Online Graduate Students’ Perspective on Engagement in Active Learning in the United States

Authors: Ehi E. Aimiuwu

Abstract:

As of 2017, many researchers in educational journals are still wondering if students are effectively and efficiently engaged in active learning in the online learning environment. The goal of this qualitative single case study and narrative research is to explore if students are actively engaged in their online learning. Seven online students in the United States from LinkedIn and residencies were interviewed for this study. Eleven online learning techniques from research were used as a framework.  Data collection tools were used for the study that included a digital audiotape, observation sheet, interview protocol, transcription, and NVivo 12 Plus qualitative software.  Data analysis process, member checking, and key themes were used to reach saturation. About 85.7% of students preferred individual grading. About 71.4% of students valued professor’s interacting 2-3 times weekly, participating through posts and responses, having good internet access, and using email.  Also, about 57.1% said students log in 2-3 times weekly to daily, professor’s social presence helps, regular punctuality in work submission, and prefer assessments style of research, essay, and case study.  About 42.9% appreciated syllabus usefulness and professor’s expertise.

Keywords: Class facilitation, course management, online teaching, online education, student engagement.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3566439

References:

[1] Dimeo, J. 2017. “Take my advice,” Inside HigherEd. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com
[2] Perry, E. J. 2017. “Engaging students in online courses: adding experiential to asynchrony,” Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com
[3] Svinicki, M., and McKeachie, W. J. 2011. “Experiential Learning: Case-Based, Problem-Based, and Reality-Based,” in Svinicki & McKeachie, McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 13th edition, pp. 202-212.
[4] 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.
[5] Zhu, E. & Kaplan, M. 2011. “Technology and Teaching,” in Svinicki & McKeachie, McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 13th edition, pp. 235- 266.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] Svinicki, M., and McKeachie, W. J. 2011. “The Ethics of Teaching and the Teaching of Ethics,” in Svinicki & McKeachie, McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, CA: Wadsworth, ABIS 2013 Refereed Proceedings www.abis-fbd.org 55 Cengage Learning, 13th edition, pp. 315- 329.
[9] Chyung, S. Y. 2007. “Invisible motivation of online adult learners during contract learning,” The Journal of Educators Online.
[10] Svinicki, M., and McKeachie, W. J. 2011. “Teaching Culturally Diverse Students,” In Svinicki & McKeachie, McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 13th edition, pp. 151-170.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
[16] Aimiuwu, E. 2012. “A case of bias in teaching, grading, and plagiarism,” Americas Conference on Information Systems Proceedings, Paper 4, pp. 1-6.
[17] 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.