Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Hadsell, Kent Faculty Perceptions of Online Engagement

372

Published on

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
372
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Faculty Perceptions of Online Student Engagement: California Community Colleges and The California State University STUDIES BY Jory Hadsell, Sacramento City College Tracy Kent, CSU Sacramento December 1, 2011 DET/CHE Conference
  • 2. Changing TimesQuestion:Do we really understand how to activelyengage our students in a changing world?
  • 3. Introduction• Student engagement is commonly viewed as a key element in predicting and ensuring the success of online learners.• It can be difficult to separate effective engagement strategies from ancillary course administration activities.• Researchers have taken multiple approaches to defining student engagement -- the universe of elements construed as contributing to engagement of online students can seem very broad.• Is student engagement in the "eye of the beholder" -- in this case, the faculty teaching online? If so -- how do faculty define and perceive engagement?
  • 4. Background• Purpose: o Exploring faculty attitudes and perceptions of student engagement in online courses  California Community Colleges (Hadsell)  California State University system (Kent)• Scope: o Mini-qualitative research projects o Comparative analysis:  Sacramento City College  CSU Sacramento• Focus: o Explore the faculty perspective of student engagement in the online learning environment.
  • 5. Online Engagement• The instructor may use his or her role to evoke student motivation and spur students to persist in online learning environments. (Christian & John, 2010)• Students who feel disconnected or physically isolated from their classmates are more likely to drop out of online programs. (Angelino, et. al, 2007)• Maki and Maki (2007) found that students were often required to do more in online courses than in traditional courses. They wrote that to be effective, online instructors need a strong methodology and opportunities for students to interact with each other and the instructor.• Synchronous tools can assist in humanizing the classroom with interaction between student-student and instructor (Kolsaka, 2001).
  • 6. Preliminary Research Approach• Preliminary Research o Qualitative interviews o Comparative analysis of interviews and artifacts• Data collection o Interviews with faculty who teach online (at least two years experience); Los Rios CCD and CSU Sacramento o Limited by a small sample size o Conducted a review and analysis of artifacts (Syllabi, assignments, related articles, etc.) o Identification of emergent themes in each study
  • 7. FIVE EMERGENT THEMESBASED ON PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
  • 8. Emergent Themes• Background / Mental Models o Who the faculty member is o Background  Training and certifications  Relating to experiences as an online student o Instructional Mental Models  Interest in student learning & progress  Interest and tendencies relating to technology experimentation• Structure and Content o Organizational strategy o Variety and clarity of assignments o Construction of syllabus o Multi-modal approach (videos, podcasts, textbook, etc.)
  • 9. Emergent Themes• Community/Interaction o Frequency and depth of interaction (faculty-student, student-student, whole class presence) o Fostering of creativity and expression o Encouraging participation o Overall availability of faculty member• Assessment o Grading features o Timeliness and frequency of feedback to students o Use of statistical reports or analytics
  • 10. Emergent Themes• The Online Learning Experience o Faculty awareness of their actions o Assumptions on the part of all parties o Clarity of expectations (both faculty and student) o Faculty assumptions/perceptions of student patterns of behavior o Challenges and barriers for students (e.g., deadlines, maintaining focus, motivation)
  • 11. Questions Raised• Questions raised by the preliminary research: o How do personal experiences, traits, and the attitude of the instructor impact the instructional approaches online? o Do the personal values of faculty differ from what is projected to students via course materials? o How can faculty best create clarity in the organization of an online course? (assignments, grading scheme, online classroom, etc.) How is this impacted by experience as an online student? o How can faculty be more active in seeking engagement with students, rather than passively expecting it to happen? o How do learning analytics inform/impact engagement?
  • 12. Contact InformationJory HadsellSacramento City Collegejory.hadsell@scc.losrios.edu@joryhadsellTracy KentCSU Sacramentokentt@saclink.csus.edu
  • 13. ReferencesAngelino, L., Williams, F., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies toengage online students and reduce attrition rates. The Journal ofEducators Online, 4(2), 1-14.Christian, G., & John, G. (2010). Interaction in Online Courses: Moreis NOT Always Better. Online Journal of Distance LearningAdministration, 13(2).Kosalka,K. (2001, August 10). Using synchronous tools to buildcommunity in the asynchronous online classroom. FacultyFocus. Retrieved from www.facultyfocus.comMaki, R.H. & Maki, W.S. (2007). Online Courses. In F.T. Durso(Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 527-552). NewYork: Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

×