FOCUSED LITERATURE REVIEW #7: “Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment“
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. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
In their research study, Martin and Bolliger issued a 38-question survey to 155 students in a variety of programs at 8 geographically and structurally diverse U.S. universities, asking online learners questions about three key engagement strategies in recent courses: learner-to-learner, learner-to-faculty, and learner-to-content. The researchers sought to answer three questions:
- Which strategies do students perceive to be most important in the three categories of engagement?
- Which strategies do learners identify as most valuable and least valuable to engaging them in the online environment?
- Are there differences in responses based on age, gender, and years of online learning experience?
These questions led to the following findings:
- In the learner-to-learner category, in which students feel a dynamic sense of community, students rated introduction discussions, icebreakers, and collaborative projects using online tools as most beneficial. Least beneficial was “virtual lounges” for informal discussions outside of structured class activities.
- In the learner-to-instructor category, students noted instructors sending regular announcements, email reminders, timely feedback, and the provision of grading rubrics for all assignments as most beneficial. Reflection activities were rated least favored for engagement—though this is inconsistent with much prior research on the topic.
- In learner-to-content—which refers to the intellectual interaction with content, including reading online, watching videos, taking online quizzes, and completing assignments—students preferred real-world projects, case studies, and discussions with structured or guiding questions as most beneficial to their engagement. Many students rated synchronous meetings as least beneficial, though this contradicts much prior research on the topic.
Definitions of engagement vary widely in the literature (Halverson and Graham, 2019), and the terms “interaction” and “engagement” are often used interchangeably. Accordingly the authors chose Moore’s framework (1993) on the three kinds of interaction to measure engagement. In the presentation of their framework, they cite subsequent research specifically in online learning that supports the validity and value of each of the three kinds of engagement. As such, implementing strategies to increase engagement is critical to improving student learning and student satisfaction in online courses, even moreso in an age where engagement has dethroned content as king (Banna et. al, 2015). Citing a wide body of research, Martin and Bolliger conclude that “Interactivity and sense of community result in high-quality instruction and more effective learning outcomes.”
Participation in this study was voluntary. The research sample was 67% female, and the survey respondents were not surprisingly primarily involved in the study of education. More than half of them were graduate students, and all were adults.
Notably, among adult learners, the simultaneously most and least favored activity was online discussion forums. One student commented that online forums felt like busy work, even when well-designed. Two other common strategies, synchronous meetings and videos, were rated as most valuable by some and least valuable by others. All of this clearly depends on the quality of the video and applicability to the work, and regarding sync meetings, this may be related to students’ reasons for taking online courses in the first place. Notably, those trying to manage an already busy schedule found it counterproductive to have to schedule and attend synchronous meetings. Additional strategies rated very important were: a variety of instructional materials (video, readings, web resources, multimedia), structured discussions, and real-world application.
Regarding age, gender, and experience, the only statistically significant results were the following: females appreciated having access to additional resources to explore in more depth; younger students appreciated more frequent check-ins from the instructor, and students with less online learning experience appreciated having more opportunities for online “hangouts,” check-ins from the instructor, and greater variety of content.
Interestingly, the most appreciated activity across the board was ice-breaker activities, followed by collaborative activities using online tools. The least important was the idea of a virtual lounge for informal discussions outside of class—but note that this study was of mostly adult students who likely have busy lives outside of school. Secondly, it is important to note most of the courses reported on in this study were entirely asynchronous.
It is important to note the study’s limitations: a relatively small sample size, the fact that data was self-reported, and the somewhat limited list of strategies included in the survey. Also, the researchers had no control over the design of the courses, the delivery of them, or the instructors. Despite these limitations, this 2019 study has been cited in 1462 other works as of 11/8/2023.
The most important aspect of this study confirms what much other research has also shown: Instructor presence is everything. In short: students “want to know that someone ‘on the other end’ is paying attention. Online learners want instructors who support, listen to, and communicate with them.”
SOURCES NOTED:
Banna, J., Lin, M.-F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249–261.
Halverson, L.R., & Graham, C.R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145-178. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481
Moore, M. J. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education theory (pp. 19–24). New York: Routledge.
Susan Gedutis Lindsay 