Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 426–448 | Cite as

Student-to-student connectedness in higher education: a systematic literature review

  • Jason MacLeod
  • Harrison Hao YangEmail author
  • Yinghui Shi
Article

Abstract

Student-to-student connectedness is promoted by active, student-centered learning processes. It is a socio-psychological result of interpersonal communication and behavior in the classroom, which emulates belonging, cohesiveness, and supportiveness among peers. Currently, two survey instruments exist—Dwyer et al.’s (Commun Res Rep 21(3):264–272, 2004.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090409359988) Connected Classroom Climate Inventory and Johnson’s (Commun Res Rep 26(2):146–157, 2009.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090902861622) amendment thereof, which have been used for nearly two decades to gain insight into instructional processes in face-to-face environments. However, research on student-to-student connectedness is relatively limited in the context of modern, technology-mediated learning environments. Arguably, where student-to-student connectedness is most urgently needed because of the decrease in face-to-face contact time between students and their instructors within online and hybrid learning environments. This study is a systematic literature review that presents a synthesis of twenty-four peer-reviewed journal articles, which empirically investigate student-to-student connectedness within face-to-face, hybrid, and online environments. The documentation of data is organized in accordance to the six aspects of activity theory (subjects, objects, mediating artifacts, rules, community, division of labor) to provide a basis for understanding the dynamics of each research report, as well as to assist identifying the trends and gaps in the literature, thereby expediting future research on this topic.

Keywords

Student-to-student connectedness Connected classroom climate Connected classroom climate inventory Activity theory Literature review Higher education 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (Grant No. 14JZD044).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

No human participants were involved in the scope of this study.

Informed consent

No human participants were involved in the scope of this study.

References

  1. Allen, T. (2000). Creating community in your classroom. Education Digest, 65, 23–25.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.Google Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.Google Scholar
  5. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611.Google Scholar
  6. Bingham, S. G., Carlson, R. E., Dwyer, K. K., & Prisbell, M. (2009). Student misbehaviors, instructor responses, and connected classroom climate: Implications for the basic course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 21(7), 30–68.Google Scholar
  7. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE–ERIC higher education rep. no. 1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.Google Scholar
  8. Broeckelman-Post, M. A., & Hosek, A. M. (2014). Using in-class versus out-of-class peer workshops to improve presentational speaking. Basic Communication Course Annual, 26(11), 57–94.Google Scholar
  9. Broeckelman-Post, M. A., & Pyle, A. S. (2017). Public speaking versus hybrid introductory communication courses: Exploring four outcomes. Communication Education, 66(2), 210–228.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, D. C. (2017). Active learning classrooms: The topic strategic technology for 2017. EDUCASUE Center for analysis and research report. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2017/3/active-learning-classrooms-the-top-strategic-technology-for-2017.
  11. Carlson, R. E., Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Cruz, A. M., Prisbell, M., & Fuss, D. A. (2006). Connected classroom climate and communication apprehension: Correlations and implications of the basic course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 18(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  12. Davenport, D. C. (2015). Examining peer perceptions of humorous communication in the college classroom. Master thesis, University of Kentucky, USA. Retrieved from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/comm_etds/42.
  13. Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Carison, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004). Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the connected classroom climate inventory. Communication Research Reports, 21(3), 264–272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090409359988.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, B. J., Treagust, D. F., & Dennis, N. C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11(1), 43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078612331378451.Google Scholar
  17. Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 146–164.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903564362.Google Scholar
  18. Gascoigne, C. (2012). Toward an understanding of the replationship between classroom climate and performance in post-secondary French: An application of the classroom climate inventory. Foreign Language Annals, 45(2), 193–202.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01186.x.Google Scholar
  19. Gibb, J. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11(3), 141–148.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x.Google Scholar
  20. Golsan, K. B. (2012). Assessment of embedding peer tutors in the basic communication course: Examining student engagement, classroom climate, affective learning, and communication competence. Unpublished Master thesis, Kent State University, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Hagerty, B. M. K., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K. L., & Bouwsema, M. (1993). An emerging theory of human relatedness. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25(4), 291–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.1993.tb00262.x.Google Scholar
  22. Hsu, C.-F., & Huang, I.-T. (2017). Are international students quiet in class? The influence of teacher confirmation on classroom apprehension and willingness to talk in class. Journal of International Students, 7(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D. I. (2009). Connected classroom climate: A validity study. Communication Research Reports, 26(2), 146–157.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090902861622.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. I. (2013). Student perceptions of college classroom connectedness, assimilation, and peer relationships. Communication Education, 30(1), 57–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2012.723645.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. I., & LaBelle, S. (2015). Examining the role of self-disclosure and connectedness in the process of instructional dissent: A test of the instructional beliefs model. Communication Education, 64(2), 154–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978800.Google Scholar
  26. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(3), 310–318.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310.Google Scholar
  28. Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 232–241.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232.Google Scholar
  29. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  30. Li, Y., Yang, H. H., MacLeod, J., & Dai, J. (2019). Developing the rotational synchronous teaching (RST) model: Examination of the connected classroom climate. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 116–134.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4010.Google Scholar
  31. MacLeod, J. (2018). Active learning, technology, and student-to-student connectedness: Examining technology enabled active learning classrooms in Chinese higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central China Normal University, China.Google Scholar
  32. MacLeod, J. & Yang, H. H. (2018). Connected classroom climate in higher education: A scoping review. In 2018 international symposium on educational technology (ISET) (pp. 113–116). IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/iset.2018.00033.
  33. MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018a). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers and Education, 122, 80–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015.Google Scholar
  34. MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Shi, Y. (2018b). Technological factors and student-to-student connected classroom climate in cloud classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(6), 826–847.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117733999.Google Scholar
  35. Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (1993). How do teachers learn to manage classroom behavior? A study of teachers’ opinion about their initial training with special reference to classroom behavior management. Educational Studies, 19, 91–106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569930190106.Google Scholar
  36. Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiological Education, 30(4), 159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006.Google Scholar
  37. Myers, S. A., & Claus, C. J. (2012). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and classroom environment. Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 386–402.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.688672.Google Scholar
  38. Myers, S. A., Goldman, Z. W., Atkinson, J., Ball, H., Carton, S. T., Tindage, M. F., et al. (2016). Student civility in the college classroom: Exploring student use and effects of classroom citizenship behavior. Communication Education, 65(1), 64–82.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1061197.Google Scholar
  39. National Education Association, Education Policy and Practice Department. (2011). An NEA policy brief: Blended learning. Retrieved from https://www.ewa.org/sites/main/files/pb36blendedlearning2011.pdf.
  40. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from https://www.P21.org/framework.
  41. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.Google Scholar
  42. Prisbell, M., Dwyer, K. K., Carlson, R. E., Bingham, S. G., & Cruz, A. M. (2009). Connected classroom climate and communication in the basic course: Associations with learning. Basic Communication Course Annual, 21(1), 151–172.Google Scholar
  43. Rovai, A. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1.Google Scholar
  44. Sağkal, A. S., Kabasakal, Z. T., & Türnüklü, A. (2015). Turkish adoption of the connected classroom climate inventory (CCCI). Elementary Education Online, 14(4), 1179–1192.  https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.30422.Google Scholar
  45. Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2011a). When instructors misbehave: An examination of student-to-student connectedness as a mediator in the college classroom. Communication Education, 60(3), 340–361.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.554991.Google Scholar
  46. Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2012). Instructor compliance to student requests: An examination of student-to-student connectedness as power in the classroom. Communication Education, 61(3), 290–308.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.666557.Google Scholar
  47. Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., McMullen, A. L., & Nyeste, M. C. (2015). Academic and social integration in the basic communication course: Predictors of students’ out-of-class communication and academic learning. Communication Studies, 66(1), 63–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.856807.Google Scholar
  48. Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: An examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 165–184.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903390867.Google Scholar
  49. Sidelinger, R. J., Myers, S. A., & McMullen, A. L. (2011b). Students’ communication predispositions: An examination of classroom connectedness in public speaking courses. Basic Communication Course Annual, 23(1), 248–278.Google Scholar
  50. Sohn, B. K. (2016). The student experience of other students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, USA. Retrieved from https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3748.
  51. Sollitto, M., Johnson, Z. D., & Myers, S. A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of college classroom connectedness, assimilation, and peer relationships. Communication Education, 62(3), 318–331.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.53109.Google Scholar
  52. Sovine, M. B. (2015). Students’ intent to persist in college: Moderating the negative effects of instructors; misbehaviors with student-to-student connectedness and family support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston-Clear Lake, USA.Google Scholar
  53. Townsend, K. C., & McWhirter, B. T. (2005). Connectedness: A review of the literature with implications for counseling, assessment, and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83(2), 191–201.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00596.x.Google Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, 13–23.Google Scholar
  56. Xu, J., Yang, H. H., & MacLeod, J. (2018). STEP on connected classroom climate in a hybrid learning environment. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 23(4), 430–443.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2018.10011969.Google Scholar
  57. Yang, H. H., Feng, L., & MacLeod, J. (2019). Understanding students’ acceptance of cloud classrooms: Integrating UTAUT and connected classroom climate. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(8), 1258–1276.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117746084.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.D’Youville CollegeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Central China Normal UniversityWuhanChina
  3. 3.State University of New York at OswegoNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations