An analytical review of the literature on

student engagement

Amy Barrieau

Student Engagement in Online Learning INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the theme of student engagement in online learning. Student engagement refers to levels of contribution and patterns of participation that result in successful social and subject-related experiences online (Brett, 2004). According to Paulus, Horvitz and Shi (2006) engagement is viewed as a key component of learning environments and is evident through a students emotional reaction to and perceived credibility of content, as well as their level of reflection and application of learning. Richardson and Newby (2006) found that new online learners developed engagement slowly and only over time exhibited more deep engagement motives and strategies. Student engagement in online learning is an important theme because, as Mason (2011) indicated, online discussion forums are powerful tools that afford engaged students quality knowledge acquisition. Engagement in online learning represents a feeling of connectedness to course material, a dedication to participation and authentic interaction with peers (Conrad, 2002). Organization of the paper This paper begins with a methods section that describes how the analysis was conducted. The findings section reports on the analysis of 10 studies and the common themes that surfaced from those studies. The discussion section evaluates in-depth the emergent themes previously identified. Limitations, conclusions and implications are highlighted in the final section of this paper.

METHODS The 10 sources were selected from seven peer-reviewed educational technology journals. Because all sources were selected from educational technology journals, all included an electronic medium. The analysis included sources with the words engagement and online as part of the title. One article in this literature review used the word e-forum instead of the word online in the title. All sources fell within the context of education and learning. To figure as part of the analysis, the journal sources had to include research participants. This means that meta-analyses, book reviews etc were excluded. The studies selected ranged from publish dates of 2002 to 2011. Studies were chosen by searching the content of educational technology-related journals, in addition to searching the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database and Google Scholar Advanced. Searching by relevant keywords was used to identify the studies used in this review. The academic journals used for this analysis included the following seven journals: Technology, Pedagogy and Education; American Journal of Distance Education; Educational Technology & Society; Australian Journal of Educational Technology; International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning; Educational Technology Research and Development; ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology. The purpose of the analysis was to identify similarities and differences, to identify patterns and to highlight emerging themes in student engagement in online learning. Patterns and commonalities within and between studies identified and were categorized into
specific themes. The analysis resulted in the identification of five common themes related to student engagement in online learning. In all of the studies, participants took part in online learning via the internet. All

participants in each of the studies contributed to an online learning forum where they made textbased contributions to an online learning community. These text-based contributions were studied and referred to in each of the sources. Three of the studies followed a blended-learning plan where both online and face-to-face interactions occurred. One study considered engagement in an online story-based environment where learning was based on a set of given fictional scenarios. Another study focused on the validation of an instrument, called SQUAD, for measuring student engagement in online groups. SQUAD also represented a unique instructional framework for class interactions online, with the goal of increased student engagement. All of the studies, except for one, used post-secondary student participants, some of who were teachers at the pre-service or continued-education stage of their careers. One study used 14 researchers as participants. Participant numbers ranged from 14 to 121 participants. Two of the studies were conducted in Canada, three in the United States, four in Europe and one in Australia. Each study included qualitative elements of research. Qualitative methods of research aim to synthesize literature to gain an overall viewpoint on a topic (Cavanaugh et al., 2009). Four of the studies employed mixed-methods research involving both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Four of the studies used participant interviews. Five studies used participant surveys while seven studies coded textual data from online forums. Table 1 takes into account the descriptive characteristics of the studies considered in this analysis. Table 1: Characteristics of the studies analyzed

Study Brett, C. (2004)

Location Canada

Medium Online Forum; Face-to-Face Interactions Online Forum Online Forum

Participants 21 Pre-service teachers 28 Graduate students 14 Researchers

Conrad, D. (2002) Glahn, C., Specht, M., & Koper, R. (2009)

Canada Europe

Data Collection Coding of forum text; Participant Interviews Mixed Methods Survey Coding of forum text

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2003) Mason, R. B. (2011) McBrien, J., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009) Oriogun, P., Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2005) Paulus, T. M., Horvitz, B., & Shi, M. (2006) Richardson, J., & Newby, T. (2006) Skinner, E. (2009)

Australia

Online Forum

Europe

Online Forum; Face-to-Face Interactions Online Forum

Teachers, tutors, authors and designers of 6 online courses 26 University students 62 University students Student participants from 3 case studies 21 Graduate students 121 University students 25 Undergraduate students

Coding of forum text; Participant Interviews Coding of forum text; Questionnaire Survey Open-ended Survey Coding of forum text Coding of forum text; Participant interviews Student Perception Questionnaire Survey Coding of forum text; Participant interviews

USA

Europe

Online Forum

USA

Online StoryBased Environment Online Forum

USA

Europe

Online Forum; Face-to-Face Interactions

FINDINGS As a result of the analysis of the 10 sources, the following themes were generated as they related to student engagement online: the influence of time; the role of the instructor; personal relevancy and context; sense of efficacy and appreciation; challenges. The influence of time The influence of time on student engagement in online learning was identified as a theme in this analysis. A study of 20 pre-service math teachers involved in an online

learning conference revealed a trend towards greater engagement as time progressed in the conference (Brett, 2004). It was the first time any of the participants used an open computer communication system. Brett found that participants were initially hesitant to make contributions and subsequently engage in the online learning before them. More time to orient and become familiar with online learning equated to more engagement. Similarly, in a study of 14 department researchers, Glahn, Specht, and Koper (2009) found that the number of participatory actions online, which positively translated into levels of engagement, increased over the progression of time. From an examination of engagement in online discussion forums, Mason (2011) also found a lack of participation at the beginning of the course that resulted in students missing crucial stages that were meant to facilitate initial engagement and commitment to the course. In examining levels of cognitive engagement, Richardson et al. (2006) found that students with prior experience and time spent learning online engaged more deeply in the learning. Full time students had higher levels of engagement online, while younger participants were less engaged online. In authentic online learning scenarios, Herrington, Oliver, and Reeves (2003) found that learners must be willing to submit themselves to a suspension of disbelief in the content before engagement could occur. Herrington et al. also noted an initial delay learners experienced before committing themselves to the disbelief presented in the stories of the simulated scenarios. Preliminary resistance was attributed to an inability to accept the new learning environment because it differed so much from traditional methods. As Herrington et al. (2003) explained, one participant likened the delay of engagement in online learning to a theatre-going experience: If the actors dont win you over then you dont enjoy it, and you dont mentally

participate. So that very much puts the role of the tutor or mentor or lecturer in the forefront because they can either make or break the students attitude to the task and simulation in terms of how they are presented to the students and how seriously they take the situation. (p.6) Herrington et al. (2003) found that any beginning reluctance to engage was short-lived and students eventually became more accepting of the new learning environment. The role of the instructor The role of instructor in student engagement online was another theme that emerged from the findings. Conrad (2002) found that instructors who granted access to online material in advance of the course start date helped students develop a sense of engagement in the course and helped students gain trust and familiarity with the content, as well as a feel for the time commitment required. In the study, in-depth interaction with the instructor before the course start date did not, however, contribute to initial student engagement. The sense of engagement of most learners was stirred by a simple instructor welcome message and by the presence of clear instructor notes detailing how the course would unfold. Mason (2011) noted that students, who were not requested or reminded by their instructor to participate in an online forum, missed initial stages of the forum and lacked engagement throughout the duration of the course. Employing appropriate structures for engaged learning was found in some cases to be a responsibility of the instructor. Oriogun, Ravenscroft, and Cook (2005) found that instructors who employed the SQUAD framework for scaffolding online learner engagement helped increase student contributions and engagement over time, compared to other frameworks. To attain this engagement, the SQUAD framework required

instructors to encourage varied responses from student postings. The instructor required students to respond in the form of suggestions, questions, unclassified contributions, answers and delivery (SQUAD). Glahn et al. (2009) also found that when instructors employed appropriate structures, learning became more engaged. Glahn et al. found that when instructors posted performance indicators in an online course, participants were more effectively challenged to contribute. When indicators that compared contributions of individuals against the community were made available to students by course designers or instructors, students engaged more fervently in the learning. Personal relevancy and context Personal relevancy and context in online learning was another theme in the findings. Skinner (2009) found that an absence of personal connectedness to the activities in online learning resulted in poor participation from students. Glahn et al. (2009) found that participant activity increased when descriptive abstracts for links were personally interesting to the participant. Most participants enjoyed the social bookmarking capabilities of the online system and participated more frequently in this activity than the less favorable content browsing activity. Glahn et al. reported that a users social actions online were positively affected by the opportunity for personalization and choice in the activity. In the same way, Mason (2011) found that students were reluctant to engage in an online forum when they did not see any personal benefit to the task. Students were, however, motivated to engage in the forum when they harbored an intrinsic appreciation for the knowledge they would gain by participating. Paulus et al. (2006) had similar findings in their exploration of online story-based learning. Emotional reactions to characters prompted an initial engagement for students

who were empathetic to the characters situation. Developed scenes and characters gave context and credibility to the scenarios and consequently encouraged student engagement in discussion. Scenarios that were underdeveloped or unrealistic left students demotivated and disengaged. Students were engaged in learning when scenarios prompted personal reflection and awareness. When students were granted the opportunity to apply the learning by relating the scenario to their personal lives, students were more engaged. Sense of efficacy and appreciation Another theme was a students sense of personal efficacy and their appreciation for the value of online learning. Brett (2004) found that engagement in an online math conference was positively influenced by the students sense of efficacy in the areas of technology and math. As Brett (2004) explained, The online environment appeared in this study to work best for the verbal, confident and determined who, through early involvement in the online activity, created an identity and a sense of their own value and efficacy (p.93). Students who possessed these qualities became engaged because they appreciated the knowledge acquisition afforded by participating (Mason, 2011). Similarly, McBrien, Jones and Cheng (2009) found that engaged students appreciated learner autonomy in having the opportunity to participate in advanced discussion. Others who were engaged in learning were aware that without the option of online learning, they would otherwise not be able, or prefer, to participate. Challenges The findings indicated that there were challenges associated with student engagement in online learning. Brett (2004) found that factors including no home

internet access and technical difficulties with internet connection negatively influenced engagement in an online forum. The quantity and quality of participation in the online conference was negatively affected by technical difficulties involving terminal malfunction and slow access. In the same way, McBrien et al. (2009) also found that technical issues negatively affected learner engagement and the overall course experience for students. In the study, negative engagement related to specific technical difficulties including signing on to sessions, microphone problems and occasional disconnection from the session. Skinner (2009) found that technical difficulties or lack of technological knowhow was not significant in its effect on engagement. Interview data revealed that disengagement was caused by the fear and feelings of inadequacy students harbored with regard to posting discussion messages online. Similarly, Mason (2011) found that reasons for non-engagement included fear of contributing incorrect or wrong information that students believed may lead them to be perceived as inadequate by colleagues. DISCUSSION This analysis presented evidence to support a number of themes and arguments found throughout the sources. Under the theme of time, engagement increased over the timeframe of the learning experience. There was an an initial delay in online engagement and participation in studies conducted by Brett (2004), Glahn et al. (2009), Mason (2011) and Herrington et al. (2003). Reasons reported for initial hesitancies to engage included lack of familiarity with the format of online learning (Brett, 2004) and resistance to the new or different learning environment (Herrington et al., 2003). An increase in engagement in online learning over time was found in studies conducted by Brett (2004),

Richardson et al.(2006) and Herrington et al. (2003). Participants with more online experience engaged more readily because they were oriented and familiar with the format (Brett, 2004), were aware of how to deeply engage in the learning (Richardson et al., 2006) and were willing to commit to the suspended disbelief of a virtual setting (Herrington et al., 2003). The actions of the instructor in supporting student engagement online by providing guidance and appropriate content and structure were among the themes that emerged from the findings. Studies by Conrad (2002), Mason (2011), Oriogun et al. (2005) and Glahn (2009) all implicate the actions of instructor, before and during online sessions, as influential in affecting student engagement. Conrad (2002) found that precourse allotments like access to material, instructions and a welcome message, aided student engagement. Pre-planned course structures that targeted student engagement and that were consistently employed throughout the learning experience, were found to enhance student engagement in studies by Origon et al. (2005) and Glahn (2009). According to Mason (2011) instructors in a blended learning setting who were not vigilant in offering posts and encouraging and reminding students to participate, saw lower levels of student engagement in the online portion of their courses. Personal relevancy and context in online learning positively affected student engagement. Students who were found to feel connected (Skinner, 2009), personally interested (Glahn et al. 2009), and personally benefited by the task of online learning (Mason, 2011) were more apt to engage in online learning. Feelings of connectedness leading to engagement were synonymous with feelings of empathy, credibility and worth for the tasks put forth (Paulus et al., 2006). Similarly, Skinner (2009) came to the same

conclusion, finding that a lack of connectedness on the part of the student equated to poor engagement. Paulus et al. (2006) also found that personally relatable aspects of contextualized online learning, as well as opportunities for personal reflection regarding such scenarios, positively impacted student engagement. Students with a sense of personal efficacy and an appreciation for the value of the online learning experience were found to be more engaged. According to the findings of Brett (2004), when students felt confident in their subject-related skills, they were more engaged in the online learning conference. Engaged learners applied value and a sense of appreciation for the learning made available to them (McBrien et al., 2009 & Mason, 2011). Engaged participants were found to be appreciative of the options allotted by online learning access (McBrien et al., 2009). Similarly, Mason (2011) reported that engaged participants were aware of the value of such learning, including the opportunity for advanced discussion. The findings indicated that there were challenges associated with student engagement in online learning. Technical difficulties and feelings of inadequacy emerged as common challenges to student engagement. Technical difficulties ranging from lack of technical know-how to glitches in system access and speed were found to contribute to disengagement of students in the studies of both Brett (2004) and McBrien (2009). Conflicting findings were however put forth by Skinner (2009) who reported finding no significant relationship between technical difficulties and lack of engagement. Instead, Skinners findings attributed blame for lack of engagement on a students feelings of inadequacy and fear. This finding was echoed in Masons report where student engagement was found to be negatively affected by fears of contributing incorrect

or wrong information (2011). LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In terms of limitations, this analysis might have yielded different results if studies focused specifically on the engagement of novice, seasoned or veteran online learners. This may have impacted the analysis especially concerning the influence of time on student engagement. In this study, research participants came from a various educational backgrounds. Analyzing studies involving research participants of a particular educational background, like for example K-12, post-secondary, trained educator or other, may also have yielded different findings and perhaps more specific implications for inciting student engagement within those particular groups. Three of the studies in this analysis focused on blended learning, while the others involved online learning exclusively. Results may have been different if the analysis focused solely on studies involving blended learning or online learning. Three of the studies involved in this analysis mentioned the limitation of small sample sizes which may have affected results. Consequently, the findings put forth in this analysis could be potentially affected by these limitations. Richardson et al. (2006) found that participants were all volunteers and that data relating to students who did not volunteer may not be represented. This limitation can be applied to this analysis since all 10 studies involved participant volunteers. Different results may have been found if those who refused to volunteer participated. There are implications regarding the trend of increased engagement over time spent learning online. Teachers should use scaffolding methods of instruction to support new online learners. Implications regarding scaffolding are also reported by Brett (2004). Brett reported that support for new online learners needs to include the assurance of

reliable online access from the beginning, so that the constructive trajectory of engagement in online learning is possible. Herrington et al. (2003) also called for support and scaffolded learning, noting that it is especially necessary in the beginning weeks of online learning when learners are reluctant, unfamiliar with learning activities, and feeling ill-at-ease. Where possible, and as Mason (2011) suggested, facilitators need to introduce online tasks in a face-to-face forum to ensure that all students know how to navigate. They should provide more detail, instructions, and motivation to help students to become engaged earlier on. The role of instructor is crucial in most all implications put for in this analysis. Implications, regarding the role of instructor in providing guidance and appropriate content, parallel those of Conrad (2002). Such implications identify an advantage to early course access for online learners for the purposes of initial student engagement (Conrad, 2002). Early course access would require more time and effort from instructors and course developers. In terms of the instructors role to provide appropriate learning structures to incite optimal engagement, the SQUAD framework may be implemented by online course instructors to meet this need (Oriogun et al., 2005). Since personal relevancy and context in online learning positively affected student engagement, implications might suggest that students create online student profiles (Mason 2011). In doing so, instructors may be able to more aptly stir the emotional interests of students, and draw from a source of context when preparing discussion questions or when making personal contact with students who are just beginning online study (Skinner, 2009). Other implications that may provide context in online learning include providing learners with meaningful scenarios that are both

authentic and credible (Paulus et al., 2006). Time for the reflection and application of scenarios should be provided and also encouraged through prompts from the course facilitator. This analysis found that students with a sense of personal efficacy and an appreciation for the value of the online learning were found to be more engaged. Challenges involving technical difficulties and feelings of inadequacy also emerged. Implications call for clear expectations in online classrooms to increase engagement and decrease the feeling of distance and inadequacy in such environments (McBrien et al., 2009). Other implications identified by McBrien et al. (2009) included the idea that instructors need to be proactive and vigilant in ensuring opportunities for reflective online dialogue, free of technical glitches. Technical training and support for students is also important to learner autonomy and subsequent engagement in online learning.

REFERENCES Brett, C. (2004). Off-line factors contributing to online engagement. Technology,

Pedagogy and

Education, 13(1), 83-95.

Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in k-12 online learning : A review of open access literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1-22. Conrad, D. (2002). Engagement, excitement, anxiety, and fear: Learners' experiences of starting an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 205226. Glahn, C., Specht, M., & Koper, R. (2009). Visualisation of interaction footprints for engagement in online communities. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 44-57. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71. Mason, R. B. (2011). Student engagement with, and participation in, an e-forum. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 258268. McBrien, J., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-17. Oriogun, P., Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2005). Validating an approach to examining cognitive engagement within online groups. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 197-214. Paulus, T. M., Horvitz, B., & Shi, M. (2006). "Isn't it just like our situation?" Engagement and learning in an online story-based environment. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 355-385. Richardson, J., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students' cognitive engagement in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 23-37. Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: A case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89-100.