Student Engagement

(posted 29 Mar 2014)

My previous two blogs looked at 'best practice' recommendations and discussed whether it is the tool or the technique that advantages the digital platform as a medium for learning in certain situations.  Both blogs also touched upon the importance of learner engagement, a consideration examined in more depth in this discussion.

While student engagement is important regardless of teaching platform (Damoense, 2003; Davis & Fletcher, 2010; Honeyfield et al., 2010; Wright, 2010), it stands to reason that tutors responsible for a fully or partially online course may encounter greater difficulty inculcating engagement due to the dissociation that can be occasioned by lack of face to face interaction (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, Raffo, & Woodard, 2011; Kanuka, 2009; Sanders, 2006).  As a result, it is all too easy for the physical isolation of remote students to progress to affective isolation – resulting in disconnection from learning (Brinthaupt et al., 2011; Ladyshewsky,2013).  The possibility of this undesirable outcome may be particularly exacerbated for ACE students who are less likely to be fortified by either an identity as a ‘learner’ or well-developed, independent learning skills (Dymock, 2007; Tett & Maclachlan, 2008).  Furthermore, these students may already, for a variety of reasons, feel isolated from mainstream society (Balatti et al.,2006).

Without a sense of engagement, students can feel isolated
(Family Care for Grassroots Community, 2012)

What, then, can be done to encourage engagement, participation and motivation?  Ladyshewsky (2013), in his summary of research, expands upon Garrison and Vaughn’s framework for online teaching which comprises “social, cognitive, and teaching presence” (p. 3).  Teaching presence, in brief, refers to the tutor’s design and management of course content, and cognitive presence to the means tutors utilise to assist students’ understanding of content by encouraging reflection. While strong underpinnings of both teaching and cognitive presence are important for remote students, research suggests that successfully promoting engagement in a distance learning environment extends beyond those more characteristic pedagogical considerations. 

Ladyshewsky (2013) reports that of the three ‘presences’ comprising this framework, social presence was in fact the most significant predictor of student satisfaction. Social presence refers, in essence, to the creation of a bond between students-students and students-tutor, resulting in a greater affective attachment and hence greater course engagement.  The behavioural difference between tutors who do or don’t establish this presence is somewhat subtle, and is perhaps best summed up by Brinthatupt et al. (2011) who refer to it as “building rapport with students” (p. 1).  It is interesting that Ladyshewsky’s (2013) research found that tutor-student rapport carried even greater weight in terms of student satisfaction than that between students.

The tutor plays a key role in cultivating 'social presence'
(Kadroit Technology, n.d.)

The author suggests a variety of ways to cultivate this rapport - including timely and personalised feedback, individual acknowledgement of students, getting to know more about students as people while simultaneously sharing information about oneself, proactively encouraging constructive peer to peer dialogue, and actively drawing in outliers.  These small actions, it was found, significantly increased students’ sense of belonging and engagement.

If we consider that according to Ladyshewsky (2013) student satisfaction links strongly not only to present engagement with learning, but is also a predictor of future engagement, it would behove us to pay special attention to cultivating a social presence with our own students.  To my mind this is especially important for second-chance students as research indicates these learners are often fearful of re-engaging in formal learning, and require – in some instances – almost pastoral care (Ako Aotearoa, 2012; Whatman, Schagen, Vaughan, & Lander, 2010).  Brinthatupt et al.’s (2011) comment that “underprepared, first generation students probably should be treated differently from a graduating senior” (p. 522), while not referring explicitly to LLN learners, lends weight to the pertinence of this consideration.    Furthermore, the social aspects of learning and the consequent enhancement of social capital, may be equally if not more important to second-chance students as the learning itself (Balatti et al., 2006; Barton & Papen, 2005).  

In summary, while tutors of second-chance learners undoubtedly already strive to provide a supportive environment conducive to learning, the need for a heightened awareness of the importance of the social aspects of teaching increases commensurate with geographical and physical distance.   

Link to References