Online Learner Engagement in Higher Education: Part 1 – Theory

Yıl 2023, , 197 - 218, 30.08.2023

Brad Bell

https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1302112

Öz

The level of online learner involvement has a significant impact on the effectiveness and quality of higher education. Online learner engagement, however, is also a complicated, multifaceted idea that has developed through time and been defined and assessed in various ways by various academics and practitioners. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the theoretical and practical aspects of online learner engagement in higher education. In Part 1, we trace the historical development of the concept of learner engagement from the 19th to the 21st centuries, and examine its current understanding and challenges. We also review some of the most prominent frameworks and models that have been proposed to conceptualize, design, implement, and evaluate online learner engagement. Later, in Part 2, we present some of the best practices and strategies that have been proven to enhance online learner engagement in various disciplines and contexts. We also discuss some of the emerging trends and future directions for research and practice in this field. We hope that this paper will serve as a useful resource for educators, researchers, and policymakers who are interested in improving online learner engagement in higher education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Learner engagement, online learning, higher education, educational theory

Yüksek Öğretimde Çevrimiçi Öğrenci Katılımı: Bölüm 1 – Teori

Öz

Çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımı, yüksek öğretimin kalitesini ve etkililiğini etkileyen önemli bir faktördür. Bununla birlikte, çevrimiçi öğrenen katılımı, zaman içinde gelişen ve farklı akademisyenler ve uygulayıcılar tarafından farklı şekillerde tanımlanmış ve ölçülen karmaşık ve çok boyutlu bir kavramdır. Bu yazıda, yüksek öğretimde çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımının teorik ve pratik yönlerine kapsamlı bir genel bakış sunmayı amaçlıyoruz. 1. Bölümde, öğrenen katılımı kavramının 19. yüzyıldan 21. yüzyıla kadar olan tarihsel gelişiminin izini sürüyoruz ve mevcut anlayışını ve zorluklarını inceliyoruz. Ayrıca, çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımını kavramsallaştırmak, tasarlamak, uygulamak ve değerlendirmek için önerilen en önemli çerçevelerden ve modellerden bazılarını da gözden geçiriyoruz. Daha sonra, 2. Bölümde, çeşitli disiplinlerde ve bağlamlarda çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımını arttırdığı kanıtlanmış en iyi uygulamalardan ve stratejilerden bazılarını sunuyoruz. Ayrıca, bu alanda araştırma ve uygulama için ortaya çıkan bazı trendleri ve gelecekteki yönelimleri tartışıyoruz. Bu makalenin, yüksek öğretimde çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımını artırmakla ilgilenen eğitimciler, araştırmacılar ve politika yapıcılar için yararlı bir kaynak olarak hizmet edeceğini umuyoruz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğrenci katılımı, çevrimiçi öğrenme, yüksek öğrenim, eğitim teorisi

Kaynakça

• AACSB. (2021). Instruction vs. Discovery Learning. https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/articles/2021/07/instruction-vs-discovery-learning-in-the-business-classroom Archambault, L., Leary, H., & Rice, K. (2022). Pillars of online pedagogy: A framework for teaching in online learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 178-191.
• Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. https://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-5%20Issue-6/Version-1/I05616670.pdf
• Briede, B. (2014). A constructivist approach in teaching in higher education for getting methodological and reflection competences. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-constructivist-approach-in-teaching-in-higher-for-Briede-P%C4%93ks/a249bc71ef57fd774fa079b5fb5d937d0aafe877
• Brown, A., Lawrence, J., Basson, M., Axelsen, M., Redmond, P., Turner, J., Maloney, S., & Galligan, L. (2021). A conceptual framework to enhance student online learning and engagement in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1860912
• Brown, A., Lawrence, J., Basson, M., Axelsen, M., Redmond, P., Turner, J., Maloney, S., & Galligan, L. (2022). The creation of a nudging protocol to support online student engagement in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 146978742110390. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874211039077
• Carroll, M., Rebensky, S., Chaparro, M., & Winslow, B. (2021). An applied model of learner engagement and strategies for increasing learner engagement in the modern educational environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 757–771.
• Charland, P., Léger, P., Sénécal, S., Courtemanche, F., Mercier, J., Skelling, Y., & Labonté-LeMoyne, É. (2015). Assessing the Multiple Dimensions of Engagement to Characterize Learning: A Neurophysiological Perspective. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 101. https://doi.org/10.3791/52627
• Coetzee, M., Redmond, P., & Thinyane, H. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. In P. Redmond, J. Lock, & P. Danaher (Eds.), Educational innovations and contemporary technologies: Enhancing teaching and learning (pp. 19-36). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7774-2_2
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row.
• Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z
• Bond, T. G. (2012). Piaget’s Learning Theory. In Springer eBooks (pp. 2634–2636). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_39
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
• Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145–178.
• Kahu, E., Brown, A., Lawrence, J., Basson, M., & Redmond, P. (2023). A conceptual framework to enhance student online learning and engagement using course learning analytics and nudging strategies. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1860912
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
• Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.
• Lu, H. (2020). Online learning: The meanings of student engagement. Education Journal, 9(3), 73.
• Martin, F., & Borup, J. (2022). Online learner engagement: Conceptual definitions, research themes, and supportive practices. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 162-177.
• Narayanan, M. (2012). Assessment of discovery approach. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/assessment-of-discovery-approach.pdf
• Nardo, A. (2021). Exploring a Vygotskian Theory of Education and Its Evolutionary Foundations. Educational Theory, 71(3), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12485
• Paas, F., Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory: New Conceptualizations, Specifications, and Integrated Research Perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8
• Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-Load Theory: Methods to Manage Working Memory Load in the Learning of Complex Tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183
• Rajabalee, Y., & Santally, M. I. (2021). Learner satisfaction, engagement and performances in an online module: Implications for institutional e-learning policy. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2623–2656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10375-1
• Rebensky, S., Chaparro, M., & Carroll, M. (2020). Optimizing the Learning Experience: Examining Interactions Between the Individual Learner and the Learning Context. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50896-8_2
• Redmond, P., Abawi, L., Brown, A., Henderson, R., & Heffernan, A. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204.
• Reese, D. D. (2016). Dashboard Effects Challenge Flow-Learning Assumption in Digital Instructional Games. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 231–287). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-801738-8.00011-7
• Rivera, E. S., & Palmer Garden, C. L. (2021). Gamification for student engagement: a framework. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(7), 999-1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1875201
• Silvola, A., Järvelä, S., Kaveri, A., & Muukkonen, H. (2021). Expectations for supporting student engagement with learning analytics: An academic path perspective. Computers and Education, 168, 104192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104192
• Stanford. (n.d.) Increasing Student Engagement. Stanford Teaching Commons. https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/teaching-guides/foundations-course-design/learning-activities/increasing-student-engagement
• Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292.
• Thompson, P. (2019). 2.1 Cognitive Development: The Theory of Jean Piaget. Pressbooks. https://open.library.okstate.edu/foundationsofeducationaltechnology/chapter/2-cognitive-development-the-theory-of-jean-piaget/
• Wong, Z. Y., & Liem, G. A. D. (2021). Student Engagement: Current State of the Construct, Conceptual Refinement, and Future Research Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 107–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09628-3