Undergraduate Research in Digital Learning Environments

doi:10.1017/9781108869508.095

76 - Undergraduate Research in Digital Learning Environments

from Part V - Avenues for Developing Undergraduate Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2022

Michael Kerres and

Edited by

Dominique Galli and

Harald A. Mieg: Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Elizabeth Ambos: Affiliation:
Council on Undergraduate Research, Washington DC
Angela Brew: Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
Dominique Galli: Affiliation:
Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
Judith Lehmann: Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Book contents

Get access

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

digital learning undergraduate research digital learning environments higher education instructional design learning scenarios undergraduate students digital technology digitalization educational technology

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research , pp. 695 - 708

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869508.095 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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-z CrossRef Google Scholar

Bates, T. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education. Routledge.CrossRef Google 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.pdf Google 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.5477 CrossRef Google 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_109–2 Google 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/s12528–013-9077-3 Google 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.20151193 Google 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/s41239–018-0130-1 Google 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_7 Google Scholar

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.CrossRef Google 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/10.4324/9781315617572 Google 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/s41239–017-0087-5 Google 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/s11528–013-0698-1 CrossRef Google Scholar

Gaber, J. (2007). Simulating planning: SimCity as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X07305791 Google 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.0214624 Google Scholar

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Higher Education Academy. www.academia.edu/download/33402294/DevelopingUndergraduate_Final.pdf Google 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/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946 CrossRef Google 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.2015.1034424 CrossRef Google 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-z Google 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/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197 Google 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.2016.03.008 Google Scholar

Kerres, M. (2018). Mediendidaktik. In De Gruyter Studium (5th ed.). De Gruyter.Google 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/10.1080/1358165032000165653 Google 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.2017.06.001 Google 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.2014.11.001 Google 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.ch017 Google 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

Moore, M. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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.471657 CrossRef Google 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_211 Google 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/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486183 Google Scholar

Ozay, S. B. (2012). The dimensions of research in undergraduate learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.641009 Google 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.2019.2938561 Google 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/10.2760/159770 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.2012.12.022 Google 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/10.1080/13538322.2019.1603611 Google 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_248–1 Google 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

Book contents

76 - Undergraduate Research in Digital Learning Environments

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive