Running head: ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Online learning and student engagement in higher education

Assignment Three: Review of the Literature

Student: Corrine McCormick-Brighton

Course: EDUC 5002G Research Methods

UOIT

Professor: Dr. Lorayne Robertson

Due Date: November 25, 2012

Online Learning (e-learning) is evolving and available in a few formats. The three main online
learning structures are: Distance Education which has two facets: synchronous and asynchronous, and

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

2
Hybrid or Blended which involves an online component and some face-to-face time. I will provide a
review of the literature based on higher education, technology and student engagement in the online
classroom. Specifically, I will discuss the research findings on the effectiveness of distance education, and
identify any gaps in the research that require further investigation.
Student engagement is a familiar phrase in the education system; it involves student interaction with
peers, faculty and campus support services. The National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE) considers
engagement as the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally
purposeful activities as well as how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum
and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies
show are linked to student learning (Kuh, 2004). The engagement dimensions are based on the prevalent
Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education by Chickering and Gamson (1987).
The explosion of web based learning.
Salway and Caruso (2008) noted that most students arrive on campus with their own
technological devices such as, tablets, laptops, cell phones and portable music players; and the institution
meets this need with wireless internet available throughout the campus. Chen, Lambert and Guidry (2010)
contend that most higher education campuses have Learning Management Systems and that the students
anticipate utilising some form of technology for learning.
For the most part students are familiar with technology and use it daily. Campuses have risen to meet this
demand in technology usage and have adopted platforms for communicating, and teaching. Faculty have
training opportunities available to interact with the technology and communicate with todays student.
There is a demand for online learning in higher education and a push toward campuses meeting these
needs. Chen et al., (2010) found that students who took online courses were more likely to use web
technologies to enhance their learning, and communicate with faculty and students.

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

3
Worth mentioning is that students technological abilities can influence their predisposition to succeed
online, as well as poor participation, procrastination and feelings of isolation (Rabe-Hemp et al., 2009).
The explosion of online learning may be linked to the typical rationale for taking courses in this format
such as, employment, financial, child care and it was noted that most students are ethnic minorities, and
part-time (Chen et al., 2010). Also of interest in their study was that some online students were senior
level in a professional field or freshman in business programs. The authors posed the following question
for future research: Are students registering in online courses for the higher quality education or for
convenience, although they figured it was the later (pg.1229).
Quality education and interactions in an online learning environment. Engaging students and meeting
learning outcomes.
The increasing demand for online education and the accountability for quality higher education
have prompted many researchers and administrators to examine how they conduct business. According to
Robinson and Hullinger (2008), measurements of student engagement offer valuable indicators of
educational quality (p.101). Robinson and Hullinger (2008) expressed student engagement addresses
academic effort and quality of active learning, instead of just focussing on student grade results. Students
who are engaged will access campus and course resources that are available (p.102). It was highlighted by
the authors that facilitating, mentoring and moderating are techniques that encourage student engagement
(p.102). Bucy (2003), noted that most research is attempting to replicate in online classes what is done in
face-to-face classes. The recommendation is to identify what is done well in the online learning
environment, and if students are learning what is intended (p. 7). Robinson and Hullinger (2008) reinforce
that online education can be developed in ways that are consistent with the good practice principles
described by Chickering and Ehrmann (1996). Findings reported that online students had higher levels
of engagement than both freshman and seniors on campus (Robinson and Hullinger (2008).

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

4
Chen et al., (2010) saw that a relationship exists between students who engage in course related
technologies and those who engage in other ways on learning outcomes and gains while at college.
According to the authors technology has a stronger impact earlier in the college experience. Chen et al.
(2010) recognize that it is possible that students who are typically more engaged tend to use technology
more. Indeed, the authors recognised the benefits of web technology and accepted the criticisms for
certain populations (low socio-economic status) being at a disadvantage.
Rabe-Hemp, Woollen, and Humistron (2009) explored the comparative forms of student learning
associated with large lecture hall and online settings. They were able to make conclusions about the
ability of undergraduate online students to be engaged, to interact and to learn autonomously. The
researchers administered pre and post-test surveys online to capture a variety of experimental and
academic performance measures; in addition, relevant demographic information and technology comfort
levels were obtained to determine if student engagement and subsequent success were conditional upon
these personal characteristics. Recordings, both video and transcription of discussion were utilised in both
settings and the same faculty member taught both sections.
The literature reveals that criticisms were identified regarding student concern about interaction between
student and faculty as being inferior in online courses to that of traditional courses (Rabe-Hemp et al.,
2009). Current literature finds that despite physical distance between the faculty and student in online
learning the interaction is achieved and often exceeds that of face-to-face (Rabe-Hemp et al., 2009). The
article highlights that if students are involved in the development of their learning and if they are active,
purposeful participants in their quality education experience then learning outcomes will be enhanced (p.
208). The authors point out the well-known fact, that if students are engaged it will contribute to skill
foundation and dispositions that are key to live a productive and satisfying life after college (Rabe-Hemp
et al., 2009).

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

5
According to Rabe-Hemp et al., (2009) autonomous learners can be defined as motivated and accepting of
their responsibility as learners. A student centred approach to teaching involves interaction, reflection and
discussion and is linked to higher order thinking, academic performance and personal development (p.
208).The authors draw attention to the benefits of synchronous sessions in online learning to maintain
interactions. Online learning may be significant to the student who would otherwise not participate in a
large lecture hall class discussion, because online modalities allow for reflection and ease in sharing ideas
(Rabe-Hemp et al., 2009). There are however, experts that feel that is unfounded and one of many
misconceptions of online learning. They argue, is an online discussion a real discussion at all? (Kanuka
and Kelland, 2008, p.57).
Perceptions from experts, faculty, and students of the quality in online learning experiences.
A small number of faculty (seven) and students (ninety-five) in one discipline participated in a
Mixed Methods study illuminating the perspectives of instructors and students involved in a graduate
level synchronous online course (Ward, Peters and Shelley, 2010). The authors identify that some faculty
are apprehensive to offer online courses due to concerns relating to the impact of quality instruction,
learning and participant interaction and challenges such as, time preparing course content and
technological difficulties (p.57).
The researchers focussed on three areas of theory that are part of desirable learning environments:
pedagogical orientation; social constructivism; and immediacy and interaction while addressing three
types of learning environments: synchronous and asynchronous online, and face-to-face (Ward, et al.,
2010, p. 59). It appears as though faculty and students view synchronous interactive online instruction
(SIOI) favourably. There were challenges associated with implementation of SIOI, but the social
interaction was meaningful and productive and the student evaluations reported quality learning
experiences. Most of the teachers would facilitate a course in this format again and likewise for the
students in participating in this method of instruction. The authors recommend that more research is

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

6
needed to ensure required design principles for implementing effective interaction activities within web
based learning occurs. It is also highlighted that synchronous online learning is fairly new and more
research is needed.
Kanuka and Kelland (2008) ask the question: Has e-learning delivered on its promises? The researchers
wanted to determine if the experts agree on the impact of e-learning technology in Canadian higher
education. The fourteen experts participated in a qualitative study involving group interviews that
revealed there are misconceptions of e-learning. The authors pin-point that early adopters of e-learning
argued that there are new possibilities that permit collaboration and break down barriers of distance and
access to high quality education. Kanuka and Kelland (2008) highlight that the literature is inconsistent
stating that some researchers believe that e-learning has a positive impact on student learning, is effective
at achieving student participation and, improves critical thinking. The authors describe that we know
little about what works, why, in what ways and under what conditions.the research on this topic reveals
that perhaps the only aspect that research has shown , with consistency, is that deep, meaningful learning
is not easily achieved in the e-learning classroom (pg.47).
Further studies should be conducted due to the rapid rate of growth in online technologies and the
implementation of this modality in higher education.
Robinson and Hullinger (2008), suggest tracking trends in engagement and uncovering what relationships
exist between engagement data and other valid measures of student learning; in other words, what
promotes engagement in the online classroom.
Some common themes have emerged in this research in that many highlight valuable tools to
assess student engagement and the principles of good practice in undergraduate education. With sound
assessment tools and an underlying foundation of what works for student success in the traditional
classroom on campus and what can work for online learning in its many forms is beneficial for faculty

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

7
and administrators to consider when designing and supporting these modalities on our campuses;
although it is important to recognize the online environment as a new place to be explored.
Is the shared goal in education to promote skills for people to contribute to society in a meaningful way?
The research is enlightening and valuable as to how we conceptualize the business of teaching and
learning. It is essential to consider expert opinion and design methods to advance our techniques and
systems.
The research suggests that since the 1990s when online learning emerged it has grown substantially. The
current provincial government mandate is to increase online course development in post-secondary
education. It is clear that retention and student success are important to our institutions. It is evident that
engagement is essential and that there are good practices that should be implemented across the board in
every course and on each campus. Indeed, connecting, innovating and challenging our students will
enhance their studies, relationships, careers and future contributions in life. Why do we still face attrition
and failure rates in post-secondary programs? Are students ready for us?
Anecdotally, I have observed that when teaching or advising some community college students have
apprehension to register in online or hybrid courses; they think online means no teacher. They worry that
a real person will not be guiding them, or that they cannot teach themselves. I have had discussions
with students that believe online courses will be easier and less work. I want to know where these
perceptions come from.
I have read research that indicates that learning styles do not affect student success in an online course,
instead it has more to do with motivation, and self-direction; however, I would like to explore this area
more.
Should all courses be delivered online, or are there certain subjects that cannot be taught successfully
online? With the available technology that can be utilised is it distracting or enhancing the learning?

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

8
Synchronous learning is beneficial and seems to recreate a face-to-face environment, in so far as, students
can complete presentations, view facial expressions, have discourse and can ask the professor for support
or clarification in class, but does this still lend itself to the convenience of asynchronous online
learning? What about the fear of technology in synchronous and asynchronous environments, especially
with the malfunctions that students and faculty face?
I have many questions and I suspect as I continue to immerse myself in the topic research that more will
become clear, or perhaps I have uncovered a few gaps.

ONLINE LEARNING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

9

References
Bucy, M.C. (2003). Online classes: The student experience (No. AAT 30984120).
Corvallis: Oregon State University. (Proquest Digital Dissertations).
Chen, P.D., Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2009). Engaging online learners: The impact
of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Journal of
Computers & Education, 54, 1222-1232.
Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F., (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann, S.C., (1996). Implementing the seven principles:
Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin (October), 3-6.
Kanuka, H., & Kelland, J., (2008). Has e-Learning Delivered on its Promises? Expert
Opinion on the Impact of e-Learning in Higher Education. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 38(1), 45-65.
Kuh, G.D. (2004). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework
and overview of psychometric properties, <http://nsse.iub.edu/2004_annual_report/
pdf/2004_Conceptual_Framework.pdf>.
Rabe-Hemp, C., Woollen, S., & Humiston, G.S., (2009). A COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS
OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, LEARNING, AND SATISFACTION IN LECTURE
HALL AND ONLINE SETTINGS. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
10(2), 207-218.
Robinson, C.C., & Hullinger, H., (2008). New Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student
Engagement in Online Learning. Journal of Education for Business, (November
December), 101-108.
Salway, G., & Caruso, J.B., (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and
information technology. http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUnd
ergraduateStu/163283.
Ward, M.E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K., (2010). Student and Faculty Perceptions of the
Quality of Online Learning Experiences. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 11(3), 57-77.