Student Perceptions of Online Engagement
Keywords:online learning, post-secondary education, higher education, students, regional university, engagement, distance education
This paper reports on research that extends knowledge about higher education students’ perceptions of online engagement. In particular, the study aimed to identify what students thought engagement was and how they experienced it. Understanding students’ views about online engagement will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and should assist instructional designers to support academic staff to develop online courses that are more likely to engage their students. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study found that students felt most engaged with learning when doing practical, hands-on activities. Additional findings from the qualitative and quantitative data are highlighted, with some differences between the students’ perceptions in the different types of data, particularly concerning social engagement. This suggests that further research is warranted. The paper offers several practical implications for student learning.
Ahshan, R. (2021). A framework of implementing strategies for active student engagement in remote/online teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(9), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090483
Anronius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209328.n3
Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., & Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461
Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069
Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2018). Student participation within teacher education: Emphasising democratic values, engagement and learning for a future profession. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(7), 1352–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1484708
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Buelow, J. R., Barry, T., & Rich, L. E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning, 22(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1384
Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y
Chan, S., & Bose, D. (2018). Engage online learners: Design considerations for promoting student interactions. In Management Association, Information Resources (Ed.), Student engagement and participation: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 96–118). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2584-4.ch005
Colman, A. M., Norris, C. E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychological Reports, 80(2), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1922.214.171.1245
Colvin Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
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(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14430
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Ekwunife-Orakwue, K. V., & Tian-Lih, T. (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78, 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011
Ferrer, J., Ringer, A., Saville, K., Parris, M. A., & Kashi, K. (2022). Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: The importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Education, 83, 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5
Filsecker, M., & Kerres, M. (2014). Engagement as a volitional construct: A framework for evidence-based research on educational games. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4–5), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114553569
Flynn, D. (2014). Baccalaureate attainment of college students at 4-year institutions as a function of student engagement behaviors: Social and academic student engagement behaviors matter. Research in Higher Education, 55(5), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9321-8
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
Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Linn, J. S., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009
Gay, H. E. G., & Betts, K. (2020). From discussion forums to emeetings: Integrating high touch strategies to increase student engagement, academic performance, and retention in large online courses. Online Learning, 24(11), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.198
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education: An International Journal, 90, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
Higher Education Standards Panel. (2017). Final report: Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. Australian Government, Department of Education and Training. https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/final_report_for_publishing.pdf
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal of E-Learning, 1(1), 19–27.
Holmes, D. S., & Mergen, A. E. (2014). Converting survey results from four-point to five-point scale: A case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1–2), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.00510.1080/14783363.2013.799330
Hussain, M., Zhu, W., Zhang, W., & Abidi, S. M. R. (2018). Student engagement predictions in an e-learning system and their impact on student course assessment scores. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2018, Article 6347186. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6347186
Joksimović, S., Gaševića, D., Loughin, T. M., Kovanović, V., & Hatala, M. (2015). Learning at distance: Effects of interaction traces on academic achievement. Computers & Education, 87, 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.002
Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCS). Computers and Education, 122, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013
Kahn, P., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9484-z
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
Kennedy, G. (2020). What is student engagement in online learning … and how do I know when it is there? Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/3362125/student-engagement-online-learning_final.pdf
Kim, H. J., Hong, A. J., & Song, H.-D. (2019). The roles of academic engagement and digital readiness in students’ achievements in university e-learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(21), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0152-3
Kuo, Y.-C. (2014). Accelerated online learning: Perceptions of interaction and learning outcomes among African American students. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.959334
Lear, J. L., Ansorge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process model for the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 71–77.
Lee, J.-S. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185.
Lee, J., Song, H.-D., & Hong, A. J. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040985
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T., & Koskey, K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001
Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24(26–34). https://dooi.org/1-.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.005
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Moore, M. G. (1989). Readings in principles of distance education. American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
Murphy, M. P. A. (2020). COVID-19 and emergency elearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749
Murphy, C. A., & Stewart, J. C. (2017). On-campus students taking online courses: Factors associated with unsuccessful course completion. Internet and Higher Education, 34, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.03.001
Northey, G., Govind, R., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., Dolan, R., & van Esch, P. (2018) The effect of “here and now” learning on student engagement and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12589
Petrillo, F., Spritzer, A. S., Dal Sasso Freitas, C., & Pimenta, M. (2011). Interactive analysis of Likert scale data using a multichart visualization tool. In IHC+CLIHC '11: Proceedings of the 10th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems and the 5th Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 358–365 ). Brazilian Computer Society.
Pinchbeck, J., & Heaney, C. (2022). Case report: The impact of online forum use on student retention in a level 1 distance learning module. Athens Journal of Education, 9(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.9-1-7
Pittaway, S. M., & 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), 140–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.10
Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L.-A., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 74(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
Schwarz, C., & Zhu, Z. (2015). The impact of student expectations in using instructional tools on student engagement: A look through the expectation disconfirmation theory lens. Journal of Information Systems Education, 26(1), 47–58.
Shelton, B. E., Hung, J.-L., Lowenthal, P. R. (2017). Predicting student success by modelling student interaction in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 38(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1299562
Shorten, A., & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. Evidence-Based Nursing, 20(3), 74–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102699
Stone, C. (2019). Online learning in Australian higher education: Opportunities, challenges and transformations. Student Success, 10(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v10i2.1299
Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
Tai, J. H.-M., Bellingham, R., Lang, J., & Dawson, P. (2019). Student perspectives of engagement in learning in contemporary and digital contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(5), 1075–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1598338
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100
Vaismoradi, M., & Snelgrove, S. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3376
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1709
Wanner, T. (2014). Parallel universes: Student and teacher expectations and interactions in online vs face-to-face teaching and learning environments. Ergo, 3(3), 37–45. https://ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/ergo/article/view/908
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