Yüksek Öğretimde Çevrimiçi Öğrenci Katılımı: Bölüm 2 – Pratik

Öz

Çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımı, çevrimiçi eğitimin kalitesi ve etkinliği için çok önemlidir. Öğrencilerin kurs içeriği, eğitmen ve akranları ile nasıl etkileşime girdiğini yansıtır. Ancak, çevrimiçi ortamlarda fiziksel ve sosyal ipuçlarının olmaması nedeniyle çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımı zor olabilir. Bu nedenle, çevrimiçi eğitimcilerin ve araştırmacıların, çevrimiçi öğrenci katılımını etkileyen faktörleri ve onu geliştirebilecek teknikleri anlamaları gerekir. Bu makale, çeşitli faktörleri (örneğin, teknoloji, içerik, öğrenci rolleri, aşırı bilgi yükü, işlem mesafesi, e-öğrenme sermayesi, algılanan fayda, bilgisayar öz yeterliliği, motivasyonel inançlar ve öğrenme stratejileri) ve teknikleri (örneğin, sosyal, bilişsel, çevrimiçi öğrenen katılımı için davranışsal, işbirlikçi, duygusal, oyunlaştırma ve simülasyon). Ayrıca, çevrimiçi öğrenen katılımını ölçmek için kullanılan yöntemleri ve araçları da gözden geçirir (ör. kişisel raporlar, davranış günlükleri, fizyolojik ölçümler, öğrenme analitiği, gözlem ve geri bildirim, ölçekler ve anketler). Makale, çevrimiçi eğitim uygulaması ve araştırması için ana bulguların ve çıkarımların bir özeti ile sona eriyor ve gelecekteki araştırmalar için bazı yönler öneriyor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğrenci katılımı
• çevrimiçi öğrenme
• yüksek öğrenim
• eğitimsel pratik

Online Learner Engagement in Higher Education: Part 2 – Practice

Öz

Online learner engagement is a key factor for the quality and effectiveness of online education. It refers to the degree of involvement, participation, and interest that students show in their online courses and how they interact with the content, the instructor, and their peers. However, engaging online learners can be challenging due to the lack of physical presence, social cues, and immediate feedback that are often present in face-to-face settings. Therefore, it is important for online educators and researchers to understand the factors that influence online learner engagement and the educational techniques that can enhance it. This paper discusses the factors that influence online learner engagement, such as technology and interface characteristics, content area experience, student roles and instructional tasks, information overload, transactional distance, e-learning capital, perceived usefulness, computer self-efficacy, motivational beliefs, and learning strategies. It also reviews the educational techniques that can enhance online learner engagement, such as social engagement, cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, collaborative engagement, and emotional engagement. Moreover, it explores the gamification and simulation techniques that can also enhance online learner engagement by providing interactive and immersive learning experiences. Finally, it examines the methods and instruments for measuring online learner engagement, such as self-reports, behavioral logs, physiological measures, learning analytics, observation and feedback, and various scales and surveys. The paper concludes with a summary of the main findings and implications for online education practice and research, and identifies some gaps in the existing literature and suggests some directions for future research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Learner engagement
• online learning
• higher education
• educational practice

Kaynakça

1. About NSSE. (n.d.). Evidence-Based Improvement in Higher Education. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/about-nsse/index.html
2. Adobe eLearning. (2020). 15 tips and strategies to engage remote learners through high-impact virtual training. https://elearning.adobe.com/2020/12/15-tips-and-strategies-to-engage-remote-learners-through-high-impact-virtual-training/
3. Al Mamun, M. A., & Lawrie, G. (2021). The impact of learning strategies on online learner engagement in higher education: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1979–2000. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13221
4. Altuwairqi, K., Jarraya, S. K., Allinjawi, A., & Hammami, M. (2021). Student behavior analysis to measure engagement levels in online learning environments. Signal, Image and Video Processing, 15(7), 1387-1395.
5. Bacila, M. F., Pop, M. C., Scridon, M. A., & Ciornea, R. (2014). Development of an instrument for measuring student satisfaction in business educational institutions. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 16(37), 841-856.
6. Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2022). Developing an online learner satisfaction framework in higher education through a systematic review of research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00355-5
7. Bonner, E., Garvey, K., Miner, M., Godin, S., & Reinders, H. (2022). Measuring real-time learner engagement in the Japanese EFL classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-11.
8. Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Heinemann, A. (2021). A scoping review of research instruments for measuring student engagement: In need for convergence. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100099

9. Carr, R., Palmer, S., & Hagel, P. (2015). Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415589529 Chans, G. M., & Castro, M. P. (2021). Gamification as a Strategy to Increase Motivation and Engagement in Higher Education Chemistry Students. Computers, 10(10), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10100132
10. Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
11. Coates, H., & Radloff, A. (2008). AUSSE 2008 development and methodology. Australian Council for Educational Research.
12. https://web.archive.org/web/20091010131234/http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AUSSE_2008DevelopmentAndMethodology.pdf
13. Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245-262.
14. Dickinson, K. J. (2021). Assessing learner engagement with virtual educational events: Development of the Virtual In-Class Engagement Measure (VIEM). The American Journal of Surgery, 222(6): 1044-1049. MEDLINE. https://search.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/en/covidwho-1439836
15. Dickinson, K. J., Caldwell, K. E., Graviss, E. A., Nguyen, D. T., Awad, M. M., & Tan, S. (2021). Assessing learner engagement with virtual educational events: Development of the Virtual In-Class Engagement Measure (VIEM). The American Journal of Surgery, 222(6), 1044-1049.
16. Dickinson, K., Caldwell, K., Graviss, E. A., Nguyen, D. T., Awad, M., Olasky, J., Tan, S., Winer, J., & Pei, K. (2022). Perceptions and behaviors of learner engagement with virtual educational platforms. The American Journal of Surgery, 224(1), 371–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.02.043
17. Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), n4.
18. Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z
19. Fabian, K., Smith, S. E., Taylor‐Smith, E., & Meharg, D. (2022). Identifying factors influencing study skills engagement and participation for online learners in higher education during COVID‐19. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1915–1936. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13221
20. Farrell, O., & Brunton, J. (2020). A balancing act: a window into online student engagement experiences. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00199-x
21. Ferrer, J., Ringer, A., Saville, K., Parris, M. A., & Kashi, K. (2020). Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: The importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Education, 83(2), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5
22. Glantz, E., Gamrat, C., Lenze, L., & Bardzell, J. (2021). Improved student engagement in higher education’s next normal. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/3/improved-student-engagement-in-higher-educations-next-normal
23. Hagel, P., Carr, R., & Devlin, M. (2012). Conceptualising and measuring student engagement through the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE): A critique. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 475-486.
24. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192 Hickey, D. T. (2022). Situative approaches to online engagement, assessment, and equity. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 221-225.
25. Hrastinski, S., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Stenbom, S. (2018). Tutoring online learners in higher education: A model for identifying and developing roles and competencies of online tutors. TechTrends, 62(4), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z
26. Kahn, P. H., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I. M., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9484-z
27. Kara, M. (2021). Revisiting online learner engagement: Exploring the role of learner characteristics in an emergency period. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S236–S252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891997
28. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
29. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
30. Kuo, T. M., Tsai, C.-C., & Wang, J.-C. (2021). Linking web-based learning self-efficacy and learning engagement in MOOCs: The role of online academic hardiness. The Internet and Higher Education, 51, Article 100819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100819
31. Lazareva, A. (2017). Factors affecting student engagement in online collaborative learning courses. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (pp. 349–359). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73204-6_39
32. Lee, J., Song, H. D., & Hong, A. J. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability, 11(4), 985.
33. Lutz, B., Bergman, S., & Pitterson, N. (2019). Measuring student course engagement: A validation study. Computers & Education, 142, 103635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103635
34. Martin, A. J., Papworth, B., Ginns, P., & Liem, G. A. D. (2014). The Online Motivation and Engagement Scale for university students: A psychometric validation. Computers & Education, 76, 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.002
35. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2022). Developing an online learner satisfaction framework in higher education through a systematic review of research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00355-5
36. Martin, F., & Borup, J. (2022). Online learner engagement: Conceptual definitions, research themes, and supportive practices. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 162-177.
37. Martin, F., Xie, K., & Bolliger, D. U. (2022). Engaging learners in the emergency transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S1–S13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1991703
38. McKinsey. (2020, October 29). How technology is shaping learning in higher education. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/how-technology-is-shaping-learning-in-higher-education
39. Ocelot, O. (2021). Measuring Student Engagement in Higher Education. Ocelot. https://www.ocelotbot.com/blog/measuring-student-engagement-in-higher-education/ Paulsen, J., & McCormick, A. C. (2020). Reassessing disparities in online learner student engagement in higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 20-29.
40. Rivera, E. S., & 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
41. Sun, W., Hong, J., Dong, Y., Huang, Y., & Fu, Q. (2022). Self-directed learning predicts online learning engagement in higher education mediated by perceived value of knowing learning goals. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00653-6
42. Tualaulelei, E., Burke, K., Fanshawe, M., & Cameron, C. (2022). Mapping pedagogical touchpoints: Exploring online student engagement and course design. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 189-203.
43. UCL. (2021). Encouraging student engagement with blended and online learning. University College London Teaching & Learning Portal. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/publications/2021/oct/encouraging-student-engagement-blended-and-online-learning
44. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1
45. Wang, Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2021). The impact of simulation-based learning on student engagement: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 164, 104166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104166
46. Weinstein, Y., Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. Science of Learning, 1(1), Article 16013. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13
47. Welbers, K., Konijn, E. A., Burgers, C., De Vaate, A. J. D. B., Eden, A., & Brugman, B. C. (2019). Gamification as a tool for engaging student learning: A field experiment with a gamified app. E-learning and Digital Media, 16(2), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018818342
48. Wong, B., & Liem, G.A.D. (2021). Self-regulated learning in online learning environments: Strategies for remote learning during COVID‐19 school closures and beyond. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 2001–2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13099
49. Yin, H. (2023). A mixed blessing: student engagement in emergency online learning during COVID-19 in China. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 362-376.
50. Yoo, S. K., & Huang, W. (2013). Engaging online adult learners in higher education: Motivational factors impacted by gender, age, and prior experiences. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(3), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2013.836823