• Login
  • Register
  • Search

Participation as Structure: Visibility, Recognition, and the Production of Wellbeing in Technology-Mediated Higher Education

Yitong Ye

Abstract


Participation remains a central indicator of engagement and integration in higher education. Yet in technologymediated environments, participation is increasingly structured by digital infrastructures that configure visibility, traceability, and evaluative exposure. While belonging scholarship has established the importance of relational integration, limited attention has been paid to how digital participation regimes shape recognition processes and student wellbeing. Drawing on sociocultural theory, belonging research, sociomaterial perspectives, and emerging digital wellbeing scholarship, this design-based qualitative study reconceptualises participation as a sociotechnical structure. Data from 180 multimodal participation artefacts, 42 longitudinal refl ections, instructor interviews, and platform interaction traces were analysed across one academic term. Findings indicate that participation inequities are structurally patterned by digital visibility regimes and that recognition mediates the relationship between expression, belonging, and wellbeing. The study advances a sociotechnical participation model and off ers design principles for inclusive, wellbeing-oriented digital learning environments.

Keywords


Wellbeing; Technology; Higher education

Full Text:

PDF

Included Database


References


[1] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[2] Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2023). More than tools? Making sense of artificial intelligence in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

[3] Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

[4] Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

[5] Gravett, K., & Winstone, N. (2022). Making connections: Belonging in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1894110

[6] Hughes, G., & Spanner, L. (2019). The university mental health charter. Leeds: Student Minds, 1-92.

[7] JISC. (2021). Student digital experience insights survey 2021: Wellbeing and digital experience.

[8] 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

[9] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

[10] Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493

[11] O’Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 605–620.

[12] Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138

[13] Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

[14] Reda, M. M. (2009). Between speaking and silence: A study of quiet students. SUNY Press.

[15] Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academics.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/ahe.v9i8.14409

Refbacks