Power Up Your Online Course: Proven Tools for Student Engagement

Why Online Student Engagement Matters

Just like in traditional classrooms, online learning requires active student participation to foster meaningful interactions. However, the lack of physical presence can lead to feelings of isolation, disengagement, and low course completion rates. Research highlights that building a strong sense of community is crucial for sustaining enrollment and improving student satisfaction (Jolivette, 2006; Lee & Choi, 2011).

How Engagement Varies

Student engagement goes beyond physical participation, encompassing cognitive (how students learn) and emotional (why students learn) dimensions, each playing a crucial role in the learning process (Hu & Li, 2017).

• Behavioral Engagement involves observable actions such as reading course materials, asking questions, participating in discussions, and completing assignments. For example, a student who actively participates in a group discussion or submits assignments on time is demonstrating behavioral engagement.
• Cognitive Engagement refers to the mental strategies students use to engage with content, including critical thinking and problem-solving. While not always visible, this type of engagement requires active mental effort and often involves instructor support. For example, a student reflecting on their learning, using strategies like self-testing, or engaging with feedback to improve their understanding of a concept shows cognitive engagement.
• Emotional Engagement concerns students’ feelings toward the course and their sense of belonging. Though not easily observable, emotional engagement deeply influences motivation and learning outcomes. For instance, a student who feels excited and motivated to learn due to a personal interest in the subject is emotionally engaged, while another who feels isolated or anxious may struggle to stay engaged.

In addition to behavioral, cognitive, and emotional dimensions, student engagement can also vary based on personality, gender, and study programs. Some students prefer lower levels of engagement, while others thrive on higher involvement. For example, solitary learners tend to focus more on content and value independence, whereas those with collaborative or competitive personalities seek more interaction (Sherry, 1995; Yuan & Kim, 2014). Research also indicates that social science students typically engage more in behaviour compared to their STEM counterparts, who show more cognitive engagement, like content viewing. Gender differences are also evident, with females generally participating more in online discussions compared to males (Davidson-Shivers et al., 2001; Finnegan et al., 2008).

How to Effectively Engage Students Online?

To engage students effectively in online learning, it's essential to address the three dimensions of engagement: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional. This can be achieved through various strategies, all of which are grounded in constructivism—a learning theory that emphasizes student-centered learning and collaboration (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). All the tools listed below are available at UMass.

Some tips:

• For large online classrooms (e.g., over 20 students), 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 also promote meaningful engagement and higher-order thinking skills when provided with clear rules, expectations, and models. Good online discussions should be systematic and meaningful, not undirected, unreflective and random exchanges of opinions (Davidson-Shivers et al., 2001; Wang & Chen, 2008).

In conclusion, student engagement is crucial for online learning. It extends beyond behavioural aspects to encompass cognitive and emotional growth. While engagement may vary among students, active participation remains essential for meaningful learning. Notably, instructors and course designers must intentionally facilitate online engagement; it does not develop spontaneously.

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

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause, 1–12. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-

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.

Rourke, L., & Garrison, D. R. (2001). Journal of Distance Education / Revue de l ’ enseignement à distance ( 2001 ) The Community of Inquiry Model. Elements, 14(2001), 1–18.

Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62.

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

Tu, C. H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-learning, 1(2), 34-45.

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