Reading critique of the article by Bonk and Khoo (2014) TEC-Variety framework for motivating online learners
The article by Kahu and Nelson (2018) discusses the ínsertion of an educational interface into
into an existing conceptual framework of student engagement, for higher education institutions.
Underpinning the educational interface are four specific psychosocial constructs that can
influence a student’s engagement in their learning: self-efficacy, emotions, belonging and
well-being. These constructs termed mediating mechanisms, were highlighted to acknowledge
the challenges faced by non-traditional students in the higher education learning institutions
and to provide initiatives to institutions on how they might positively influence student
engagement and therefore success (p. 68).
The article by Kahu and Nelson (2018) discusses the ínsertion of an educational interface into
into an existing conceptual framework of student engagement, for higher education institutions.
Underpinning the educational interface are four specific psychosocial constructs that can
influence a student’s engagement in their learning: self-efficacy, emotions, belonging and
well-being. These constructs termed mediating mechanisms, were highlighted to acknowledge
the challenges faced by non-traditional students in the higher education learning institutions
and to provide initiatives to institutions on how they might positively influence student
engagement and therefore success (p. 68).
My general impression of the article is that it effectively addressed some important
issues that influence student’s engagement and retention in higher education
institutions. From my personal experiences and relationships with people who
would be classed as ‘non-traditional’ students, it was almost as if they had placed
16 years of attending learning institutions, from early childhood to tertiary, under
a microscope and drawn these conclusions. I think they have highlighted factors
in the educational interface that are critical to non-traditional students engaging
and remaining in an alienated setting that has its own culture, that is, a certain
way of behaving and thinking. The references cited in the article allow for a
deeper understanding of the issues raised and I totally agree with the suggestion
by Kahu & Nelson (2108) that “more research is needed on academic
self-efficacy in non-traditional student groups” because “self-efficacy may be one
of the key-mechanisms that could cause non-traditional students to be less
engaged” (p. 65). The publication of the article in 2018 makes the writing
contemporary, however, I do believe the psychosocial factors underpinning the
educational interface are well and truly timeless when discussing the
inter-relationship between learning institutions and non-traditional students.
issues that influence student’s engagement and retention in higher education
institutions. From my personal experiences and relationships with people who
would be classed as ‘non-traditional’ students, it was almost as if they had placed
16 years of attending learning institutions, from early childhood to tertiary, under
a microscope and drawn these conclusions. I think they have highlighted factors
in the educational interface that are critical to non-traditional students engaging
and remaining in an alienated setting that has its own culture, that is, a certain
way of behaving and thinking. The references cited in the article allow for a
deeper understanding of the issues raised and I totally agree with the suggestion
by Kahu & Nelson (2108) that “more research is needed on academic
self-efficacy in non-traditional student groups” because “self-efficacy may be one
of the key-mechanisms that could cause non-traditional students to be less
engaged” (p. 65). The publication of the article in 2018 makes the writing
contemporary, however, I do believe the psychosocial factors underpinning the
educational interface are well and truly timeless when discussing the
inter-relationship between learning institutions and non-traditional students.
The factors discussed in the article that resonated with me were the
psychosocial constructs of the educational interface. Self-efficacy, an
individual’s belief in the ability to perform a task, defined by Schunk & Pajares
(as cited in Kahu & Nelson, p. 64) I believe is not only influential but critical to
student engagement and success. When deciding to attend Teachers College,
a higher education learning institution, it was my self-efficacy that enabled me to
apply for teacher training in the first place alongside a determination to break the
cycle. There was no expectation to discover a sense of belonging or emotional
connection. It was the belief that in my own capacity to engage, with the help
and support of the teachers and possible peers, that success was going to
occur. Any emotional rewards, well-being or sense of belonging were expected
to be nurtured either through the success achieved by engaging in the learning,
or building positive social interactions with other teacher trainees. However,
during the teacher training a sense of belonging and positive emotional
experiences nurtured a sense of well-being and self-efficacy, therefore building
a resistance to disengagement and decision to leave. Another important factor
that should be taken into consideration is that the educational interface, due to
the social factors that influence engagement and retention, should not only be
adopted by all learning institutions from early childhood to tertiary, but also
implemented into business models.
psychosocial constructs of the educational interface. Self-efficacy, an
individual’s belief in the ability to perform a task, defined by Schunk & Pajares
(as cited in Kahu & Nelson, p. 64) I believe is not only influential but critical to
student engagement and success. When deciding to attend Teachers College,
a higher education learning institution, it was my self-efficacy that enabled me to
apply for teacher training in the first place alongside a determination to break the
cycle. There was no expectation to discover a sense of belonging or emotional
connection. It was the belief that in my own capacity to engage, with the help
and support of the teachers and possible peers, that success was going to
occur. Any emotional rewards, well-being or sense of belonging were expected
to be nurtured either through the success achieved by engaging in the learning,
or building positive social interactions with other teacher trainees. However,
during the teacher training a sense of belonging and positive emotional
experiences nurtured a sense of well-being and self-efficacy, therefore building
a resistance to disengagement and decision to leave. Another important factor
that should be taken into consideration is that the educational interface, due to
the social factors that influence engagement and retention, should not only be
adopted by all learning institutions from early childhood to tertiary, but also
implemented into business models.
A number of questions raised from reading the article;
1. What would the statistics look like if this study was done in NZ?
2. Would the refined model look different when taking into consideration the
principals of the Treaty of Waitangi?
3. Would a refined model, representative of students attending institutions in NZ, be
a model that could be applied to schooling from early childhood through to
college?
4. Would the methods used in this study be adaptable to students in NZ attending
tertiary institutions, particularly with Māori and Pasifika students?
1. What would the statistics look like if this study was done in NZ?
2. Would the refined model look different when taking into consideration the
principals of the Treaty of Waitangi?
3. Would a refined model, representative of students attending institutions in NZ, be
a model that could be applied to schooling from early childhood through to
college?
4. Would the methods used in this study be adaptable to students in NZ attending
tertiary institutions, particularly with Māori and Pasifika students?