Influence of Instructors in Engaging Online Graduate Students in Active Learning in the United States
Authors: Ehi E. Aimiuwu
As of 2017, many online learning professionals, institutions, and journals are still wondering how instructors can keep student engaged in the online learning environment to facilitate active learning effectively. The purpose of this qualitative single-case and narrative research is to explore whether online professors understand their role as mentors and facilitators of students’ academic success by keeping students engaged in active learning based on personalized experience in the field. Data collection tools that were used in the study included an NVivo 12 Plus qualitative software, an interview protocol, a digital audiotape, an observation sheet, and a transcription. Seven online professors in the United States from LinkedIn and residencies were interviewed for this study. Eleven online teaching techniques from previous research were used as the study framework. Data analysis process, member checking, and key themes were used to achieve saturation. About 85.7% of professors agreed on rubric as the preferred online grading technique. About 57.1% agreed on professors logging in daily, students logging in about 2-5 times weekly, knowing students to increase accountability, email as preferred communication tool, and computer access for adequate online learning. About 42.9% agreed on syllabus for clear class expectations, participation to show what has been learned, and energizing students for creativity.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3566373Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 232
 Dimeo, J. 2017. “Take my advice,” Inside HigherEd. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com
 Perry, E. J. 2017. “Engaging students in online courses: adding experiential to asynchrony,” Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com
 Aimiuwu, E., Bapna, S., & Ahmed, A. 2013. “Effective use of technology to improve diverse student interaction in online courses for workplace success,” Association of Business Information Systems Conference Proceedings, pp. 37-61.
 Croxton, R. A. 2014. “The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online Learning,” Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (10:2), pp. 314.
 Grigorovici, D., Nam, S., & Russill, C. 2003. “The effects of online syllabus interactivity on students' perception of the course and instructor,” The Internet and higher education (6:1), pp. 41-52.
 Stewart, M., Stott, T., & Nuttall, A. M. 2011. “Student engagement patterns over the duration of level 1and level 3 geography modules: Influences on student attendance, performance and use of online resources,” Journal of Geography in Higher Education (35:01), pp. 47-65.
 Chyung, S. Y. 2007. “Invisible motivation of online adult learners during contract learning,” The Journal of Educators Online.
 Westerman, J. W., Perez‐Batres, L. A., Coffey, B. S., & Pouder, R. W. 2011. “The relationship between undergraduate attendance and performance revisited: Alignment of student and instructor goals,” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education (9:1), pp. 49-67.
 Worthington, D. L., & Levasseur, D. G. (2015). To provide or not to provide course PowerPoint slides? The impact of instructor-provided slides upon student attendance and performance. Computers & Education, (85), pp. 14-22.
 You, J. W. 2016. “Identifying significant indicators using LMS data to predict course achievement in online learning,” The Internet and Higher Education, (29), pp. 23-30.
 Curtis, G. J., Gouldthorp, B., Thomas, E. F., O'Brien, G. M., & Correia, H. M. 2013. “Online academic-integrity mastery training may improve students' awareness of, and attitudes toward, plagiarism, “Psychology Learning & Teaching, (12:3), pp. 282-289.
 Aimiuwu, E. 2012. “A case of bias in teaching, grading, and plagiarism,” Americas Conference on Information Systems Proceedings, Paper 4, pp. 1-6.
 Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. 2006. “The impact of e-learning in medical Education,” Academic medicine (81:3), pp. 207-212.