an important but challenging goal in education. This study used a knowledge‐building inquiry approach augmented by reflective assessment to facilitate low‐achieving students' PDE. A quasi‐experimental design method was employed to examine the effects of reflective assessment in supporting low‐achieving students' PDE. The experimental class of tenth graders (n = 20) conducted inquiries in the visual arts in a knowledge‐building design augmented by reflective assessment, while the comparison class of tenth graders (n = 14) conducted inquiries in a regular knowledge‐building design without reflective assessment. This study lasted approximately 4 months and the primary data source was the online discourse. A comparative analysis of the knowledge‐building discourse characteristics and the sequential patterns of the discourse moves revealed higher cognitive, emotional and epistemic engagement in the experimental class compared with the comparison class. Epistemic network analysis showed that reflective assessment facilitated low‐achieving students' collective reflection, monitoring and regulation, as shown by their metacognitive discourse moves. Their metacognition further helped them to achieve higher levels of cognitive, emotional and epistemic engagement than the comparison class. This study provides insights into the connections between inquiry, engagement and assessment. Moreover, it has implications for designing technology‐supported collaborative inquiry environments to support low‐achieving students' engagement and higher‐level skills. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic Supporting low‐achieving students' productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) is an important but challenging goal in education and limited research has focused on it.Knowledge‐building inquiry design augmented by reflective assessment is promising in supporting low‐achieving students' PDE.Little research has examined the effects of reflective assessment‐augmented knowledge building inquiry on low‐achieving students' PDE and the mechanism through which reflective assessment supports their PDE.What this paper adds Reflective assessment‐augmented knowledge‐building inquiry is effective in supporting low‐achieving students' PDE.Portfolio‐supported Reflective assessment in Knowledge Forum facilitated low‐achieving students' enactment of collective reflection, monitoring and regulation, and these metacognitive processes further helped low‐achieving students to achieve higher levels of cognitive, emotional and epistemic engagement.This study provides insights into the connections between inquiry, engagement, and assessment.Implications for practice and/or policy It is crucial to create a collaborative and reflective community culture to help low‐achieving students gradually gain agency.It is critical to help low‐achieving students to develop a productive belief that idea improvement and reflection is a continuous and iterative process.The effectiveness of reflective assessment requires face‐to‐face knowledge‐building discussion and collaborative reflection opportunities scaffolded by assessment tools and analytics that encourage low‐achieving students to engage in meta‐level discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]