A Comparative Analysis

Winnie (Yi) Kong

Attard and Holmes (2020) conducted 10 case studies to find out if technology-based practice promotes student engagement with mathematics

among Australian students, while Selwyn (2016) explored Australian university students’ negative engagements with digital technology.

These two studies have their own definition of engagement. Attard and Holmes identified engagement with mathematics as a

multidimensional construct operating at behavioural, cognitive and emotional levels (2020). Selwyn (2016) tried to identify the reasons for digital

technology to be unhelpful or unsuccessful and cause unsatisfactory experience due to its distraction, disruption, difficulty and detriment.

The methodology of the two research appears to be different. Attard and Holmes (2020) applied the qualitative multiple case study approach

to conduct 10 case studies among Pre-K to Year 12 students with a wide range of socioeconomic status. The classes were chosen based on their

teachers as the exemplar user of technology in mathematics. Within each case study, they performed a class observation as well as semi-structured

interviews with teachers, leaders, and students to collect data. In this way, Attard and Holmes can have an in-depth understanding for both within-

case and cross-case comparisons.

On the other hand, Selwyn (2016) conducted qualitative surveys by handing out an online questionnaire with open-ended questions to 1658

undergraduate students from two large Australian universities to investigate their engagement with digital technologies. The participants’ age ranges

from 17 to 66 with balanced mode of study, academic performance and domicile.

 Attard and Holmes (2020) collected data from multiple sources in the form of classroom observations, lesson plans, semi-structured

interviews, student focus group discussion and school leader interview, in order to offer a better picture of each case. The data collected were

independently coded and categorized. Notes and observations were used to support further analysis against the elements listed in the FEM

(Framework for Engagement with mathematics) using Nvivo software to allow cross-case analysis relating to engagement.

In Selwyn’s study (2016), data were collected online and analyzed in the form of relatively straightforward thematic analysis. Reading of all

the responses was then followed by a code list. He acknowledged the limitations of the sample and a lack of complete measurement (2016). As a

result, Selwyn (2016) used frequencies and cross-tabulations.

Selwyn (2016) first looked at the results in percentage based on students’ unsatisfactory experience with digital technologies in the following

four categories: distraction, disruption, difficulty and detriment. He then investigated the explanation behind the numbers by reading students’

comments. He also conducted a further analysis of the data by classifying the samples to different groups to show a comparison of their negative

engagement experience in the same four categories between different groups.

The results showed that 25% of the sample experienced distraction by self or others using social media and digital devices. 27.7%

experienced disruption mainly associated with technical failure. 24.5% found digital technologies, such as university’s learning management system,

to be difficult and make it harder for students to work. 19.1% described technologies being detrimental to their experience as a student. On the other

hand, the results of Attard and Holmes’ (2020) study show that incorporating digital technology significantly promote student engagement by

increasing student confidence, communication, collaboration, and exploration.

 Contradictory results from these two studies are caused by many aspects. First, the participants included in one study are PreK to Year 12

students while the other study targets university undergraduate students. Attard and Holmes (2020) performed case studies with in-depth observation

and interviews among students, while Selwyn (2016) conducted an online self-paced survey to a much larger sample size to gather data. In addition,

Attard and Holmes’ (2020) samples were chosen based on their teachers being experts integrating technologies in the subject of mathematics only.

While Selwyn (2016) looked at general technologies and sometimes used by instructors without sufficient knowledge and training.

In conclusion, different samples and sample sizes, the level of knowledge for teachers or instructors to use digital technologies, distinct

methodology and data collection methods, as well as the use of general or subject-specific technologies all contribute to the contradictory results

presented in these two studies.

References

Attard, C., & Holmes, K. (2020). “It gives you that sense of hope”: An exploration of technology use to mediate student engagement with

mathematics. Heliyon, 6(1), e02945. https://10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02945

Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: exploring university students' negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher

Education, 21(8), 1006-1021. https://10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229

First response:
VR in education
- Higher student engagement level during learning process
- Gain knowledge with experience
- Live and interact in a virtual space based on an intangible reality

Study 1: qualitative
- Higher student engagement
- More private  increased user acceptability
- Method: questionnaire and learning materials, 75 university students
o Before and after test
o User experience evaluation
- Results:
o enable novel teaching method
o both in classroom and online

Study 2: quantitative
- head-mounted display?
- Application in education and training not at a larger scale
- Time consuming/distracting
- Physical discomfort
- Learner attitudes  k-12, higher education?
- Limited outcome

2nd response: social media

1st study:
- Participants – higher education
- Qualitative
- Questionnaire

2nd:
- Interviews
- Questionnaires
- University students
Hi Michelle,

I noticed that you are interested to know the impact of SM on language learners in higher education setting. Just wondering if both of the studies
were conducted in universities with English language learners? Do you think the background of the participants, such as years in the university,
subject area, gender, and whether if they are domestic or international students, as well as the type of SM platforms used for what kind of task are
possible reasons to affect the results and in turns make them contradictory?

I’m also curious to read more studies specifically about SM usage but in K-12 classroom.