Three-group engagement taxonomy of level 1 physics students based on attendance and responsiveness¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 1 study (1 design), q2 · 1 of 1 report an effect size · 3 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article breaks the student population into three broad categories by absenteeism from compulsory continuous assessment and responsiveness to contact. Group 1 (~90%) attended fully and responded to contact; Group 2 (~5%) missed multiple sessions and responded sporadically; Group 3 (~5%) "rarely responded to any attempt to contact them" and generally did not improve. Academic performance declined across the groups, from A/D-range in Group 1 to E-grade and below in Group 3.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Attendance data captured via barcode scanners at lectures, labs and workshop-tests to assign students to groups

Constraints¶

• Group 3 students appeared unresponsive to offers of assistance; the article states little could be done to support them

Target Learners¶

• first-year undergraduate physics students

Target Learning Objectives¶

• course progression and academic performance in level 1 physics

Claims¶

• A hard core of non-attending students remained unresponsive to all offered support [+W]
• Low engagement with assessment lowered grades at all levels of the 2007-08 Physics 1Y grade distribution [+W]
• Drop-in one-to-one tutorial attendees improved P1X-to-P1Y marks while the class average declined [+W]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

• Escalating multi-channel contact immediately upon missed assessment, starting with SMS

Key Sources¶

• MM Casey and S McVitie. (2009). Academic performance & student engagement in level 1 physics undergraduates. https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.2733