Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.84.2.101-109
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
New Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student
Engagement in Online Learning
Chin Choo Robinson & Hallett Hullinger
To cite this article: Chin Choo Robinson & Hallett Hullinger (2008) New Benchmarks in Higher
Education: Student Engagement in Online Learning, Journal of Education for Business, 84:2,
101-109, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 534
View related articles
Citing articles: 54 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:46
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
NewBenchmarksinHigherEducation:
StudentEngagementinOnlineLearning
CHINCHOOROBINSON
HALLETTHULLINGER
ORALROBERTSUNIVERSITY
TULSA,OKLAHOMA
ABSTRACT. TheincreaseintheadoptionofInternet-relatedtechnologiesfor
onlinelearninghasbeenaccompaniedby
aparallel,butseparate,demandforgreater
accountabilityinhighereducation.Measuresofstudentengagementoffervaluable
indicatorsofeducationalquality,yethave
beenlimitedtouseinon-campussettings.
TheauthorsusedkeyengagementdimensionsthattheNationalSurveyofStudent
Engagement(NSSE)definedtomeasure
studentengagementinonlinecoursesfrom
3universities.OnlinestudentsweremodestlyengagedinselectedNSSEdimensions
andhadapatternofengagementthatdifferedfromon-campusstudents.
Keywords:onlineeducation,onlinelearning,studentengagement
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
T
here is no change in higher education more sweeping than the
transformation brought about by the
adventoftheInternetandWeb.Maeroff
(2003) maintained that developments
in online learning are not “just a fad”
buta“seachange”(p.2).Theamalgamation of knowledge and technology
permits higher education to provide
learninganytime,anyplace,andtoanyone(Aggarwal&Bento,2000;Maeroff;
Pittinsky,2003).
Concurrent with the phenomenal
growth in online learning, stakeholders in education continue to demand
greater accountability and evidence of
effectivenessinteaching(Wilbur,1998).
Research in this area tends to focus on
whetheronlinelearningisaseffectiveas
face-to-facelearninginachievinglearning outcomes. Studies on the effectiveness of online learning fall into three
broadcategories:(a)students’outcomes,
focused on test scores and grades; (b)
studentattitudesaboutlearning;and(c)
overall student satisfaction with online
learning. Findings largely support the
viewthatthelearningoutcomesofstudentsonlinearesimilartothoseinfaceto-facesettings(Palloff&Pratt,2001).
Bucy (2003) noted the volume of
research that focuses on comparisons
between traditional and online courses
andconcluded:
Rather than using research to help replicatewhatisdoneinthetraditionalclass-
room, researchers should focus on identifying what is done well in the online
learning environment. Research should
determine whether they (the students)
are learning what we intended them to
learn—NOT whether they are learning
thesameasintraditionalmethods.(p.7)
Objective judgment of the student’s
knowledge and learning is still important for all stakeholders, including the
learner, the instructor, and the educational institution (Valenti, Cucchiarelli,
& Panti, 2001). However, the evaluation of online learning needs to go
beyondthesemeasuresandconsiderthe
quality of the learning experience as a
whole.Measuresofstudentengagement
offersuchanevaluation.
Student engagement pertains to the
time and physical energy that students
expend on activities in their academic
experience (Jacobi, Astin, Ayala, 1987;
Kuh,2003).Engagementpertainstothe
efforts of the student to study a subject, practice, obtain feedback, analyze,
and solve problems (Kuh, 2003). The
NationalSurveyofStudentEngagement
(NSSE)measuresdimensionsofengagement on the basis of the widely cited
Seven Principles of Good Practice in
UndergraduateEducationbyChickering
and Gamson (Kuh, 2001). Though the
NSSEwascreatedforon-campuseducation,theSevenPrinciplesofGoodPracticeinUndergraduateEducationserves
asitsfoundation,andtheprincipleshave
beenwidelyappliedtoonlinelearning.
November/December2008
101
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
ChickeringandErhmann(1996)publishedguidelinesonhowonlineeducation can be done in ways consistent
withtheseprinciples.Weiss,Knowlton,
and Speck (2000) discussed the use
of technology to facilitate the aims of
the seven principles. Palloff and Pratt
(2001) maintained that a sound, effective online course must abide by these
sameprinciples.Likewise,thefindings
of Thurmond, Wambach, and Connors
(2002) indicated that the principles of
goodpracticeineducationthatChickeringandErhmanndescribedapplytothe
virtualclassroom.
Muchasapplicationoftheprinciples
ofgoodpracticehasbeenextendedtothe
onlinesetting,selecteddimensionsofthe
NSSE show promise for investigating
studentengagementinonlinelearning.In
thepresentstudy,wemeasuredthelevel
ofstudentengagementinonlinelearning
inundergraduateeducationusingspecificdimensionsofengagementconsidered
to be effective educational practices:
level of academic challenge, active and
collaborative learning, student–faculty
interaction, and enriching educational
experiences(Kuh,2001).Thatmeasurementwasafirststeptowardthebroader
applicationofstudentengagement,from
the traditional classroom to the online
learningenvironment.
SAMPLEANDMETHOD
Inoursurveyresearch,studentswere
required to complete an online selfadministered questionnaire relating to
their experiences as students in online
learning environments. The instrument
was a modified version of the wellestablished NSSE survey, the widely
accepted research initiative to assess
student learning through measuring the
level of engagement. First launched in
2000, NSSE was built on indexes of
effectiveeducationalpracticethatcame
fromtheSevenPrinciplesofGoodPractice in Undergraduate Education (Kuh,
2001). The NSSE has enjoyed year-toyear growth in participation, from 276
collegesanduniversitiesin2000tomore
than 600 in 2007, with typical sample
sizes of more than 100,000 students.
NSSE represents a definite departure
from the traditional approach to defining collegiate quality. Instead of test
102
JournalofEducationforBusiness
scores, student engagement focuses on
the level of academic effort and quality of active and collaborative learning.
Insteadofindicatingwhatresourcesare
availabletothestudent,studentengagement indicates what the student does
with the resources that are available. It
isusedtodecipherthetypeanddepthof
interactionbetweenthefacultyandstudent. Facilitating, mentoring, and moderatingaretechniquespromotingstudent
engagement. Rather than measuring a
concernaboutthereputationofthecollege,themeasureofstudentengagement
focusesonthequalityofenrichmentin
theoveralleducationalexperience(IndianaUniversityCenterforPostsecondary
Research[IUCPR],2003).
NSSE was built on five benchmarks:
level of academic challenge, active and
collaborativelearning,studentinteraction
with faculty members, enriching educationalexperience,andasupportivecampus environment. A supportive campus
environment, as defined by NSSE, was
deemednotapplicabletothestudy.ModificationoftheNSSEinstrumentinvolved
analyzing the applicability of each
research question to the online learning
environment.Thiswasdoneonthebasis
of a review of literature regarding the
deploymentofInternettechnologyinthe
teaching–learningprocessandwithcarefulattentiontotheguidelinesbyChickeringandEhrmann(1996)inImplementing
theSevenPrinciplesofGoodPracticein
UndergraduateEducation
ThepopulationofinterestwasundergraduatestudentsfromOklahomaState
UniversityofTulsa,Oklahoma;Capella
University in Minneapolis, Minnesota;
and Northeastern State University of
Tahlequah, Oklahoma. All the students
wereenrolledinatleastonetotallyonline
course.Ourapproachwasamulticourse
andmultiuniversitystrategy,whichprovided statistical benefits. Arbaugh and
Hiltz(2005)affirmedthefollowing:
Multi-coursestudieswouldprovideseveral
methodological benefits forALN (Asynchronous Learning Networks) research.
Two direct benefits would be increased
external validity and statistical power.
Because ALN research has been historically reliant on many studies based on
individualcourses,manyoftheirfindings
may reflect idiosyncrasies of the instructor rather than provide accurate prescriptionsforbestpracticeinweb-basedcourse
delivery.Multi-coursestudiesincreasethe
likelihood that these instructor-unique
characteristicscanbecontrolledfor,therebyallowingforincreasedgeneralizability
offindings.(p.91)
Using multicourse, multi-institution
sampleshelpedustoincreasethesample size, providing a more complete
picture, and increased external validity
and statistical power. It contributed to
thegeneralizationoffindings(Arbaugh
&Hiltz,2005).
A total of 225 students participated.
Ofthese,24responseswereincomplete.
Findings were drawn from the remaining201respondents.
RESULTS
Participants included 86 men (43%)
and115women(57%).ThetypicalprofileoftherespondentwasWhite(84%)
andlessthan25yearsold(85%).More
thanhalf(54%)oftheparticipantswere
upperclassmen; 21% were freshmen;
and 25% were sophomores. The overall engagement score was 5.65 on a
10-point scale. We used a variety of
differentscales(suchasLikert-typeand
Semantic Differential) ranging from 4
to 7 points in the questionnaire. Scores
were converted to a 10-point numeric
scale to arrive at a global score. In all
four benchmarks—level of academic
challenge, student–faculty interaction,
active and collaborative learning, and
enriching educational experience—the
engagementscoresrangedfrom5.13to
5.87. The 2003 NSSE survey reported
that on a 10-point scale derived from
engagement scores, most colleges fall
somewherebetween4and6.NSSEconsideredtheseindexesofmodestlevelsof
studentengagement(IUCPR,2003).
Althoughtheintentofthesurveywas
not to focus on comparisons with oncampus engagement, the 2006 NSSE
scores were used as a benchmark to
illustratethedepthofengagementonline
(seeTable 1). Online students reported
higher levels of engagement than both
freshmen and senior on-campus students on each of the four benchmarks.
Seniors from the top 10% of NSSE
respondent institutions reported higher
levelsofengagementinthelevelofacademic challenge, active and collaborativelearning,andenrichingeducational
TABLE1.NationalSurveyofStudentEngagement(NSSE)BenchmarkScores(2006):OnlineVersusOn-Campus
Variable
LAC
ACL
SFI
EEE
Aggregate
n
NSSERespondents
Online
5.7
5.13
5.73
5.87
5.65
201.00
First-year
5.18
4.13
3.21
2.67
3.80
392,468.00
Index
NSSETop10%
Senior
1.101
5.58
1.241
5.04
1.784
4.13
2.196
3.99
1.49
4.69
— 359,895.00
Index
First-year
1.022
6.05
1.018
5.07
1.387
4.20
1.471
4.69
1.210
4.69
— 392,468.00
Index
Senior
0.942
6.41
1.012
5.86
1.364
5.69
1.205
5.94
1.205
5.94
— 359,895.00
Index
0.889
0.875
1.007
0.951
0.951
—
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
Note.ACL=activeandcollaborativelearning;EEE=enrichingeducationalexperience;LAC=levelofacademicchallenge;SFI=student–facultyinteraction.BoldareaggregatescoresderivedfromaveragingtheindividualNSSEengagementbenchmarkscores.
experience. There was no difference
in the level of student–faculty interaction. Compared with the freshmen
from these highly engaging institutions,onlinefreshmenrespondentshad
greaterstudent–facultyinteractionanda
moreenrichingeducationalexperience.
However, the level of academic challengescoredlowerwithonlinestudents.
(IUCPR,2006a;IUCPR,2006b.)
A summary report of the engagement factors follows. This report providesanunderstandingofthetypeand
depth of the engagement experience
in the online environment as it pertainstoeachkeybenchmarkarea(see
Tables 2 and 3). Findings conclude
withareportonsubgroupdistinctions
to highlight incidences where specific
groups delineated by demographics
(gender,age)andacademic(gradeperformance, major) factors appeared to
becomparativelymoreengaged.
LevelofAcademicChallenge
Levelofacademicchallengeiswhetherstudentsareputtingforthenoughacademiceffort,suchasthatspentstudying,
reading,writing,andpreparingforclass
(Kuh,2003).Thisbenchmarkmeasured
engagement in academic rigor in areas
ofmentalactivities,typeandquantityof
homework, evaluations, and academic
skilldevelopment.
Development of mental capacities to
thinkatdifferentlevelshastraditionally
takencenterstageinacademiccurricula
(Barakzai&Fraser,2005;Notar,Wilson,
& Montgomery, 2005). All five levels
ofmentalactivities—namelymemorization, analysis, synthesis, making judg
ment, and application—were prevalent
intheonlinelearningenvironment.Students were most engaged in analytical
work.Morethanhalfoftherespondents
wereatleastoftenengagedinthisway,
whereas almost all respondents (96%)
reported at least some engagement.
This was followed by course work that
required the application of theories and
concepts to solve problems. Of respondents, 91% reported some, quite a bit,
or very much emphasis. Memorization,
synthesis,andmakingjudgmentenjoyed
almostequalemphasis.Synthesizingand
organizingideasandinformationshowed
thelowestincidence(38%)ofhighlevels
ofinvolvement.
Theavailabilityoftechnologyserves
to increase the opportunities to stimulate higher order levels of thinking.
First,asynchronousnetworksallowthe
learner more time to think critically
and reflectively, stimulating analysis,
synthesis, judgment, and application.
Second, multichannel communication
throughvisuals,print,andvirtualexperiences promote thinking.Third, learning communities that are inevitable in
the online classrooms are really communities of inquiry to advance mental
thinking(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996;
Conrad & Donaldson, 2004; Lorenzo
& Moore, 2002). Duderstadt, Atkins,
andHouweling(2002)affirmed,“When
implemented through active, inquirybasedlearningpedagogies,onlinelearningcanstimulatestudentstousehigher
order skills such as problem solving,
collaboration,andstimulation”(p.75).
In a typical week, the online student
hadtoworkononetothreeproblemsets
thattookmorethan1hrtocompleteand
another one to three problem sets that
required less than 1 hr of work. Each
course typically required the student to
readbetweenoneandthreetextbooksand
betweenoneandsixarticles.Themajorityofthestudentshadtowritebetween
one and six reports. The latter requirement varied greatly. Whether the quantity of reading and writing assignments
ledtohigherlevelsoflearningdepends
onwhetherthematerialsassignedledthe
studenttothinkandconceivepersuasive
arguments(IUCPR,2003).
Theonlineclassroompresentedchallenging standards and expectations.
Often,themajorityofthestudentshadto
workharderthantheythoughttheycould
tomeetacademicexpectations.Testsand
evaluations were even more demanding.Thevastmajority(morethan80%)
of the students were challenged to do
their best. This was an exemplary level
of engagement. When high expectationsarecommunicated,studentsriseto
meet them (Reynolds, 1995). Since the
Internetservesasthemajorplatformfor
communicationintheonlineclassroom,
evaluationcriteriaareusuallypublished.
Thismakesamoreexplicitcommunication of standards and expectations to
spurthestudent’sperformancetogreater
heights(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).
Withtheexceptionofspeakingskills,
onlinelearningmadeatleastsomecontribution to the capabilities of the students to write clearly, think critically,
and analyze quantitative problems.
Almost half of the students reported
that there was very little emphasis on
speakingskills.Developmentofspeaking skills was definitely not a strength
oftheonlinemodeofeducation.
November/December2008
103
TABLE2.FrequencyDistributioninPercentagesforEngagementFactors(n=201)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
Benchmark
Levelofacademicchallenge
Mentalactivities
Memorizingfacts,ideas,ormethods
Analyzinganidea,experience,ortheory
Synthesizingandorganizingideas,orexperience
Makingjudgmentsaboutthevalueofinformation,
arguments,ormethods
Applyingtheoriesorconcepts
Expectationsandevaluations
Workedharderthanyouthoughtyoucould
Skilldevelopment
Writeclearlyandeffectively
Speakclearlyandeffectively
Thinkcriticallyandanalytically
Analyzequantitativeproblems
Student–facultyinteraction
Discussedideasfromreadingsorclassnotes
Discussedgradesorassignments
Receivedpromptfeedback
Discussedcareerplans
Activeandcollaborativelearning
Workedwithotherstudents
Tutoredortaughtotherstudents
Madeaclasspresentationonline
Visitedonlinelibraryresourcestomeetclassassignments
Workeffectivelywithothers
Enrichingeducationalexperience
Technologycompetency
Usedcomputertechnologytoanalyzedata
DevelopedaWebpageormultimediapresentation
Usecomputingandinformationtechnology
Lifeenrichment
Regularcommunicationwithotherstudentson
mattersunrelatedtothecourse
Lifeenrichment
Visitedonlinelibraryresources,notrelatedtoclass
assignments
Learneffectivelyonyourown
Workenrichment
Participatedinonlineclassdiscussions
Acquirejoborwork-relatedknowledgeandskills
Solvecomplexreal-worldproblems
Verylittle
orNever
Someor
Sometimes
Quiteabit
orOften
Verymuch
orVeryoften
12.44
3.48
12.44
40.80
41.79
49.25
33.83
41.29
30.35
12.94
13.43
7.96
14.43
9.45
40.30
42.29
35.82
36.32
9.45
11.94
6.47
35.32
41.29
—
23.88
46.77
11.44
25.87
41.79
34.33
46.27
39.80
24.88
14.43
28.36
26.87
9.45
4.48
13.93
7.46
18.91
8.46
4.48
39.80
56.22
52.24
29.85
41.79
16.42
29.35
47.26
15.92
8.46
9.95
18.41
2.49
17.41
47.76
61.69
9.45
35.32
40.80
35.82
23.38
43.78
37.81
29.85
11.94
12.44
29.35
17.91
11.94
4.48
2.49
17.41
8.96
20.90
34.83
9.95
38.81
40.80
30.85
29.85
18.41
37.31
10.45
5.97
21.89
21.39
31.84
27.36
19.40
31.84
5.47
44.78
18.91
14.93
41.79
8.46
33.83
23.88
27.86
22.89
33.83
39.80
45.77
21.39
25.87
22.39
20.90
6.47
8.46
TABLE3.LevelofAcademicChallengeforHomeworkinPercentages(n=201)
Factor
None
1–3
4–6
7–10
Numberofassignedtextbooks
Numberofwrittenpapersorreportsoffivepagesorfewer
Numberofwrittenpapersorreportsofsixpagesormore
Numberofproblemsetsthattakemorethan1hr
Numberofproblemsetsthattakelessthan1hr
4.48
9.95
10.45
8.96
19.40
76.12
27.86
40.30
58.21
60.20
15.42
32.34
25.37
21.39
15.42
2.49
7.96
10.95
7.46
2.99
Studentswerehighlyengagedinthe
areas of critical and analytical thinking.Almost90%reportedatleastsome
levelofinvolvement.Thiswasagood
report because the ideal curriculum
104
JournalofEducationforBusiness
is one that encourages the learner to
thinkcriticallyandreflectonthecontent with the view to apply it to daily
life (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).
Critical thinking is a manifestation of
>10
1.49
21.89
12.94
3.98
1.99
an engaged environment (Conrad &
Donaldson, 2004). Three quarters of
therespondentsreportedthebenefitof
at least some development in writing
skillsandquantitativeanalysis.Online
learning served to promote basic academic skill development, with the
exceptionofspeakingskills.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
Student–FacultyInteraction
Student–faculty interaction relates
to the nature and frequency of contact
that students have with their faculty.
Contact includes faculty feedback and
discussion of grades and assignments,
ideas, careers, and collaborative projects(Kuh,2003).Facultyfeedbackwas
the most frequent type of interaction
betweenthestudentandinstructor.The
level of contact was exemplary. With
the exception of 4%, all students indicated they received feedback at least
sometimes.As many as 66% indicated
that the level of feedback was often or
very often. Technology can be somewhatcreditedforthisoutcomebecause
itprovidesvariousavenuesforfeedback
(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).Prompt
feedback is particularly vital for the
online student who can otherwise suffer effects of isolation and detachment
(Schwartz&White,2000).
Grades and assignments were populartopicsofdiscussion.Approximately
40%ofthestudentsinteractedwiththe
faculty on these issues often or very
oftenandapproximately90%hadthese
discussions at least sometimes. Online
discussionsonreadingsandclassnotes
were at a modest level. Only a quarter
ofthestudentsinteractedoftenorvery
oftenonthesematters.Inall,56%indicated that they sometimes had these
discussions. How much student–faculty contact is deemed to be optimal
dependsontheissuethatisatthecenter
of the interaction. Both (a) communication about grades and assignments
and (b) discussion of career matters
require occasional interaction. However,feedbackanddiscussionofideasand
classmaterialswarranthigherlevelsof
interaction (Kuh, 2003). The essence
of engagement depends on students’
participationincourse-relatedmaterials
(Wilbur,1998).Thiscircumstanceledto
theconclusionthatthemodestlevelof
interaction on readings and class notes
hasroomforgrowth.
Career-related issues were not frequentlycommunicatedbetweenthefaculty and student. Only 2% of students
interacted with the faculty very often
on career matters. Another 16% often
interacted with the instructor on career
issues.Approximately 40% of students
had never discussed their careers with
thefaculty.Thissuggestedthatengagement in this area was less than optimal,becauseKuh(2003)suggestedthat
career plans merit discussion once or
twicepersemester.
ActiveandCollaborative
Learning
Active and collaborative learning
refers to efforts of the students to contribute to class discussions, work with
otherstudents,andengageinotherclass
activities(Kuh,2003).Collaborationis
keytopromotinglearningintheonline
classroom(Conrad&Donaldson,2004;
Weiss et al., 2000). The online classroom has been commonly referred to
as a learning community, implying the
expectation that it is an environment
thatfosterscollaborativeeffortstopromotelearning(Barker,2002;BenbunanFich, Hiltz, & Harasim, 2005; Dede,
2000). The present findings confirmed
thatonlinelearnersworkedtogetheron
projectsfairlyfrequently.Approximately80%ofstudentscollaboratedatleast
sometimes, and 40% worked together
often to very often. In addition, the
majorityofthestudents(65%)acknowledged at least some benefits to growing their abilities to work effectively
withothers.Morethanaquarterofthe
respondentsconsideredthecontribution
to be quite a bit to very much. Palloff
and Pratt (2001) suggested that collaborativeworkempowersandengages
the learner to the extent that it affects
subsequentlearningsituations.
Groupexchangesthatsolicitmultiple
perspectivesandideasharingareeffective learning techniques (BenbunanFichetal.,2005;Conrad&Donaldson,
2004).Inall,62%ofstudentshadnever
made a class presentation online. Only
12% had often made online class presentations,whereasanother2%hadvery
frequentlymadesuchpresentations.
Learning with peers is the key to
collaborative learning (Benbunan-Fich
etal.,2005).Peertutoringisaformof
idea sharing in the collaborative learning environment in which students can
freely conduct their own inquiry in
self-directed groups (Kemery, 2000).
Almost half of the students had never
tutored their peers. Only 16% taught
otherstudentsoftenorveryoften.This
is in spite of the fact that the Internet and Web have removed time and
placelimitationstoproliferatethechannelsforinteractionandcommunication
(Chickering&Erhmann,1996).
Centraltothesuccessofonlineeducationareactivelearnerswhoproactively take charge of their learning (Hiltz
& Shea, 2005). Research confirmed
that such students frequently visited
theonlinelibrarytoseekoutpublished
resources to meet class assignments.
Approximately90%hadatleastvisited
sometimes.Almosthalfofthestudents
madevisitsoftenorveryoften.
EnrichingEducational
Experience
An enriching educational experience
involvesthedevelopmentoftheperson
tolearntoworkeffectivelywithpeople
fromdifferentbackgroundsandenables
theuseoftechnologytofacilitatecollaboration (Kuh, 2003). Avendano (2003)
aptly described student engagement as
having varying levels of quantitative
and qualitative aspects of involvement.
Learning online promotes applications
toreal-lifesituationsandproblemsolving(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).
Aconclusivebenefitofonlinelearning was the expertise that students
developedincomputerskills.Itseemed
intuitively clear that because students
werehighlyengagedinusingthecomputer to meet academic requirements,
they developed an array of computer
skills.Otherthangeneralgainsintheuse
of computing and information technology,studentsacquiredskillsinquantitativeanalysisaidedbycomputertechnology,andapproximately90%ofstudents
gained at least some general expertise
on use of computer and information
technology.Approximately60%ofstudentsconsideredthebenefittobequite
abittoverymuch.Thiswasanexemplary level of engagement. Approximately80%ofrespondentswereatleast
sometimes engaged in using computer
technology to facilitate data analysis,
and approximately 40% were often or
November/December2008
105
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
veryoftenengagedinsuchquantitative
work.Theonlinecoursecurriculumdid
not usually require the development of
Web pages and creation of multimedia
presentations. Approximately 40% of
students were involved occasionally in
this type of coursework, whereas 24%
undertook such creative coursework at
leastfrequently.Inall,35%hadneither
developed a Web page nor created a
multimediapresentation.
Another definitive benefit of the
online learning experience was the
autonomygiventostudentssothatthey
were able to learn effectively on their
own. In all, 42% of students had benefited quite a bit from learning effectively by themselves. Another 34%
believedonlinelearninghadverymuch
helpedthemtolearneffectivelyontheir
own.Almost all of the students (95%)
acknowledged at least some assistance
from this ability. Aggarwal and Bento
(2000)proposedthatonlinelearningis
amajorchannelforfacilitatinglifelong
qualitylearning.Studentsintheonline
environmenthavetolearninawaythat
contributestotheirdailylife(Brown&
Ellison,1995).
Related to life skills, the engaged
online learner is often a socially interactive student (Hiltz & Shea, 2005).
Studentsinteractedfrequentlyonsocial
and personal issues. Almost half the
students communicated regularly
on matters not related to the course.
Approximately 20% never communicated socially with their peers. Online
students might occasionally seek readingmaterialsnotrelatedtotheircourse
throughtheonlinelibraryresources.In
all, 45% sometimes made these visits.
Inall,32%nevermadeany.Thiswasa
much lower percentage of engagement
compared with similar visits made to
meetrequirementsofthecourse.
Students acknowledged gains in
knowledge and skill acquisition that
facilitated their understanding of realworld and job-related problems. First,
morethan70%ofstudentshadacquired
atleastsomejob-orwork-relatedknowledge and skills. In all, 32% recognized
quite a bit to very much gain. Second,
almost 80% of students verified that
online learning had rendered at least
somehelptotheirabilitytosolvecomplexreal-worldproblems.Approximate106
JournalofEducationforBusiness
ly30%consideredthisbenefittobequite
abittoverymuch.Third,studentswere
fairly engaged in online class discussionsthroughe-mails,Listservs,andchat
groups.Sharingofideasandresponding
to the perspectives of others promoted
thinking and understanding (T. Hatfield
& S. Hatfield, 1995). Three quarters of
the students participated in online class
discussionsatleastsometimes.Approximately 40% were often or very often
engagedinthesediscussions.
When technology is employed to
foster a rich learning environment,
meaningfulexperiencesarecreatedthat
contribute to a person’s growth and
development (El-Khawas et al., 2003).
Intheenrichedenvironment,thelearningbecomesapartofthelearner(Brown
&Ellison,1995).
SubgroupDistinctions
Students who accomplished an averageofanAgradeandstudentswhowere
satisfiedwiththeiruniversityexperience
reportedhigherlevelsofengagementin
academic efforts and greater gains in
educational outcomes. They reported
considerably greater gains in academic
skilldevelopmentsuchaswriting,speaking,andcriticalthinking.Theywerealso
more engaged in higher order levels of
thinking in analysis, synthesis, making
judgments, and application. These studentsalsointeractedmorewiththefacultyandwereconsistentlymoreengaged
in online class discussions. They saw
greater gains in their ability to work
effectivelywithothersandtheircapabilities to solve job-related and real-world
problems. Students who were more
accomplished(signifiedbytheiraverage
grades ofA or B) put in more effort to
meet standards than did their counterparts. It seems an intuitive conclusion
that students who were more accomplishedandsatisfiedwiththeiracademic
experienceweremoreengaged.
Ofallthemajors,managementand
technologymajorsfrequentlyreported
higherlevelsofengagementandgreatergainsinvariousskillsdevelopment.
Theyacknowledgedsignificantlymore
benefitsinareasofwriting,speaking,
criticalthinking,andquantitativeskill
development. Student–faculty discussions were more frequent for them.
Theywerealsomoreinvolvedinclass
workthatrequiredanalysis,synthesis,
and making judgments. In particular, technology students were highly
interactive online. They were more
engagedinusingtechnologyformost
types of class-related assignments.
However, they viewed the contributiontotheirtechnologyexpertisefrom
theironlinelearningassomewhatless
thanotherstudents.
Differencesinengagementscoresby
genderandagegroupillustrateddistinct
patternsofengagement.However,these
differences may not necessarily have
been the outcome of gender and age
diversities but the result of other variablessuchasthechoiceofmajorsand
typesofcourses.
Men were disproportionately more
engagedinmemorizationwork,whereas
women were somewhat more engaged
inanalysis,makingjudgment,andapplicationwork.HiltzandShea(2005)suggestedthatwomenaremorecomfortable
intheonlinelearningenvironmentthan
aremenandthatthismaybebecauseof
thefemalestudents’higherverbalskills
and greater inclination toward collaborativelearningapproaches.Femalestudentsalsoreportedmoregainsinwriting
skills,andmalestudentsindicatedgreaterbenefitsfromquantitativeskilldevelopment. Male students interacted more
with the faculty on readings, grades,
and assignments, and they undertook
Webpagedevelopmentandmultimedia
presentations more frequently. Female
students reported higher levels of collaboration with peers on class projects.
The students aged 25 years and older
were geared more toward higher levels
of thinking than the respondents who
were younger than 25 years old; the
former worked harder to meet expectations, were more engaged in participationincollaborativeprojects,andmade
more contributions to online class discussions. The older students tended to
center their online discussions solely
oncourse-relatedmatters,whereastheir
youngercounterparts(lessthan25years
old)weremoreengagedinonlinesocial
communication. Of all the age groups,
students aged 25–34 years reported the
most gains in many educational outcomes. They noted the most gains in
academic skill development such as
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
writing, critical thinking, and quantitative analysis. The older students interacted more frequently with the faculty
than did any of the other age groups.
There were substantially more benefits
to their ability to work effectively with
others.Theyweremoreinvolvedintechnology-aided coursework. Both these
participants and senior students aged
45–54yearsreportedextensivebenefits
in learning to solve real-world problems.Theseniorgroupwastheonlyone
thatwasactivelyinvolvedinpeertutoring.Studentsyoungerthan25yearsold
mademoreeffortstovisittheelectronic
libraryoutsideofclassrequirements.
ImpactofResearchonHigher
Education
These engagement results provided an understanding of the type and
level of student engagement in online
learning. Engagement happens along a
continuum and is a matter of degrees
of involvement (Avendano, 2003).
Thoughthestudenthastheresponsibility to engage in academic activities, it
is the faculty member’s role to create
purposefulcoursedesignsthatpromote
interaction, participation, and communication in the online learning environment (Johnson, 2003; Weiss et al.,
2000). Educators and instructors have
to consciously and consistently sustain
andgrowthetypesandlevelofengagementinonlineeducation.
Institutions have an opportunity to
increase learning through designing
technological innovations to support
the development of speaking skills.
The Internet and related technologies
makepossiblecreativeandcutting-edge
pedagogythatpermitinnovationforthe
teaching–learningprocess(Burgstahler,
2000;Lowy&Ticoll,1998).Theprevalent concept of a learning community
allowscontenttobedeliveredinmany
ways and eases the task of interaction
(Palloff&Pratt,2001).
Curriculum design should focus on
increasing student–faculty interaction
on readings and class-related materials. The prevalent level of engagement
in these discussions was unexpectedly
lower than other areas of interaction.
The extent and quality of engagement
is related to the efforts of the students
toparticipateinandcontributetoclassrelatedmaterials(Wilbur,1998).
Theonlinelearningenvironmentisan
idealsettingtopromotegreaterinvolvementinmentalcapacities.Slightlymore
emphasiscanbegiventoincorporating
assignments that require synthesis of
andmakingjudgmentsoncourse-relatedmaterials.Memorizationoffactsand
informationhastobeminimizedtothe
extentthatthereisaclearemphasison
higherorderlevelsofthinking.
Students’participationinonlineclass
presentationsshouldbepromoted.This
canincludepeerevaluation.Instructors
frequentlymakeonlinepresentationsto
class members. The Internet and Web
have been used effectively to enhance
suchpresentations(Cole,2000).
Theonlinecurriculumshouldactivelyengagestudentsthroughchallenging
academic rigor, consistent and timely
student–facultyinteraction,acollaborative learning environment, and activities that enrich the development of the
student. The Internet and related technologieshaveincreasedtheopportunity
for learning through the elimination of
timeandplaceconstraintsandtheavailability of flexible and innovative channels for interaction (Burgstahler, 2000;
Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).
Thepresentfindingsservetoencourage the ap
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
New Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student
Engagement in Online Learning
Chin Choo Robinson & Hallett Hullinger
To cite this article: Chin Choo Robinson & Hallett Hullinger (2008) New Benchmarks in Higher
Education: Student Engagement in Online Learning, Journal of Education for Business, 84:2,
101-109, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 534
View related articles
Citing articles: 54 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:46
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
NewBenchmarksinHigherEducation:
StudentEngagementinOnlineLearning
CHINCHOOROBINSON
HALLETTHULLINGER
ORALROBERTSUNIVERSITY
TULSA,OKLAHOMA
ABSTRACT. TheincreaseintheadoptionofInternet-relatedtechnologiesfor
onlinelearninghasbeenaccompaniedby
aparallel,butseparate,demandforgreater
accountabilityinhighereducation.Measuresofstudentengagementoffervaluable
indicatorsofeducationalquality,yethave
beenlimitedtouseinon-campussettings.
TheauthorsusedkeyengagementdimensionsthattheNationalSurveyofStudent
Engagement(NSSE)definedtomeasure
studentengagementinonlinecoursesfrom
3universities.OnlinestudentsweremodestlyengagedinselectedNSSEdimensions
andhadapatternofengagementthatdifferedfromon-campusstudents.
Keywords:onlineeducation,onlinelearning,studentengagement
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
T
here is no change in higher education more sweeping than the
transformation brought about by the
adventoftheInternetandWeb.Maeroff
(2003) maintained that developments
in online learning are not “just a fad”
buta“seachange”(p.2).Theamalgamation of knowledge and technology
permits higher education to provide
learninganytime,anyplace,andtoanyone(Aggarwal&Bento,2000;Maeroff;
Pittinsky,2003).
Concurrent with the phenomenal
growth in online learning, stakeholders in education continue to demand
greater accountability and evidence of
effectivenessinteaching(Wilbur,1998).
Research in this area tends to focus on
whetheronlinelearningisaseffectiveas
face-to-facelearninginachievinglearning outcomes. Studies on the effectiveness of online learning fall into three
broadcategories:(a)students’outcomes,
focused on test scores and grades; (b)
studentattitudesaboutlearning;and(c)
overall student satisfaction with online
learning. Findings largely support the
viewthatthelearningoutcomesofstudentsonlinearesimilartothoseinfaceto-facesettings(Palloff&Pratt,2001).
Bucy (2003) noted the volume of
research that focuses on comparisons
between traditional and online courses
andconcluded:
Rather than using research to help replicatewhatisdoneinthetraditionalclass-
room, researchers should focus on identifying what is done well in the online
learning environment. Research should
determine whether they (the students)
are learning what we intended them to
learn—NOT whether they are learning
thesameasintraditionalmethods.(p.7)
Objective judgment of the student’s
knowledge and learning is still important for all stakeholders, including the
learner, the instructor, and the educational institution (Valenti, Cucchiarelli,
& Panti, 2001). However, the evaluation of online learning needs to go
beyondthesemeasuresandconsiderthe
quality of the learning experience as a
whole.Measuresofstudentengagement
offersuchanevaluation.
Student engagement pertains to the
time and physical energy that students
expend on activities in their academic
experience (Jacobi, Astin, Ayala, 1987;
Kuh,2003).Engagementpertainstothe
efforts of the student to study a subject, practice, obtain feedback, analyze,
and solve problems (Kuh, 2003). The
NationalSurveyofStudentEngagement
(NSSE)measuresdimensionsofengagement on the basis of the widely cited
Seven Principles of Good Practice in
UndergraduateEducationbyChickering
and Gamson (Kuh, 2001). Though the
NSSEwascreatedforon-campuseducation,theSevenPrinciplesofGoodPracticeinUndergraduateEducationserves
asitsfoundation,andtheprincipleshave
beenwidelyappliedtoonlinelearning.
November/December2008
101
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
ChickeringandErhmann(1996)publishedguidelinesonhowonlineeducation can be done in ways consistent
withtheseprinciples.Weiss,Knowlton,
and Speck (2000) discussed the use
of technology to facilitate the aims of
the seven principles. Palloff and Pratt
(2001) maintained that a sound, effective online course must abide by these
sameprinciples.Likewise,thefindings
of Thurmond, Wambach, and Connors
(2002) indicated that the principles of
goodpracticeineducationthatChickeringandErhmanndescribedapplytothe
virtualclassroom.
Muchasapplicationoftheprinciples
ofgoodpracticehasbeenextendedtothe
onlinesetting,selecteddimensionsofthe
NSSE show promise for investigating
studentengagementinonlinelearning.In
thepresentstudy,wemeasuredthelevel
ofstudentengagementinonlinelearning
inundergraduateeducationusingspecificdimensionsofengagementconsidered
to be effective educational practices:
level of academic challenge, active and
collaborative learning, student–faculty
interaction, and enriching educational
experiences(Kuh,2001).Thatmeasurementwasafirststeptowardthebroader
applicationofstudentengagement,from
the traditional classroom to the online
learningenvironment.
SAMPLEANDMETHOD
Inoursurveyresearch,studentswere
required to complete an online selfadministered questionnaire relating to
their experiences as students in online
learning environments. The instrument
was a modified version of the wellestablished NSSE survey, the widely
accepted research initiative to assess
student learning through measuring the
level of engagement. First launched in
2000, NSSE was built on indexes of
effectiveeducationalpracticethatcame
fromtheSevenPrinciplesofGoodPractice in Undergraduate Education (Kuh,
2001). The NSSE has enjoyed year-toyear growth in participation, from 276
collegesanduniversitiesin2000tomore
than 600 in 2007, with typical sample
sizes of more than 100,000 students.
NSSE represents a definite departure
from the traditional approach to defining collegiate quality. Instead of test
102
JournalofEducationforBusiness
scores, student engagement focuses on
the level of academic effort and quality of active and collaborative learning.
Insteadofindicatingwhatresourcesare
availabletothestudent,studentengagement indicates what the student does
with the resources that are available. It
isusedtodecipherthetypeanddepthof
interactionbetweenthefacultyandstudent. Facilitating, mentoring, and moderatingaretechniquespromotingstudent
engagement. Rather than measuring a
concernaboutthereputationofthecollege,themeasureofstudentengagement
focusesonthequalityofenrichmentin
theoveralleducationalexperience(IndianaUniversityCenterforPostsecondary
Research[IUCPR],2003).
NSSE was built on five benchmarks:
level of academic challenge, active and
collaborativelearning,studentinteraction
with faculty members, enriching educationalexperience,andasupportivecampus environment. A supportive campus
environment, as defined by NSSE, was
deemednotapplicabletothestudy.ModificationoftheNSSEinstrumentinvolved
analyzing the applicability of each
research question to the online learning
environment.Thiswasdoneonthebasis
of a review of literature regarding the
deploymentofInternettechnologyinthe
teaching–learningprocessandwithcarefulattentiontotheguidelinesbyChickeringandEhrmann(1996)inImplementing
theSevenPrinciplesofGoodPracticein
UndergraduateEducation
ThepopulationofinterestwasundergraduatestudentsfromOklahomaState
UniversityofTulsa,Oklahoma;Capella
University in Minneapolis, Minnesota;
and Northeastern State University of
Tahlequah, Oklahoma. All the students
wereenrolledinatleastonetotallyonline
course.Ourapproachwasamulticourse
andmultiuniversitystrategy,whichprovided statistical benefits. Arbaugh and
Hiltz(2005)affirmedthefollowing:
Multi-coursestudieswouldprovideseveral
methodological benefits forALN (Asynchronous Learning Networks) research.
Two direct benefits would be increased
external validity and statistical power.
Because ALN research has been historically reliant on many studies based on
individualcourses,manyoftheirfindings
may reflect idiosyncrasies of the instructor rather than provide accurate prescriptionsforbestpracticeinweb-basedcourse
delivery.Multi-coursestudiesincreasethe
likelihood that these instructor-unique
characteristicscanbecontrolledfor,therebyallowingforincreasedgeneralizability
offindings.(p.91)
Using multicourse, multi-institution
sampleshelpedustoincreasethesample size, providing a more complete
picture, and increased external validity
and statistical power. It contributed to
thegeneralizationoffindings(Arbaugh
&Hiltz,2005).
A total of 225 students participated.
Ofthese,24responseswereincomplete.
Findings were drawn from the remaining201respondents.
RESULTS
Participants included 86 men (43%)
and115women(57%).ThetypicalprofileoftherespondentwasWhite(84%)
andlessthan25yearsold(85%).More
thanhalf(54%)oftheparticipantswere
upperclassmen; 21% were freshmen;
and 25% were sophomores. The overall engagement score was 5.65 on a
10-point scale. We used a variety of
differentscales(suchasLikert-typeand
Semantic Differential) ranging from 4
to 7 points in the questionnaire. Scores
were converted to a 10-point numeric
scale to arrive at a global score. In all
four benchmarks—level of academic
challenge, student–faculty interaction,
active and collaborative learning, and
enriching educational experience—the
engagementscoresrangedfrom5.13to
5.87. The 2003 NSSE survey reported
that on a 10-point scale derived from
engagement scores, most colleges fall
somewherebetween4and6.NSSEconsideredtheseindexesofmodestlevelsof
studentengagement(IUCPR,2003).
Althoughtheintentofthesurveywas
not to focus on comparisons with oncampus engagement, the 2006 NSSE
scores were used as a benchmark to
illustratethedepthofengagementonline
(seeTable 1). Online students reported
higher levels of engagement than both
freshmen and senior on-campus students on each of the four benchmarks.
Seniors from the top 10% of NSSE
respondent institutions reported higher
levelsofengagementinthelevelofacademic challenge, active and collaborativelearning,andenrichingeducational
TABLE1.NationalSurveyofStudentEngagement(NSSE)BenchmarkScores(2006):OnlineVersusOn-Campus
Variable
LAC
ACL
SFI
EEE
Aggregate
n
NSSERespondents
Online
5.7
5.13
5.73
5.87
5.65
201.00
First-year
5.18
4.13
3.21
2.67
3.80
392,468.00
Index
NSSETop10%
Senior
1.101
5.58
1.241
5.04
1.784
4.13
2.196
3.99
1.49
4.69
— 359,895.00
Index
First-year
1.022
6.05
1.018
5.07
1.387
4.20
1.471
4.69
1.210
4.69
— 392,468.00
Index
Senior
0.942
6.41
1.012
5.86
1.364
5.69
1.205
5.94
1.205
5.94
— 359,895.00
Index
0.889
0.875
1.007
0.951
0.951
—
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
Note.ACL=activeandcollaborativelearning;EEE=enrichingeducationalexperience;LAC=levelofacademicchallenge;SFI=student–facultyinteraction.BoldareaggregatescoresderivedfromaveragingtheindividualNSSEengagementbenchmarkscores.
experience. There was no difference
in the level of student–faculty interaction. Compared with the freshmen
from these highly engaging institutions,onlinefreshmenrespondentshad
greaterstudent–facultyinteractionanda
moreenrichingeducationalexperience.
However, the level of academic challengescoredlowerwithonlinestudents.
(IUCPR,2006a;IUCPR,2006b.)
A summary report of the engagement factors follows. This report providesanunderstandingofthetypeand
depth of the engagement experience
in the online environment as it pertainstoeachkeybenchmarkarea(see
Tables 2 and 3). Findings conclude
withareportonsubgroupdistinctions
to highlight incidences where specific
groups delineated by demographics
(gender,age)andacademic(gradeperformance, major) factors appeared to
becomparativelymoreengaged.
LevelofAcademicChallenge
Levelofacademicchallengeiswhetherstudentsareputtingforthenoughacademiceffort,suchasthatspentstudying,
reading,writing,andpreparingforclass
(Kuh,2003).Thisbenchmarkmeasured
engagement in academic rigor in areas
ofmentalactivities,typeandquantityof
homework, evaluations, and academic
skilldevelopment.
Development of mental capacities to
thinkatdifferentlevelshastraditionally
takencenterstageinacademiccurricula
(Barakzai&Fraser,2005;Notar,Wilson,
& Montgomery, 2005). All five levels
ofmentalactivities—namelymemorization, analysis, synthesis, making judg
ment, and application—were prevalent
intheonlinelearningenvironment.Students were most engaged in analytical
work.Morethanhalfoftherespondents
wereatleastoftenengagedinthisway,
whereas almost all respondents (96%)
reported at least some engagement.
This was followed by course work that
required the application of theories and
concepts to solve problems. Of respondents, 91% reported some, quite a bit,
or very much emphasis. Memorization,
synthesis,andmakingjudgmentenjoyed
almostequalemphasis.Synthesizingand
organizingideasandinformationshowed
thelowestincidence(38%)ofhighlevels
ofinvolvement.
Theavailabilityoftechnologyserves
to increase the opportunities to stimulate higher order levels of thinking.
First,asynchronousnetworksallowthe
learner more time to think critically
and reflectively, stimulating analysis,
synthesis, judgment, and application.
Second, multichannel communication
throughvisuals,print,andvirtualexperiences promote thinking.Third, learning communities that are inevitable in
the online classrooms are really communities of inquiry to advance mental
thinking(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996;
Conrad & Donaldson, 2004; Lorenzo
& Moore, 2002). Duderstadt, Atkins,
andHouweling(2002)affirmed,“When
implemented through active, inquirybasedlearningpedagogies,onlinelearningcanstimulatestudentstousehigher
order skills such as problem solving,
collaboration,andstimulation”(p.75).
In a typical week, the online student
hadtoworkononetothreeproblemsets
thattookmorethan1hrtocompleteand
another one to three problem sets that
required less than 1 hr of work. Each
course typically required the student to
readbetweenoneandthreetextbooksand
betweenoneandsixarticles.Themajorityofthestudentshadtowritebetween
one and six reports. The latter requirement varied greatly. Whether the quantity of reading and writing assignments
ledtohigherlevelsoflearningdepends
onwhetherthematerialsassignedledthe
studenttothinkandconceivepersuasive
arguments(IUCPR,2003).
Theonlineclassroompresentedchallenging standards and expectations.
Often,themajorityofthestudentshadto
workharderthantheythoughttheycould
tomeetacademicexpectations.Testsand
evaluations were even more demanding.Thevastmajority(morethan80%)
of the students were challenged to do
their best. This was an exemplary level
of engagement. When high expectationsarecommunicated,studentsriseto
meet them (Reynolds, 1995). Since the
Internetservesasthemajorplatformfor
communicationintheonlineclassroom,
evaluationcriteriaareusuallypublished.
Thismakesamoreexplicitcommunication of standards and expectations to
spurthestudent’sperformancetogreater
heights(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).
Withtheexceptionofspeakingskills,
onlinelearningmadeatleastsomecontribution to the capabilities of the students to write clearly, think critically,
and analyze quantitative problems.
Almost half of the students reported
that there was very little emphasis on
speakingskills.Developmentofspeaking skills was definitely not a strength
oftheonlinemodeofeducation.
November/December2008
103
TABLE2.FrequencyDistributioninPercentagesforEngagementFactors(n=201)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
Benchmark
Levelofacademicchallenge
Mentalactivities
Memorizingfacts,ideas,ormethods
Analyzinganidea,experience,ortheory
Synthesizingandorganizingideas,orexperience
Makingjudgmentsaboutthevalueofinformation,
arguments,ormethods
Applyingtheoriesorconcepts
Expectationsandevaluations
Workedharderthanyouthoughtyoucould
Skilldevelopment
Writeclearlyandeffectively
Speakclearlyandeffectively
Thinkcriticallyandanalytically
Analyzequantitativeproblems
Student–facultyinteraction
Discussedideasfromreadingsorclassnotes
Discussedgradesorassignments
Receivedpromptfeedback
Discussedcareerplans
Activeandcollaborativelearning
Workedwithotherstudents
Tutoredortaughtotherstudents
Madeaclasspresentationonline
Visitedonlinelibraryresourcestomeetclassassignments
Workeffectivelywithothers
Enrichingeducationalexperience
Technologycompetency
Usedcomputertechnologytoanalyzedata
DevelopedaWebpageormultimediapresentation
Usecomputingandinformationtechnology
Lifeenrichment
Regularcommunicationwithotherstudentson
mattersunrelatedtothecourse
Lifeenrichment
Visitedonlinelibraryresources,notrelatedtoclass
assignments
Learneffectivelyonyourown
Workenrichment
Participatedinonlineclassdiscussions
Acquirejoborwork-relatedknowledgeandskills
Solvecomplexreal-worldproblems
Verylittle
orNever
Someor
Sometimes
Quiteabit
orOften
Verymuch
orVeryoften
12.44
3.48
12.44
40.80
41.79
49.25
33.83
41.29
30.35
12.94
13.43
7.96
14.43
9.45
40.30
42.29
35.82
36.32
9.45
11.94
6.47
35.32
41.29
—
23.88
46.77
11.44
25.87
41.79
34.33
46.27
39.80
24.88
14.43
28.36
26.87
9.45
4.48
13.93
7.46
18.91
8.46
4.48
39.80
56.22
52.24
29.85
41.79
16.42
29.35
47.26
15.92
8.46
9.95
18.41
2.49
17.41
47.76
61.69
9.45
35.32
40.80
35.82
23.38
43.78
37.81
29.85
11.94
12.44
29.35
17.91
11.94
4.48
2.49
17.41
8.96
20.90
34.83
9.95
38.81
40.80
30.85
29.85
18.41
37.31
10.45
5.97
21.89
21.39
31.84
27.36
19.40
31.84
5.47
44.78
18.91
14.93
41.79
8.46
33.83
23.88
27.86
22.89
33.83
39.80
45.77
21.39
25.87
22.39
20.90
6.47
8.46
TABLE3.LevelofAcademicChallengeforHomeworkinPercentages(n=201)
Factor
None
1–3
4–6
7–10
Numberofassignedtextbooks
Numberofwrittenpapersorreportsoffivepagesorfewer
Numberofwrittenpapersorreportsofsixpagesormore
Numberofproblemsetsthattakemorethan1hr
Numberofproblemsetsthattakelessthan1hr
4.48
9.95
10.45
8.96
19.40
76.12
27.86
40.30
58.21
60.20
15.42
32.34
25.37
21.39
15.42
2.49
7.96
10.95
7.46
2.99
Studentswerehighlyengagedinthe
areas of critical and analytical thinking.Almost90%reportedatleastsome
levelofinvolvement.Thiswasagood
report because the ideal curriculum
104
JournalofEducationforBusiness
is one that encourages the learner to
thinkcriticallyandreflectonthecontent with the view to apply it to daily
life (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).
Critical thinking is a manifestation of
>10
1.49
21.89
12.94
3.98
1.99
an engaged environment (Conrad &
Donaldson, 2004). Three quarters of
therespondentsreportedthebenefitof
at least some development in writing
skillsandquantitativeanalysis.Online
learning served to promote basic academic skill development, with the
exceptionofspeakingskills.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
Student–FacultyInteraction
Student–faculty interaction relates
to the nature and frequency of contact
that students have with their faculty.
Contact includes faculty feedback and
discussion of grades and assignments,
ideas, careers, and collaborative projects(Kuh,2003).Facultyfeedbackwas
the most frequent type of interaction
betweenthestudentandinstructor.The
level of contact was exemplary. With
the exception of 4%, all students indicated they received feedback at least
sometimes.As many as 66% indicated
that the level of feedback was often or
very often. Technology can be somewhatcreditedforthisoutcomebecause
itprovidesvariousavenuesforfeedback
(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).Prompt
feedback is particularly vital for the
online student who can otherwise suffer effects of isolation and detachment
(Schwartz&White,2000).
Grades and assignments were populartopicsofdiscussion.Approximately
40%ofthestudentsinteractedwiththe
faculty on these issues often or very
oftenandapproximately90%hadthese
discussions at least sometimes. Online
discussionsonreadingsandclassnotes
were at a modest level. Only a quarter
ofthestudentsinteractedoftenorvery
oftenonthesematters.Inall,56%indicated that they sometimes had these
discussions. How much student–faculty contact is deemed to be optimal
dependsontheissuethatisatthecenter
of the interaction. Both (a) communication about grades and assignments
and (b) discussion of career matters
require occasional interaction. However,feedbackanddiscussionofideasand
classmaterialswarranthigherlevelsof
interaction (Kuh, 2003). The essence
of engagement depends on students’
participationincourse-relatedmaterials
(Wilbur,1998).Thiscircumstanceledto
theconclusionthatthemodestlevelof
interaction on readings and class notes
hasroomforgrowth.
Career-related issues were not frequentlycommunicatedbetweenthefaculty and student. Only 2% of students
interacted with the faculty very often
on career matters. Another 16% often
interacted with the instructor on career
issues.Approximately 40% of students
had never discussed their careers with
thefaculty.Thissuggestedthatengagement in this area was less than optimal,becauseKuh(2003)suggestedthat
career plans merit discussion once or
twicepersemester.
ActiveandCollaborative
Learning
Active and collaborative learning
refers to efforts of the students to contribute to class discussions, work with
otherstudents,andengageinotherclass
activities(Kuh,2003).Collaborationis
keytopromotinglearningintheonline
classroom(Conrad&Donaldson,2004;
Weiss et al., 2000). The online classroom has been commonly referred to
as a learning community, implying the
expectation that it is an environment
thatfosterscollaborativeeffortstopromotelearning(Barker,2002;BenbunanFich, Hiltz, & Harasim, 2005; Dede,
2000). The present findings confirmed
thatonlinelearnersworkedtogetheron
projectsfairlyfrequently.Approximately80%ofstudentscollaboratedatleast
sometimes, and 40% worked together
often to very often. In addition, the
majorityofthestudents(65%)acknowledged at least some benefits to growing their abilities to work effectively
withothers.Morethanaquarterofthe
respondentsconsideredthecontribution
to be quite a bit to very much. Palloff
and Pratt (2001) suggested that collaborativeworkempowersandengages
the learner to the extent that it affects
subsequentlearningsituations.
Groupexchangesthatsolicitmultiple
perspectivesandideasharingareeffective learning techniques (BenbunanFichetal.,2005;Conrad&Donaldson,
2004).Inall,62%ofstudentshadnever
made a class presentation online. Only
12% had often made online class presentations,whereasanother2%hadvery
frequentlymadesuchpresentations.
Learning with peers is the key to
collaborative learning (Benbunan-Fich
etal.,2005).Peertutoringisaformof
idea sharing in the collaborative learning environment in which students can
freely conduct their own inquiry in
self-directed groups (Kemery, 2000).
Almost half of the students had never
tutored their peers. Only 16% taught
otherstudentsoftenorveryoften.This
is in spite of the fact that the Internet and Web have removed time and
placelimitationstoproliferatethechannelsforinteractionandcommunication
(Chickering&Erhmann,1996).
Centraltothesuccessofonlineeducationareactivelearnerswhoproactively take charge of their learning (Hiltz
& Shea, 2005). Research confirmed
that such students frequently visited
theonlinelibrarytoseekoutpublished
resources to meet class assignments.
Approximately90%hadatleastvisited
sometimes.Almosthalfofthestudents
madevisitsoftenorveryoften.
EnrichingEducational
Experience
An enriching educational experience
involvesthedevelopmentoftheperson
tolearntoworkeffectivelywithpeople
fromdifferentbackgroundsandenables
theuseoftechnologytofacilitatecollaboration (Kuh, 2003). Avendano (2003)
aptly described student engagement as
having varying levels of quantitative
and qualitative aspects of involvement.
Learning online promotes applications
toreal-lifesituationsandproblemsolving(Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).
Aconclusivebenefitofonlinelearning was the expertise that students
developedincomputerskills.Itseemed
intuitively clear that because students
werehighlyengagedinusingthecomputer to meet academic requirements,
they developed an array of computer
skills.Otherthangeneralgainsintheuse
of computing and information technology,studentsacquiredskillsinquantitativeanalysisaidedbycomputertechnology,andapproximately90%ofstudents
gained at least some general expertise
on use of computer and information
technology.Approximately60%ofstudentsconsideredthebenefittobequite
abittoverymuch.Thiswasanexemplary level of engagement. Approximately80%ofrespondentswereatleast
sometimes engaged in using computer
technology to facilitate data analysis,
and approximately 40% were often or
November/December2008
105
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
veryoftenengagedinsuchquantitative
work.Theonlinecoursecurriculumdid
not usually require the development of
Web pages and creation of multimedia
presentations. Approximately 40% of
students were involved occasionally in
this type of coursework, whereas 24%
undertook such creative coursework at
leastfrequently.Inall,35%hadneither
developed a Web page nor created a
multimediapresentation.
Another definitive benefit of the
online learning experience was the
autonomygiventostudentssothatthey
were able to learn effectively on their
own. In all, 42% of students had benefited quite a bit from learning effectively by themselves. Another 34%
believedonlinelearninghadverymuch
helpedthemtolearneffectivelyontheir
own.Almost all of the students (95%)
acknowledged at least some assistance
from this ability. Aggarwal and Bento
(2000)proposedthatonlinelearningis
amajorchannelforfacilitatinglifelong
qualitylearning.Studentsintheonline
environmenthavetolearninawaythat
contributestotheirdailylife(Brown&
Ellison,1995).
Related to life skills, the engaged
online learner is often a socially interactive student (Hiltz & Shea, 2005).
Studentsinteractedfrequentlyonsocial
and personal issues. Almost half the
students communicated regularly
on matters not related to the course.
Approximately 20% never communicated socially with their peers. Online
students might occasionally seek readingmaterialsnotrelatedtotheircourse
throughtheonlinelibraryresources.In
all, 45% sometimes made these visits.
Inall,32%nevermadeany.Thiswasa
much lower percentage of engagement
compared with similar visits made to
meetrequirementsofthecourse.
Students acknowledged gains in
knowledge and skill acquisition that
facilitated their understanding of realworld and job-related problems. First,
morethan70%ofstudentshadacquired
atleastsomejob-orwork-relatedknowledge and skills. In all, 32% recognized
quite a bit to very much gain. Second,
almost 80% of students verified that
online learning had rendered at least
somehelptotheirabilitytosolvecomplexreal-worldproblems.Approximate106
JournalofEducationforBusiness
ly30%consideredthisbenefittobequite
abittoverymuch.Third,studentswere
fairly engaged in online class discussionsthroughe-mails,Listservs,andchat
groups.Sharingofideasandresponding
to the perspectives of others promoted
thinking and understanding (T. Hatfield
& S. Hatfield, 1995). Three quarters of
the students participated in online class
discussionsatleastsometimes.Approximately 40% were often or very often
engagedinthesediscussions.
When technology is employed to
foster a rich learning environment,
meaningfulexperiencesarecreatedthat
contribute to a person’s growth and
development (El-Khawas et al., 2003).
Intheenrichedenvironment,thelearningbecomesapartofthelearner(Brown
&Ellison,1995).
SubgroupDistinctions
Students who accomplished an averageofanAgradeandstudentswhowere
satisfiedwiththeiruniversityexperience
reportedhigherlevelsofengagementin
academic efforts and greater gains in
educational outcomes. They reported
considerably greater gains in academic
skilldevelopmentsuchaswriting,speaking,andcriticalthinking.Theywerealso
more engaged in higher order levels of
thinking in analysis, synthesis, making
judgments, and application. These studentsalsointeractedmorewiththefacultyandwereconsistentlymoreengaged
in online class discussions. They saw
greater gains in their ability to work
effectivelywithothersandtheircapabilities to solve job-related and real-world
problems. Students who were more
accomplished(signifiedbytheiraverage
grades ofA or B) put in more effort to
meet standards than did their counterparts. It seems an intuitive conclusion
that students who were more accomplishedandsatisfiedwiththeiracademic
experienceweremoreengaged.
Ofallthemajors,managementand
technologymajorsfrequentlyreported
higherlevelsofengagementandgreatergainsinvariousskillsdevelopment.
Theyacknowledgedsignificantlymore
benefitsinareasofwriting,speaking,
criticalthinking,andquantitativeskill
development. Student–faculty discussions were more frequent for them.
Theywerealsomoreinvolvedinclass
workthatrequiredanalysis,synthesis,
and making judgments. In particular, technology students were highly
interactive online. They were more
engagedinusingtechnologyformost
types of class-related assignments.
However, they viewed the contributiontotheirtechnologyexpertisefrom
theironlinelearningassomewhatless
thanotherstudents.
Differencesinengagementscoresby
genderandagegroupillustrateddistinct
patternsofengagement.However,these
differences may not necessarily have
been the outcome of gender and age
diversities but the result of other variablessuchasthechoiceofmajorsand
typesofcourses.
Men were disproportionately more
engagedinmemorizationwork,whereas
women were somewhat more engaged
inanalysis,makingjudgment,andapplicationwork.HiltzandShea(2005)suggestedthatwomenaremorecomfortable
intheonlinelearningenvironmentthan
aremenandthatthismaybebecauseof
thefemalestudents’higherverbalskills
and greater inclination toward collaborativelearningapproaches.Femalestudentsalsoreportedmoregainsinwriting
skills,andmalestudentsindicatedgreaterbenefitsfromquantitativeskilldevelopment. Male students interacted more
with the faculty on readings, grades,
and assignments, and they undertook
Webpagedevelopmentandmultimedia
presentations more frequently. Female
students reported higher levels of collaboration with peers on class projects.
The students aged 25 years and older
were geared more toward higher levels
of thinking than the respondents who
were younger than 25 years old; the
former worked harder to meet expectations, were more engaged in participationincollaborativeprojects,andmade
more contributions to online class discussions. The older students tended to
center their online discussions solely
oncourse-relatedmatters,whereastheir
youngercounterparts(lessthan25years
old)weremoreengagedinonlinesocial
communication. Of all the age groups,
students aged 25–34 years reported the
most gains in many educational outcomes. They noted the most gains in
academic skill development such as
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:46 11 January 2016
writing, critical thinking, and quantitative analysis. The older students interacted more frequently with the faculty
than did any of the other age groups.
There were substantially more benefits
to their ability to work effectively with
others.Theyweremoreinvolvedintechnology-aided coursework. Both these
participants and senior students aged
45–54yearsreportedextensivebenefits
in learning to solve real-world problems.Theseniorgroupwastheonlyone
thatwasactivelyinvolvedinpeertutoring.Studentsyoungerthan25yearsold
mademoreeffortstovisittheelectronic
libraryoutsideofclassrequirements.
ImpactofResearchonHigher
Education
These engagement results provided an understanding of the type and
level of student engagement in online
learning. Engagement happens along a
continuum and is a matter of degrees
of involvement (Avendano, 2003).
Thoughthestudenthastheresponsibility to engage in academic activities, it
is the faculty member’s role to create
purposefulcoursedesignsthatpromote
interaction, participation, and communication in the online learning environment (Johnson, 2003; Weiss et al.,
2000). Educators and instructors have
to consciously and consistently sustain
andgrowthetypesandlevelofengagementinonlineeducation.
Institutions have an opportunity to
increase learning through designing
technological innovations to support
the development of speaking skills.
The Internet and related technologies
makepossiblecreativeandcutting-edge
pedagogythatpermitinnovationforthe
teaching–learningprocess(Burgstahler,
2000;Lowy&Ticoll,1998).Theprevalent concept of a learning community
allowscontenttobedeliveredinmany
ways and eases the task of interaction
(Palloff&Pratt,2001).
Curriculum design should focus on
increasing student–faculty interaction
on readings and class-related materials. The prevalent level of engagement
in these discussions was unexpectedly
lower than other areas of interaction.
The extent and quality of engagement
is related to the efforts of the students
toparticipateinandcontributetoclassrelatedmaterials(Wilbur,1998).
Theonlinelearningenvironmentisan
idealsettingtopromotegreaterinvolvementinmentalcapacities.Slightlymore
emphasiscanbegiventoincorporating
assignments that require synthesis of
andmakingjudgmentsoncourse-relatedmaterials.Memorizationoffactsand
informationhastobeminimizedtothe
extentthatthereisaclearemphasison
higherorderlevelsofthinking.
Students’participationinonlineclass
presentationsshouldbepromoted.This
canincludepeerevaluation.Instructors
frequentlymakeonlinepresentationsto
class members. The Internet and Web
have been used effectively to enhance
suchpresentations(Cole,2000).
Theonlinecurriculumshouldactivelyengagestudentsthroughchallenging
academic rigor, consistent and timely
student–facultyinteraction,acollaborative learning environment, and activities that enrich the development of the
student. The Internet and related technologieshaveincreasedtheopportunity
for learning through the elimination of
timeandplaceconstraintsandtheavailability of flexible and innovative channels for interaction (Burgstahler, 2000;
Chickering&Ehrmann,1996).
Thepresentfindingsservetoencourage the ap