A Meta-Analysis Of Approaches To Engage Social Work Students Online

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wtsw20
Journal of Teaching in Social Work
ISSN: 0884-1233 (Print) 1540-7349 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20
A Meta-Analysis of Approaches to Engage Social
Work Students Online
Dorothy Farrel, Kateri Ray, Telvis Rich, Zulema Suarez, Brian Christenson &
Lisa Jennigs
To cite this article: Dorothy Farrel, Kateri Ray, Telvis Rich, Zulema Suarez, Brian Christenson
& Lisa Jennigs (2018): A Meta-Analysis of Approaches to Engage Social Work Students Online,
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2018.1431351
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2018.1431351
Published online: 20 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

A Meta-Analysis of Approaches to Engage Social Work
Students Online
Dorothy Farrela
, Kateri Rayb
, Telvis Richb
, Zulema Suarezb
, Brian Christensonb
,
and Lisa Jennigsb
a
School of Public Service Leadership, Department of Social Work, Capella University, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA; b
School of Social Work, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
ABSTRACT
With an increase in social work courses being offered in online
and hybrid formats, it is imperative that social work programs
understand the new teaching tenets and engagement med-
iums employed to meet the new Council on Social Work
Education’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards.
This meta-analysis explores best-practices pedagogy for stu-
dent engagement using the delivery of content through both
asynchronous and synchronous methods.
KEYWORDS
distance learning; best
practices; synchronous and
asynchronous; engaging
students
Introduction
Online and hybrid programs are growing at a fast pace (Achilles, Byrd,
Felder-Strauss, Franklin, & Janowich, 2011). In 2011, more than 6.7 million
students enrolled in one or more online courses, which reflected a 9.3%
growth rate (Collins, Weber, & Zambrano, 2014). Within social work, the
Council on Social Work Education (2016) reported 38 accredited MSW
online programs and 107 hybrid programs in 2014, not including programs
in candidacy. Despite the growth and demand for these programs, skeptics
are concerned over the minimization of human interaction and likely student
isolation (Ayala, 2009; Zidan, 2015), as well as lower retention rates.
According to F. K. Williams, Angelino, and Natvig (2007), attrition continues
to be a major concern in online higher education, with rates 10% to 20%
higher than experienced with classes taught in a face-to-face setting. With
postsecondary education being criticized for low retention and graduation
rates, pressure is building to find solutions that will firmly engage learners in
their online studies (ASHE Higher Education Report, 2014).
Moore and Signor (2014) observed that one of the most significant
challenges with blended learning is engagement of students within this
environment, as a study by Bass and Ballard (2012) connected student
engagement to student retention. Social work educators therefore need to
CONTACT Dorothy Farrel dorothy.farrel@capella.edu School of Public Service Leadership, Department of
Social Work, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN 55402,USA.
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2018.1431351
© 2018 Taylor & Francis

identify best practices to effectively engage students to ensure learning and
retention. Indeed, when students are engaged, the online learning environ-
ment can provide webbed connectivity and relationship building (Noble &
Russell, 2013). The following meta-analysis study was conducted to identify
best practices to effectively engage distance learning students through the use
of both synchronous and asynchronous teaching modalities that deploy the
creative use of live webinars, video feeds, online discussion boards, wikis,
blogs, gaming, and group projects.
Online and blended learning
Social workers continue to be divided over the appropriateness of providing
social work education in the online environment (Buchanan & Mathews, 2013).
Specifically, skepticism involving the ability to effectively teach practice courses
online particularly troubles social work educators (Ferrera, Ostrander, &
Crabtree-Nelson, 2013; Forgey & Ortega-Williams, 2016). However, some
researchers have noted that distance education within the field of social work
promotes social justice by providing more equal access to education (Rodriguez-
Keyes & Schneider, 2013). Due in part to this pedagogical divide, the social work
discipline has not kept pace with technological development of online program-
ming (Siebert & Spaulding-Givens, 2006). However, recent research comparing
online and face-to-face courses demonstrates that students appear to experience
equal outcomes (Brown & Park, 2016; Forgey & Ortega-Williams, 2016).
As the demand for hybrid and online learning has increased, the resources
and tools to provide learning within these settings has also grown. Pelech and
colleagues (2013) stated that this growth may be attributed to student
demand and institutional pressure. Social work programs therefore are slowly
embracing online formatting (Ferrera, Ostrander, & Crabree-Nelson, 2013).
Online programs include multiple formats. Fully online programs have no
face-to-face requirements, whereas Levin, Whistett, and Wood (2013)
defined hybrid or blended learning as a purposeful integration of both
asynchronous and synchronous learning. Alrushiedat and Olfman (2013)
further defined blended learning as a mixture of face-to-face and online
learning found to enhance the students’ learning experience.
Nonetheless, there are many opponents to the use of online learning in
social work education. Brabazon (2002) argued that its development has
eroded the culture of intellectual thought that occurs within the brick-and-
mortar classroom. Menon and Coe (2000) plainly questioned whether online
courses could be effective. Social work educators have further pointed out the
difficulties with delivering feedback on clinical skills, reading nonverbal
gestures, and appreciating cultural differences. A focus on the human con-
nection and hands-on application creates a strain that may be difficult to
ignore within the social work setting (Siebert & Spaulding-Givens, 2006). In
2 D. FARREL ET AL.

fact, some authors contend that when participants do not physically interact,
practice courses are not effective (Jacobs, 2014). Additional concerns with the
online social work classroom include academic honesty, gatekeeping, privacy,
student access, surveillance, and quality of courses (Reamer, 2013); addres-
sing cultural differences (Maidment, 2005); technical and logistical problems,
lower levels of student satisfaction, and difficultly engaging with peers
(Hirschheim, 2005); and reduced peer interactions, potential miscommuni-
cation, and irregular participation (Rovai, 2007).
However, other researchers have argued that the online classroom is an
effective mode of delivery in social work education. Advocates of online
learning have argued that distance education meets the needs of students
who may not have access to the traditional brick-and-mortar university. In
fact, Reamer (2013) contended that distance learning embraces social work
ethical standards of educational access. Distance education provides oppor-
tunities for individuals who have life circumstances that make traditional
campus education difficult to access, offers individuals in remote locations
the opportunity to attend courses without the burden of relocation or travel,
and is often welcomed by students who have alternative learning styles
(Kurzman, 2013; Reamer, 2013; Tschida & Sevier, 2013).
Providing coursework online not only is cost-effective from a physical
plant and faculty resource perspective but also offers flexibility and therefore
inherent recruiting and retention potential. Accordingly, students whose
lifestyles or life responsibilities do not match well with traditional college
schedules are able to access otherwise elusive academic degrees. Multiple
studies contend that social work online education is not only an effective
mode of delivery but also often provides no difference—or higher proficiency
and outcomes—for the students enrolled (Nicholas et al., 2012; Siebert,
Siebert, & Spaulding-Givens, 2006; Wiest, 2015).
Synchronous and asynchronous learning
Online educators need to be aware of the differences in synchronous and
asynchronous learning in order to incorporate evidence-based best practices
within the classroom, with both, of course, being integrated within blended
classrooms. The ability to integrate both modes of learning often enhances
the online learning experience.
Asynchronous communication is that which is delayed in time, or not in a
live setting (Zoumenou, Sigman-Grant, Coleman, Malekian, & Zee, 2015).
Such learning provides opportunities for critical thought, because learners
have the opportunity to reflect and communicate when time allows, as
opposed to a set time for class. This opportunity for critical thought allows
students to reflect, which in turn engages a higher order of thinking includ-
ing analysis, synthesis, application of knowledge, and judgment (Chena,
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK 3

Lambertb, & Guidryb, 2010). The benefits of this form of communication
include convenience, access for working adults, accommodations for indivi-
duals with disabilities, and geographical flexibility (Hrastinski, 2008).
Synchronous learning takes place in real time, providing students and
faculty an occasion to interact via web-based technologies. A study con-
ducted by Claman (2015) found that engagement by students is significantly
higher in a synchronous learning platform when compared to an asynchro-
nous one. Synchronous learning involves live discussions to observe reactions
and behaviors, engage students with both peers and instructors, and provide
for a social presence within the symbolic classroom (Zoumenou et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, a study conducted by Huang, Wang, and Liu (2015) demon-
strated that asynchronous communication often may be much more effective
than a synchronous design in motivating and engaging students. Additional
research by Levin, He, and Robbins (2006) noted that learners engaged in
synchronous online education demonstrated higher levels of critical thought
when compared to only being engaged in asynchronous learning. Therefore,
a combination of (i.e., blend) synchronous and asynchronous communica-
tion in distance learning generally is recommended (Zoumenou et al., 2015).
Watts (2016) completed a literature review that demonstrated that
research supports the use of both synchronous and asynchronous learning
while considering the needs of the students, program, and available technical
support, and a study conducted by Rienties, Gijselaers, Giesbers, and
Tempelaar (2014) further confirmed that a combination of asynchronous
and synchronous communication is the optimal method to engage students
within e-learning.
Engaging students
Clearly, one of the significant challenges with blended online learning is
engagement of students (El-Sheikh, 2009; Moore & Signor, 2014). Many
faculty members report that it takes longer in the online environment to
engage students (Levin et al., 2013) and that their student engagement is
directly linked to student retention (Bass & Ballard, 2012). In addition, a
study conducted by Levin and colleagues (2013) determined that engaging
students online takes more effort and that instructors reported the need to be
more creative than when teaching in the traditional face-to-face setting.
Naturally, engagement of online students is more important than within
the traditional face-to-face courses because online students have fewer
opportunities to connect to peers, faculty, and the university (Collins et al.,
2014). Traditional faculty also frequently struggle with how to translate their
student engagement style and practices within the classroom to the online
platform (Amador & Mederer, 2013). In a study conducted by Rich (2015),
27 adjunct faculty members shared that they felt the resources to support
4 D. FARREL ET AL.

student engagement were minimal and college administrators did little to
address this essential tenet in the online learning experience.
Student engagement is found to be essential in learning and promoting
student satisfaction (Mitchell, 2014). Research has shown multiple methods
for engaging students online including substantial teacher involvement
(Collins et al., 2014; Reushle & Mitchell, 2009), building of relationships
with learners (Levin et al., 2013; Noble & Russell, 2013), creating an envir-
onment that encourages webbed connectivity (Noble & Russell, 2013), and
engaging students early and often (F. K. Williams et al., 2007). An inquiry
conducted by Chakraborty and Nafukho (2014) looked at the factors needed
to create an engaging environment for online students and found the effec-
tiveness of creating and maintaining an enriched learning atmosphere, giving
timely feedback, using up-to-date technology, and the conscious building of
an online community. Additional best practices include facilitation of lear-
ner-to-learner (peer) collaboration (F. K. Williams et al., 2007), additional
forms of communication to students, including e-mail, support from student
advisors, and periodic phone calls to students (Achilles et al., 2011).
Studies have identified that students desire engagement. Collins and col-
leagues (2014) observed that the students need to feel connected to people
rather than the computer and to the professor through a meaningful and
consistent presence within the virtual classroom (Collins et al., 2014).
Students stated that they became more engaged when there was a participa-
tory culture, learning was interactive, and there were adequate resources
(Annala, Mákinen, Svárd, Silius, & Miilumáki, 2012; Rich, 2015).
A recent study further confirms that faculty engagement and “presence”
reduces student anxiety, which in turn fosters greater learning (Rapp-McCall
& Anyikwa, 2016), and Littlefield, Rubinstein, and Pittman (2015) contended
that use of technology within the online classroom can increase student
engagement. Best practices to successfully engage the online student are
just starting to be developed through research findings. The question is no
longer whether we can teach social work within the online setting, but rather
how to effectively engage the online learner in these programs.
Methods used to engage students through online technology
Although the literature provides multiple methods to engage students within
the online environment, our current research reports the findings of a meta-
analysis conducted to determine best practices for engagement within the
online environment. In the literature, best practices pointed out that learning
platforms that depend on asynchronous communication benefit from the
introduction of webinars (Zoumenou et al., 2015) and video feeds (Muncy,
2014); multimedia and discussion boards enhance emotional engagement
within the online setting (Alrushiedat & Olfman, 2013; Sun & Rueda,

2012); forums, wikis, and blogs provide engaging tools for communication
(Hampel & Pleines, 2013); three-dimensional (3D) technology and gaming
pique students’ interest within the online setting (Bouta, Retalis, & Paraskeva,
2012); and group projects create positive peer collaboration (Collins et al.,
2014). The following is a summary of best practices found to successfully
engage the online student.
Webinars
One effective mode of delivery to engage students is the use of webinars (Sull,
2014). A webinar is defined as a presentation, discussion, lecture, or work-
shop that is provided on a web-based platform through technology
(Zoumenou et al., 2015). The introduction of webinars within an asynchro-
nous setting provides an enriching and engaging environment. Reamer
(2013) further noted that webinars provide social work educators the oppor-
tunity to engage students who have geographical or personal limitations to
attending the traditional campus courses.
Hsu and Wang (2008) shared five advantages of integrating webinars: (a)
They provide the opportunity for students to engage through viewing
recorded sessions when they cannot attend, (b) they are affordable, (c) they
enable synchronous communication, (d) they enhance real-time demonstra-
tions and discussions, and (e) they enable multilevel interactions. A study
that reviewed 61 webinars found that participants were able to demonstrate
critical thought, ask questions and receive immediate feedback, facilitate
interaction, enhance their participation, and acquire knowledge more effec-
tively (Mayorga, Bekerman, & Palis, 2014).
Another inquiry to evaluate the feasibility, satisfaction, and value of
webinars conducted by Borgerson and Dino (2012) discovered that synchro-
nous webinars were not only effective in presenting clinical research but also
very “economical.” The participants in this study also reported exceptionally
high levels of satisfaction with the webinar experience.
Video assets
The use of video within the online classroom engages learners through visual
stimulus (Hua, 2013). Research has demonstrated that the application of
video with audio provides an interactive and engaging experience for online
learners (Burgess, 2015; Stephens & Mottet, 2009). Skylar (2009) studied 44
students who were exposed to online video conferencing, compared to online
asynchronous based learning only, and found that three fourths of the
students preferred the synchronous web conferencing. Fitch, Canada, Cary,
and Freese (2016) considered the various online video conferencing tools to
facilitate role-plays for social work students. The social work students sur-
veyed shared that they felt the online experience was more intimate without
the pressure of the face-to-face presence of their peers.
6 D. FARREL ET AL.

In a U.S. Department of Education study, the incorporation of multimedia
(such as video) was explored to determine engagement and success of the
student, and the study concluded that the integration of videos did not
impact the amount or level of learning; however, it did increase the engage-
ment of the student (Courts & Tucker, 2012). National Teacher Trainer
Institute (2011) researchers found that the inclusion of videos within the
classroom assisted the learners with their comprehension of the materials as
well as increased student retention. The integration of such visual tools also
provided students who were visual learners with an opportunity to enhance
their learning experience (Courts & Tucker, 2012; Rudd & Rudd, 2014).
Online discussion boards
Online discussion boards are a primary tenet of online asynchronous learn-
ing and are meant to duplicate the face-to-face discussion in a classroom.
Douville (2013) observed that online discussion boards engage students in
providing reflective responses and enhance collaborative learning. This sense
of community is important to the development of engagement in the dis-
tance education classroom. According to Alrushiedat and Olfman (2013),
when students experience a sense of community, they will more deeply
engage themselves in critical thought, which will create rich discussion and
learning. Further, Roehm and Bonnel (2009) shared that discussion questions
provide students with an occasion to gauge their experiences against others,
connect the faculty to the students’ knowledge and experiences, and develop
a firmer understanding of others’ resources and insights. An additional asset
of discussion boards is that students have more time to develop critical
thought and express their answers in a professional manner (Prestera &
Moller, 2001). Hermann (2006) added that students actively engaged with
online discussion boards experience active learning, enhancement of writing
skills, and socialization. Moreover, a study explored the use of discussion
boards by social work students in field placements. This study indicated that
students are more engaged with the use of discussion boards while placed in
field internships (Testa & Egan, 2016).
Online discussion boards allow for easy access, are user friendly, are afford-
able, and provide secure environments that facilitate communication between
instructors and students (Zidan, 2015). In addition, Sun and Rueda (2012) found
that online tools such as discussion boards increase emotional engagement.
Finally, Alrushiedat and Olfman (2013) examined the benefits of asynchronous
online discussion questions and discovered that discussion boards facilitated
more frequent and substantial engagement than experienced in traditional class-
room discussion and promoted the faculty members’ engagement with students
in collaborative learning (Buckley, Beyna, & Dudley-Brown, 2005).

Wikis and blogs
Another form of online student engagement is through the use of online wikis
or blogs. Hampel and Pleines (2013) argued they can provide learners with the
tools to negotiate meaning and develop knowledge in an online environment.
Muncy (2014) further noted that reflective learning, such as e-journaling
through blogs, is an effective way to engage students within online learning.
Wikis. Wikis are defined as collaborative sites where students and faculty
can edit and add to whiteboards that allow for development of collaborative
thought (Kahn, 2009; Zitzelsberger, Campbell, Service, & Sanchez, 2015).
Wikis provide the opportunity to construct knowledge and build social
learning through a collaborative process. Terrell (2012) further opined that
wikis provide a positive collaborative experience where learners take respon-
sibility for their own learning. Multiple studies have been conducted to
determine the effectiveness of wikis in student engagement. Deters,
Cuthrell, and Stapleton (2010) looked at a sample of 40 students to determine
perceptions of wiki effectiveness and concluded that although students initi-
ally were nervous about the integration of the new technology, they reported
that wikis provided a collaborative tool that assisted in keeping them
engaged. Further, Coccoma, Peppers, and Molhoek (2012) conducted
research to examine the effectiveness of integrating wikis within a social
welfare course. Social work students were engaged through the addition of
wikis within this class, promoting effective mastery of the content. The
students in this study shared that the use of wikis enhanced their knowledge
and provided teamwork skills, understanding of technology, and online
collaboration.
Walsh (2010) examined four service learning projects that integrated the
use of wikis. This study confirmed that wikis enhanced collaboration and
increased students’ knowledge and expertise. An additional study that exam-
ined the effectiveness of integrating wikis into the classroom confirmed that
wikis promote collaborative learning, independent thought, and creative
discussions (Hewege & Perera, 2013).
Blogs. Similar to a personal journal, blogs provide an online space where
students can post their thoughts, ideas, and insights. The literature provides
evidence that blogs provide a meaningful connection to the classroom that
connects the learner to the academic setting (Costello, 2011) and can be
useful in providing accountability within the classroom (Pearson, 2010).
Courts and Tucker (2012) shared that blogs can create a collaborative
learning environment where metacognitive learning enhances active engage-
ment. In addition, Chaumba (2015) determined that blogs often play an
integral role in stimulating reflective thinking within a social work human
behavior course. The results of this study demonstrated an increase in
8 D. FARREL ET AL.

reflective engagement from 21% to 57% upon the use of online blogs. In fact,
when blogs are incorporated within the classroom, students are likely to
become empowered and more fully engaged with others (Oravec, 2002).
Santos (2011) examined the integration of blogs within a classroom of 38
students and found that students felt engaged with the use of the innovative
technology, and the Halic, Lee, Paulus, and Spence (2010) study would
support Santos’s finding.
3D Virtual environment and gaming
Zarrad (2016) shared that there are significant advances in the field of
technology, including integration of virtual environments, and use of 3D
worlds (including avatars) within the classroom. Yet there is little research in
this area to demonstrate effectiveness. Some early research exploring the use
of gaming within the classroom suggests that these tools are effective in
creating deeper engagement for students. A study examining behavioral,
affective, and cognitive engagement found that 3D learning captured and
maintained students’ learning in addition to fostering ongoing collaboration
(Bouta et al., 2012). In another study conducted by Lee (2014), the use of
avatars in an online MSW course specifically was examined, concluding that
avatars provide social work students with the opportunity to enhance their
classroom engagement as well as cultural competence. Pivec (2012) further
examined the outcomes of an avatar-based course offered to instructors. The
participants shared that the benefits of this technology included integration
of real-life teaching with lessons that are not possible via the traditional
teaching modality. Participants also reported that they perceived an added
enhancement for students to improve competencies.
Group projects
A common practice to enhance collaborative learning within the social work
field is the promotion of group projects. According to Collins et al. (2014),
online group projects not only provide a sense of community but also
prepare students for teamwork. Donathan and Hanks (2010) added that the
use of online group projects promotes creative and critical thinking and
promotes student engagement. In addition, K. C. Williams (2002) posited
that online group assignments offer students the occasion to work together
with individuals (i.e., classmates) they may not otherwise have an opportu-
nity to meet and thereby receive critical thought and supportive feedback
from their peers.
Morgan, Williams, Cameron, and Wade (2014) examined faculty percep-
tions of online group work. Focus groups indicated that teachers believe that
it is a vital tool for students’ professional development. Student perceptions
of online group work also were the focus of a study by Koh and Hill (2009).
The authors surveyed 37 students in an online, instructional design course.

Participants in their study identified three factors that were beneficial to
successful online group work: building familiarity among group members,
instructor’s help with group formation, and clear feedback and guidelines
regarding the group project. In addition, participants also identified chal-
lenges, which included difficulty understanding goals, lack of sense of com-
munity, issues with communication, and lack of accountability (Koh & Hill,
2009). Group projects are an important tool commonly used in social work
education. However, to be effective, the student perspective must be con-
sidered. Faculty can benefit students by being actively engaged in helping
them navigate the online group project process.
K. C. Williams, Cameron, and Morgan (2012) argued that group work is
an ideal tool to enhance student learning because it creates a sense of
community and actively engages students. The authors identified specific
strategies to support effective group work in an online environment to
include structuring group projects to encourage a climate of collaboration
and true engagement (meaningful project), creating a preliminary assign-
ment to help students understand group roles and styles, making participa-
tion by group members visible (planning threads), using online document
sharing; providing a mechanism to individualize grades, posting a guide for
successful group processes; and including a group presentation as part of the
project.
Quinney and Fowler (2013) took a unique approach to online group
project work by developing a course that included online discussions
between social work students, career mentors, and service users. The
authors found that more than half of the online discussion included a
high quality of social and cognitive interaction. Online discussions among
students, professionals, and service users could help students learn to
apply theory to practice in a reflective manner rather than more rigidly.
One student in the study reported that she learned to see service users as
“articulate and highly experienced people” from whom she could learn
(Quinney & Fowler, 2013, p. 1027). This particular study expands the
boundaries for online group work to helpfully include other professional
providers and service users.
Discussion
Online social work education is growing rapidly and shows no signs of
abating. Online learning provides educational opportunities for many people
who would not otherwise be able to obtain an undergraduate or graduate
college degree. It can be a good fit as well for students who require flexibility
due to work obligations, family responsibilities, and/or remote rural location.
Social work educators and researchers will likely continue to debate the
most appropriate role for online learning in social work, but as it continues
10 D. FARREL ET AL.

to grow, faculty must adjust instructional methods to maintain quality and
respond to changing needs. This article seeks to support social work faculty
teaching online by presenting current, innovative best practices, reflecting a
commitment to quality educational experiences and favorable practitioner
outcomes.
References
Achilles, W., Byrd, K., Felder-Strauss, J., Franklin, P., & Janowich, J. (2011). Engaging
students through communication and contact: Outreach can positively impact. Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 128.
Alrushiedat, N., & Olfman, L. (2013). Aiding participation and engagement in a blended
learning environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(2), 133–145.
Amador, J. A., & Mederer, H. (2013). Migrating successful student engagement strategies
online: Opportunities and challenges using jigsaw groups and problem-based learning.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 89.
Annala, J., Mákinen, M., Svárd, P., Silius, K., & Miilumáki, T. (2012). Online community
environment promoting engagement in higher education. Studies for the Learning Society,
2(2–3), 75.
ASHE. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 40(6), 1–14.
Ayala, J. S. (2009). Blended learning as a new approach to social work education. Journal of
Social Work Education, 45(2), 277–288.
Bass, L. H., & Ballard, A. S. (2012). Student engagement and course registration methods as
possible predictors of freshman retention. Research in Higher Education Journal, 18, 1.
Borgerson, D., & Dino, J. (2012). The feasibility, perceived satisfaction, and value of using
synchronous webinars to educate clinical research professionals on reporting adverse
events in clinical trials: A report from the Children’s oncology group. Journal of
Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 29(6), 316–322.
Bouta, H., Retalis, S., & Paraskeva, F. (2012). Utilizing a collaborative macro-script to
enhance student engagement: A mixed method study in a 3D virtual environment.
Computers & Education, 58(1), 501.
Brabazon, T. (2002). Digital hemlock: Internet education and the poisoning of teaching.
Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.
Brown, J. C., & Park, H. (2016). Longitudinal student research competency: Comparing
online and traditional face-face learning platforms. Advances in Social Work, 17(1),
44–58.
Buchanan, R. L., & Mathews, D. A. (2013). A comparison of student knowledge and attitude
toward research: Are main campus students different from those in a hybrid environment?
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(4/5), 467–480.
Buckley, K. M., Beyna, B., & Dudley-Brown, S. (2005). Promoting active learning through
on-line discussion boards. Nurse Educator, 30(1), 32–36.
Burgess, O. (2015). Cyborg teaching: The transferable benefits of teaching online for the
face-to- face classroom. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 136.
Chakraborty, M., & Nafukho, F. M. (2014). Strengthening student engagement: What do
students want in online courses? European Journal of Training and Development, 38(9),
782.

Chaumba, J. (2015). Using blogs to stimulate reflective thinking in a human behavior course.
Social Work Education, 34(4), 377–390.
Chena, P. D., Lambertb, A. D., & Guidryb, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact
of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers &
Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.
Claman, F. L. (2015). The impact of multiuser virtual environments on student engagement.
Nurse Education in Practice, 15(1), 13–16.
Coccoma, P., Peppers, C. A., & Molhoek, J. K. (2012). Creativity and wikis: Partnering virtual
teams, technology, and social work education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8
(2), 147.
Collins, D., Weber, J., & Zambrano, R. (2014). Teaching business ethics online: Perspectives
on course design, delivery, student engagement, and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics,
125(3), 513–529.
Costello, L. A. (2011). The new art of revision? Research papers, blogs, and the first-year
composition classroom. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 39(2), 151–167.
Council on Social Work Education. (2016). Online and distance programs. Retrieved from
http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/Information/OnlineandDistanceEducation.aspx
Courts, B., & Tucker, J. (2012). Using technology to create a dynamic classroom experience.
Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 9(2), 121.
Deters, F., Cuthrell, K., & Stapleton, J. (2010). Why wikis? Student perceptions of using wikis
in online coursework. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 122.
Donathan, L. N., & Hanks, M. (2010). Group project: A new online tool. Radiologic
Technology, 82(2), 183.
Douville, M. L. (2013). The effectiveness of mutual aid learning communities in online MSW
practice courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(1), 15–25.
El-Sheikh, E. M. (2009). Techniques for engaging students in an online computer program-
ming course. Journal of Systemics, 7(1), 1–12.
Ferrera, M., Ostrander, N., & Crabtree-Nelson, S. (2013). Establishing a community of
inquiry through hybrid courses in clinical social work education. Journal Of Teaching In
Social Work, 33(4/5), 438–448.
Fitch, D., Canada, K., Cary, S., & Freese, R. (2016). Facilitating social work role plays in
online courses: The use of video conferencing. Advances in Social Work, 17(1), 78–92.
Forgey, M. A., & Ortega-Williams, A. (2016). Effectively teaching social work practice online:
Moving beyond can to how. Advances in Social Work, 17(1), 59.
Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M. (2010). To blog or not to blog: Student
perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. The Internet and
Higher Education, 13(4), 206–213.
Hampel, R., & Pleines, C. (2013). Fostering student interaction and engagement in a virtual
learning environment: An investigation into activity design and implementation. CALICO
Journal, 30(3), 342.
Hermann, L. (2006). Technology and reflective practice: The use of online discussion to
enhance postconference clinical learning. Nurse Educator, 31, (5), 190–191. doi:10.1097/
00006223-200609000-00002
Hewege, C. R., & Perera, L. C. R. (2013). Pedagogical significance of wikis: Towards gaining
effective learning outcomes. Journal of International Education in Business, 6(1), 51.
Hirschheim, R. (2005). The Internet-based education bandwagon: Look before you leap.
Communicationof the ACM, 48(7), 97–101.
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31
(4). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-
synchronous-elearning
12 D. FARREL ET AL.

Hsu, H., & Wang, S. (2008). The use of webinar tool (Elluminate) to support training: The
effects of webinar-learning implementation from student trainers’ perspective. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 7(3), 175–194.
Hua, K. (2013). Online video delivery: Past, present, and future. ACM Transactions on
Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMCCAP), 9(1s), 1–4.
Huang, Y., Wang, C., & Liu, Y. (2015). A study of synchronous vs. asynchronous collabora-
tive design in students” learning motivation. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology, 5(5), 354–357.
Jacobs, P. (2014). Engaging students in online courses. Research in Higher Education Journal,
26, 1.
Kahn, S. (2009). Wonderful wikis and internet forums. Science and Children, 46(9), 27.
Koh, M. H., & Hill, J. R. (2009). Student perceptions of group work in an online course:
Benefits and challenges. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 69–92.
Kurzman, P. A. (2013). The evolution of distance learning and online education. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 33(4/5), 331–338.
Lee, E. O. (2014). Use of avatars and a virtual community to increase cultural competence.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, 32(1/2), 93–107.
Levin, B. B., He, Y., & Robbins, H. H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers’
reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 439.
Levin, S., Whitsett, D., & Wood, G. (2013). Teaching MSW social work practice in a blended
online learning environment. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(4/5), 408–420.
Littlefield, M. B., Rubinstein, K., & Pittman, M. E. (2015). Beyond PowerPoint™: Using
learning objects to enhance social work courses. Journal Of Technology In Human
Services, 33(2), 172–190.
Maidment, J. (2005). Teaching social work online: Dilemmas and debates. Social Work
Education, 24(2), 185–195.
Mayorga, E. P., Bekerman, J. G., & Palis, A. G. (2014). Webinar software: A tool for
developing more effective lectures (online or in-person). Middle East African Journal of
Ophthalmology, 21(2), 123–127.
Menon, G., & Coe, J. (2000). Technology and social work education: Recent empirical studies.
Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 397–398.
Mitchell, A. (2014). Online courses and online teaching strategies in higher education.
Creative Education, 5(23), 2017–2019.
Moore, C., & Signor, L. (2014). Engaging diverse student cohorts: Did someone say com-
pletely online? International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(4),
364–367.
Morgan, K., Williams, K. C., Cameron, B. A., & Wade, C. E. (2014). Faculty perceptions of
online group work. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(4), 37.
Muncy, J. A. (2014). Blogging for reflection: The use of online journals to engage students in
reflective learning. Marketing Education Review, 24(2), 101–114.
National Teacher Training Institute. (2011). Thirteen ed online. Retrieved from http://www.
thirteen.org/edonline/ntti/resources/video1.html
Nicholas, D. B., Fellner, K. D., Frank, M., Small, M., Hetherington, R., Slater, R., & Daneman,
D. (2012). Evaluation of an online education and support intervention for adolescents with
diabetes. Social Work in Health Care, 51(9), 815–827.
Noble, D., & Russell, A. C. (2013). Research on webbed connectivity in a web-based learning
environment: Online social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33,
496–513.

Oravec, J. (2002, April). Bookmarking the world: Weblog applications in education. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7), 616–621.
Pearson, A. F. (2010). Real problems, virtual solutions: Engaging students online. Teaching
Sociology, 38(3), 207–214.
Pelech, W., Wulff, D., Perrault, E., Ayala, J., Baynton, M., Williams, M., … Shankar, J. (2013).
Current challenges in social work distance education: Responses from the elluminati.
Journal Of Teaching In Social Work, 33(4/5), 393–407.
Pivec, M. (2012). Using the 3D virtual environments for teaching: Report from the field.
Organizacija, 45(3), 125.
Prestera, G., & Moller, L. (2001, April). Facilitating asynchronous distance learning. Exploiting
opportunities for knowledge building in asynchronous distance learning environments. Paper
presented at the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference, Middle Tennessee State
University, Murfreesboro, TN.
Quinney, L., & Fowler, P. (2013). Facilitating shared online group learning between careers,
service users and social work students. Social Work Education, 32(8), 1021–1031.
Rapp-McCall, L. A., & Anyikwa, V. (2016). Active learning strategies and instructor presence
in an online research methods course: Can we decrease anxiety and enhance knowledge?
Advances in Social Work, 17(1), 1–14.
Reamer, F. G. (2013). Distance and online social work education: Novel ethical challenges.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(4/5), 369–384.
Reushle, S., & Mitchell, M. (2009). Sharing the journey of facilitator and learner: Online
pedagogy in practice. Journal of Learning Design, 3(1), 11–20.
Rich, T. (2015). A worthy asset: The adjunct faculty and the influences on their job
satisfaction. To Improve the Academy, 34(1–2), 156–170.
Rienties, B. C., Gijselaers, W. H., Giesbers, S. J. H., & Tempelaar, D. T. (2014). A dynamic
analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online
learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50.
Rodriguez-Keyes, E., & Schneider, D. A. (2013). Cultivating curiosity: Integrating hybrid
teaching in courses in human behavior in the social environment. Journal Of Teaching In
Social Work, 33(3), 227–238.
Roehm, S., & Bonnel, W. (2009). Engaging students for learning with online discussions.
Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 4(1), 6–9.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education,
10, 77–88.
Rudd, D. II & Rudd, D. P. (2014). The value of video in online instruction. Journal of
Instructional Pedagogies, 13, 1.
Santos, A. N. E. (2011). Blogs as A learning space: Creating text of talks. Contemporary Issues
in Education Research (CIER), 4(6), 15.
Siebert, D. C., Siebert, C. F., & Spaulding-Givens, J. (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills
primarily online: An evaluation. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 325–336.
Siebert, D. C., & Spaulding-Givens, J. (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills entirely
online: A case example. Social Work Education, 25(1), 78–91.
Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchro-
nous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69–84.
Stephens, K. K., & Mottet, T. P. (2009). Interactivity in a web conference training context:
Effects on trainers and trainees. Communication Education, 57(1), 88–104.
Sull, E. C. (2014). A 2014 guide to engaging students: It’s not your grandfather’s online
classroom! Distance Learning, 11(1), 67–70.
14 D. FARREL ET AL.

Sun, J. C., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation:
Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(2), 191–204.
Terrell, S. S. (2012). Collaborative learning through wikis. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 39(5), 34.
Testa, D., & Egan, R. (2016). How useful are discussion boards and written critical reflections
in helping social work students critically reflect on their field education placements?
Qualitative Social Work, 15(2), 263–280.
Tschida, C. M., & Sevier, B. (2013). Teaching social studies online: An exemplar for examin-
ing the broader implications of online methods courses in teacher education. Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 500–515.
Walsh, L. (2010). Constructive interference: Wikis and service learning in the technical
communication classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(2), 184–211.
Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A
review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23–32.
Wiest, C. (2015). Sense of Classroom Community: In online Social Work Education. Journal
of Education and Human Development, 4(2), 22–49. doi:10.15640/jehd.v4n2_1a3
Williams, F. K., Angelino, L. M., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and
reduce attrition rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2).
Williams, K. C. (2002). Using group projects to enhance online learning. Journal of Teaching
in Marriage & Family, 2(1), 115–121.
Williams, K. C., Cameron, B. A., & Morgan, K. (2012). Supporting online group Projects1.
NACTA Journal, 56(2), 15.
Zarrad, A. (2016). A dynamic platform for developing 3D facial avatars in a networked virtual
environment. International Journal of Computer Games Technology. doi:10.1155/2016/
8489278
Zidan, T. (2015). Teaching social work in an online environment. Journal of Human Behavior
in the Social Environment, 25(3), 228–235.
Zitzelsberger, H., Campbell, K. A., Service, D., & Sanchez, O. (2015). Using wikis to stimulate
collaborative learning in two online health sciences courses. Journal of Nursing Education,
54(6), 352.
Zoumenou, V., Sigman-Grant, M., Coleman, G., Malekian, F., & Zee, J. (2015). Identifying
best practices for an interactive webinar. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 107(2),
62–69.

A Meta-Analysis Of Approaches To Engage Social Work Students Online

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Meta-Analysis Of Approaches To Engage Social Work Students Online

Similar to A Meta-Analysis Of Approaches To Engage Social Work Students Online (20)

More from Sarah Morrow

More from Sarah Morrow (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Meta-Analysis Of Approaches To Engage Social Work Students Online