An Online Engagement Framework for Higher Education

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175

Keywords:

Online engagement, higher education, conceptual framework, distance education, student engagement,

Abstract

Student engagement is understood to be an important benchmark and indicator of the quality of the student experience for higher education; yet the term engagement continues to be elusive to define and it is interpreted in different ways in the literature. This paper firstly presents a short review of the literature regarding online engagement in the higher education environment, moving beyond discipline-specific engagement. It then presents a conceptual framework which builds upon recurring themes within the literature, including students’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. The framework was developed by adopting a constant comparison method to analyse the literature, and to search for and identify current and emerging themes. The framework identifies indicators for five key elements of online engagement, and the authors propose that the framework provides a guide for researchers and academics when exploring online engagement from a conceptual, practical and research basis. Finally, the paper provides recommendations for practice, outlining how the framework might be used to reflect critically upon the effectiveness of online courses and their ability to engage students.

References

Albion, P. R. (2014). From creation to curation: Evolution of an authentic “assessment for learning” task. In L. Liu, D. Gibson, V. Brown, T. Cavanaugh, J. Lee, C. Maddux, M. Ochoa, M. Ohlson, D. Slykhuis, & J. Voogt (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 69–78). Waynesville, NC: AACE.

Allen, I., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE). Retrieved from https://www.acer.edu.au/ausse

Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2015). Student Experience Survey (SES). Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/about-this-site/student-experience-

survey-(ses)

Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2016a). QiLT: Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/

Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2016b). Survey of Current Higher Education Students. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/about-this-site/student-experience-survey-(ses)

Billett, S. (2008). Learning through work: Exploring instances of relational interdependencies. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(4), 232–240.

Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page. Peer Review, 7(2), 4–7.

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html

Bradley, E. H., Curry, L. A., & Devers, K. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Research and Education Trust, 42(4), 1758–1772. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x

Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University School of Education. (2016). National Survey of Student Engagement: Engagement Indicators. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/engagement_indicators.cfm

Chen, P., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008

Cheng, K., Liang, J., & Tsai, C. (2013). University students’ online academic help seeking: the role of self-regulation and information commitments. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 70–77. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.02.002

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 269–292.

Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. New York, NY: Routledge.

Coates, H. (2009). Engaging students for success: Australasian student engagement report: Australian Survey of Student Engagement. Prepared for ACER. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=higher_education

Crampton, A., Ragusa, A.T., & Cavanagh, H. (2012). Cross-discipline investigation of the relationship between academic performance and online resource access by distance education students. Research in Learning Technology, 20. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14430

Dennen, V. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behaviour. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(4), 1624–1633. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1

Fleckhammer, L., & Wise, L.Z. (2010). The role of tutors in facilitating online student engagement. Proceedings ASCILITE, 4–7 December, Sydney.

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. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059

Gale, N., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13,117. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education.

Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.

Gerhardt, M. (2016). The importance of being…social? Instructor credibility and the millennials. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9), 1533–1547. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.981516

Gibbs, G. (2014, May 1). Student engagement, the latest buzzword. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-engagement-the-latest-buzzword/2012947.article

Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.989230.

Hampton, D., & Pearce, P. F. (2016). Student engagement in online nursing courses. Nurse Educator. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000275

Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192. doi: 10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117–136). Berlin, Germany: SpringerVerlag.

Hickey, D. T., Quick, J. D., & Shen, X. (2015, March). Formative and summative analyses of disciplinary engagement and learning in a big open online course. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 310-314). Poughkeepsie, NY:

ACM New York.

Higher Education Academy. (2015). UKES: UK Engagement Survey. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/institutions/surveys/uk-engagement-survey

Kift, S. (2004) Organising first year engagement around learning: Formal and informal curriculum intervention, Australian Disability Clearinghouse in Education and Training. Retrieved from http://www.adcet.edu.au/uploads/documents/Sally%20Kift_paper.doc

Knight, E. M. (2013). Aligning the curriculum of the human resources management undergraduate courses at an English speaking university in the Caribbean with the university’s 2012–2017 strategic plan. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(8), 61-86.

Krause, K.-L. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.659.6304&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Krause, K.-L. (2006). Dimensions of student engagement: New opportunities for learning and teaching. Paper presented at the Learning and Teaching Conference, University of Ballarat, July 22.

Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. doi: 10.1080/02602930701698892.

Jones, D., Heffernan, A., & Albion, P. (2015). TPACK as shared practice: Toward a research agenda. In L. Liu & D. C. Gibson (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 13–20). Waynesville, NC: AACE.

Lawrence, J., Dashwood, A., Burton, L., & Brown, A. (2013). Anticipating a responsive, relevant and agile institutional pedagogy. In L. Burton, J.

Lawrence, A. Dashwood & A. Brown (Eds.), Producing pedagogy (pp. 156-186). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557–584. doi:10.1037/1045–3830 .22.4.557

Macquarie University Learning and Teaching Centre. (2009). Student engagement principles. Retrieved from https://www.mq.edu.au/lih/pdfs/Engagement_Principles.pdf

Mallon, R. (2013). Naturalistic approaches to social construction. In E.

N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy archive [Online]. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/social-construction-naturalistic/

Meyer, K. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–14.

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-xers, & millennials. Educause, July-August, 37–47.

Petty, T., & Farinde, A. (2013). Investigating student engagement in an online mathematics course through windows into teaching and learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 261–270.

Pittaway, S. (2012). Student and staff engagement: Developing an engagement framework in a faculty of education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), Article 3. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2012v37n4.8

Pittaway, S., & Moss, T. (2014). Initially, we were just names on a computer screen: Designing engagement in online teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(7), 37–45. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.10

Redmond, P. (2014). Reflection as an indicator of cognitive presence.

E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 46–58.

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002.

Rhodes, C., & Nevill, A. (2004). Academic and social integration in higher education: A survey of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within a first-year education studies cohort at a new university. Journal of

Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 179–193. doi: 10.1080/0309877042000206741

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field methods, 15(1), 85–109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569

Scheg, A. (2014). Reforming teacher education for online pedagogy development. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., . . .

Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.002.

Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273–307. doi: 10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y.

Sinatra, G., Heddy, B., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_accessible.pdf

The Trustees of Indiana University. (2016). NSSE: National Survey of Student Engagement. Available from http://nsse.indiana.edu/

Thompson, N., Miller, N., & Pomykal Franz, D. (2013). Comparing online and face-to-face learning experiences for non-traditional students. A case study of three online teacher education candidates. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 233–251.

Vogt, K. (2016). Measuring student engagement using learning management systems (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/73213

Weimer, M. (2016, June 22). What does student engagement look like? The Teaching Professor Blog. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/student-engagement-look-like/?utm_campaign=Faculty%20Focus&utm_content=32225073&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin

Wright, R., Jones, G., & D’Alba, A. (2013). Student preferences for rapport-building traits of online instructors. In E-Learn 2013, World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Young, M. R. (2010). The art and science of fostering engaged learning. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(S1), 1–18.

Zhang, H., Lin, L., Zhan, Y., & Ren, Y. (2016). The Impact of Teaching Presence on Online Engagement Behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 887-900. doi: 10.1177/0735633116648171.

Downloads

Published

2018-03-01

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 1 (2018)

Section

Learner Engagement

License

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions