Student engagement is among the most discussed topics in online learning. Many instructors encounter difficulties in creating meaningful interactions and fostering active participation in virtual environments where physical presence is absent. So, how to engage students online?
Key Takeaways:
- Online engagement is crucial for meaningful learning
- Online engagement encompasses behavioral, cognitive, and emotional dimensions
- Online engagement involves students in the learning process
Why Engaging Students Online Matters
Like traditional in-person learning, online education demands active participation and involvement of students to foster meaningful interactions within virtual environments. This is particularly true in online learning, where physical interaction is limited or even non-existent. This barrier can result in isolation and alienation, leading to dissatisfaction and low course completion. It is no wonder that building a strong sense of community can impact the sustainability of enrollment and learning satisfaction (Jolivette, 2006; Lee & Choi, 2011).
How Engagement Varies
Good online engagement encompasses various dimensions beyond behavioral participation (what to do); it includes cognitive (how to do) and emotional (why to do) aspects (Hu & Li, 2017). Table 1 below summarizes these three dimensions and the examples.
| Dimension | Characteristics | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral | The basic form of engagement, explicit and observable. It refers to the student’s specific behavior in the learning process. | Reading course resources, asking questions, participating in interactive activities, and completing assignments. |
| Cognitive | The use of learning strategies, how students grasp and control mental effort and different levels of thinking in learning. | Metacognition, reflective practices, and scaffolding. |
| Emotional | Student’s emotional reaction and a sense of belonging and values | Interest, boredom, happiness, sadness, anxiety, isolation, loneliness, and recognition |
How to Engage Students Online
One thing to note is that students’ preferences for engagement can vary based on personalities, gender, or study programs. Some students prefer low engagement, while others seek high involvement. For instance, solitary learners focus more on content and valuing independence, while those with collaborative or competitive personalities demand more interaction (Sherry, 1995; Yuan & Kim, 2014). Some research also shows that social science students tend to participate more than STEM peers who prefer passive activities like viewing content. Genders also diverge; females engage more in online discussions than male students (Davidson-Shivers et al., 2001; Finnegan et al., 2008).
So then, what are strategies to engage students online that encompass behavioral, cognitive, and social dimensions?
Student engagement is often associated with constructivism, a learning theory promoting student-centered learning (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999).
Collaborative methods like group work and project-based learning are some approaches that prioritize student involvement and are particularly effective for large online classrooms; dividing students into smaller groups enhances intimacy and connectedness (Davis et al., 2018).
Interactive media like simulations, gaming or interactive video lectures immerse students in real-life scenarios and online interaction, boosting learning and motivation (Antonaci et al., 2019).
Well-structured online discussion forums can promote meaningful engagement and higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) when provided with clear rules, expectations, and models (Davidson-Shivers et al., 2001; Wang & Chen, 2008).
| Strategies | Rationale | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Collaboration (group work, project-based learning). | Promotes intimacy and connectedness. | Good for any class size, particularly large classrooms with over 20 students. Good for large classes. |
| Interactive Media (Simulation, gaming, interactive video lectures). | Promotes collaboration and interactivity. | Integrate games, simulations, and interactive video lectures. |
| Online Discussions/ Forums. | Promotes knowledge sharing, meaning-making, and HOTS | Set up rules and expectations beforehand and provide examples of good answers. Good online discussions should be systematic and meaningful, not undirected, unreflective and random exchanges of opinions. |
Find more resources on student engagement by clicking this link.
In conclusion, student engagement is vital for online learning, fueling cognitive and affective growth. It forms a sense of authenticity and vitality in virtual settings. Engagement varies, but active participation is paramount for meaningful learning. Importantly, online engagement requires facilitation by instructors and designers; it won’t spontaneously develop. What are your strategies to engage students in your online courses?
References
Allmendinger, K. (2010). Social presence in synchronous virtual learning situations: The role of nonverbal signals displayed by avatars. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9117-8
Antonaci, A., Klemke, R., & Specht, M. (2019, August). The effects of gamification in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. In Informatics (Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 32). MDPI.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Tanner, E. J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.2190/6DCH-BEN3-V7CF-QK47
Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers and Education, 125(June), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.019
Finnegan, C., Morris, L. V., & Lee, K. (2008). Differences by course discipline on student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses of undergraduate general education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.10.1.d
Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications of interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01694.x
Hu, M., & Li, H. (2017, June). Student engagement in online learning: A review. In 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 39-43). IEEE.
Jolivette, B. (2006). Social Presence and its Relevancy to Cognitive and Affective Learning in an Asynchronous Distance-Learning Environment: A Preliminary Literature Review. Online Submission, 1996, 533–539. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED492717
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618.
Sherry, L. (1995). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational …, 1(4), 337–365. http://www.editlib.org/p/8937?nl
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
Wang, Y., & Chen, D.-T. V. (2008). Essential Elements in Designing Online Discussions To Promote Cognitive Presence – a Practical Experience. Online Learning, 12(3), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3.23
Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12042