Students’ Expectations and Experiences about Engagement Strategies in Online Courses: A Mixed Methods Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i2.3937Keywords:
Engagement Strategies, higher education, online courses, mixed methods researchAbstract
Engagement strategies play a crucial role in ensuring engaged and high-quality online learning experiences. In this mixed methods study, we examined online students’ expectations and explored their experiences regarding online strategies of peer, instructor, self-directed, and multimodal engagement, using a survey and qualitative interviews. Our quantitative results indicated that instructor engagement strategies were perceived as the most important strategies to be employed in online courses, while peer engagement strategies were viewed as the least important. Qualitative findings suggested that although all four dimensions were perceived to be important and necessary, actual experiences of each contextually varied. In support of prior research, our study demonstrates the importance of the instructor in online courses and offers theoretical implications for online student engagement and practical implications for instructors, instructional designers, and other stakeholders in online education.
References
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041
Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2021). Factors underlying the perceived importance of online student engagement strategies. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(2), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-02-2020-0045
Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 87–100). Sage.
Caskurlu, S., Maeda, Y., Richardson, J. C., & Lv, J. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers & Education, 157, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103966
Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
Denson, V. L., & Shurts, L. M. (2021). RN to BSN students’ experiences with asynchronous audio-video discussion responses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 42(4), 238–240. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000671
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/54817/
Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Lehman, J. D., Newby, T. J., Xi Cheng, Mong, C., & Sadaf, A. (2010). Peer feedback in a large undergraduate blended course: Perceptions of value and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.1.e
Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: A multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.607401
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
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs – principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.l l l l/1475-6773.12117
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
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653
Hadwin, A. F., Bakhtiar, A., & Miller, M. (2018). Challenges in online collaboration: Effects of scripting shared task perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9279-9
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
Hsiao, W.-Y., Chen, M., & Hu, H.-W. (2014). Assessing online discussions: Adoption of critical thinking as a grading criterion. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society: Annual Review, 9(3), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v09i03/56370
Hsu, H.-C. K., Wang, C. V., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2159–2174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09863-w
Huang, C., Wu, X., Wang, X., He, T., Jiang, F., & Yu, J. (2021). Exploring the relationships between achievement goals, community identification and online collaborative reflection. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 210–223. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27032866
Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning, 23(2), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455
Lee, E., Pate, J. A., & Cozart, D. (2015). Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 59(4), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0871-9
Li, J., Wong, S. C., Yang, X., & Bell, A. (2020). Using feedback to promote student participation in online learning programs: Evidence from a quasi-experimental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09709-9
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
Martin, F., Bolliger, D. U., & Flowers, C. (2021). Design matters: Development and validation of the Online Course Design Elements (OCDE) instrument. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5187
Martin, F., & Borup, J. (2022). Online learner engagement: Conceptual definitions, research themes, and supportive practices. Educational Psychologist, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2089147
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multi-method research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Sage.
Picciano, A. G. (2019). Online education: Foundations, planning, and pedagogy. Routledge.
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084.
Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109.
Sadaf, A., Kim, S. Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). A comparison of cognitive presence, learning, satisfaction, and academic performance in case-based and non-case-based online discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2021.1888667
Sadaf, A., & Olesova, L. (2017). Enhancing cognitive presence in online case discussions with questions based on the Practical Inquiry Model. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1267525
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States (pp. 1–45). Babson Survey Research Group. https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701298688
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430
Thomas, R. A., West, R. E., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructor social presence in online text and asynchronous video feedback comments. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.003
Turk, M., Heddy, B. C., & Danielson, R. W. (2022). Teaching and social presences supporting basic needs satisfaction in online learning environments: How can presences and basic needs happily meet online? Computers & Education, 180, 104432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104432
VERBI Software. (2019). MAXQDA 2020 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com.
Wang, P. A. (2015). Assessment of asynchronous online discussions for a constructive online learning community. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(8), 598–604. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.575
Watson, F., Castano Bishop, M., & Ferdinand-James, D. (2017). Instructional strategies to help online students learn: Feedback from online students. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 61(5), 420–427.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0216-y
Xie, K., Debacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89.
Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x
Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., & Kyeong-Ju Seo, K. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Murat Turk, Sinem Toraman Turk, Ali Ceyhun Muftuoglu, Ozlem Karakaya, Kadir Karakaya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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
