Crissa Levin (Utah State )
Distance learning is becoming increasingly common, both in response to the pandemic and in normal years (Seaman et al., 2018). This modality brings additional challenges, particularly with retention and engagement (Bart, 2012). Research on distance learning provides clues, however it can also be useful to look also at the related field of computerized psychoeducation interventions, as these are ultimately a different form of teaching online. This form of distance teaching receives far more research attention (including funding), and therefore can be useful in decoding the mystery of student engagement.
Below I will present a model for engagement in online teaching based on research and experience that is broken down into three overlapping areas: Micro-Studies, which are ultimately the student’s assignments; Micro-coaching, which is basically how you can build motivation enhancement into the communications that you’re having with your students already; and Information itself, which in this brief version of the model will refer to lectures and how this necessary aspect can still be essential even though they can feel unengaging in online modalities.
Micro-Studies
Assignments can be conceptualized as little studies, where the outcome is like the dependent variable (and construct validity matters). The independent variable is what you are teaching, and it’s worth thinking about – is the course content lined up with the course assessments in such a way that you can really differentiate the learning from the course? So far, all of this is entirely relevant in both in-person and online classes, and is not an original idea (Masland, 2019). However, what is particularly relevant for the web-based environment is communicating this thinking to students. Student motivation is increased by letting students know why exactly they are doing this assignment and what it is trying to measure (Tyler-Smith, 2006). So the first step of importance here is to think through every step of a micro-study, and the second step is to include this information in simple terms as part of the instructions to students.
One example of where this is particularly important in online teaching is the regular use of discussions. We know that it is useful to have regular interaction between peers in online classrooms (Mbukusa, 2017; Akcaoglu & Lee 2016), but it is common to see discussions lead to a sea of responses stating some form or another of “I agree,” which really is the prototypical example of a lack of online engagement. An alternative might be to instead start with the outcome and work backwards. What would you like the students to prove they are able to do?
In one of my courses, I described the setup for a behavioral problem, and asked each student to describe how they would use the current chapter to develop an intervention. The catch was, they only had 4 sentences for their intervention, which meant the intervention would be definitively incomplete. Students were required to respond with more information to another student’s post, ultimately adding on to another student’s intervention. Because they were being trained in various behavioral interventions (IV) the outcome was how effective they were at applying these interventions (DV). This also met the goal of student interaction online, but did so in a meaningful way, and students got to know each other and interact weekly while still actively applying content.
Micro-Coaching
Among the most important things to keep students engaged and motivated in an online course, both in my experience and based on a variety of studies, is to bring oneself to the online class (Dennen, et al., 2007). This can mean anything from being genuine about your own self and life in your announcements, to not trying to cover imperfections, to ensuring that there is a person and voice in your feedback and, as regularly as is feasible, for your own instructor role. This has great meaning for students and is particularly important to helping students stay connected with the content and the course.
Reviewing the literature, it starts to feel like engagement interventions for online teaching (and web-based psychological interventions) center around the same tenants as those of Person-Centered Therapy. Beyond genuineness lies positive regard and empathy. It is beyond the scope of the current writing to detail how and why these skills play well within an online context, but one simplification is that students who take online classes are demographically different than students who take in-person classes. Two primary differences between the groups are age and working status – our online students tend to be working adults who are juggling full lives and fit school in between the cracks (Johnson, 2015; Ortangus, 2017). Through this lens, it becomes much simpler to have respect, warmth, and empathy for our students even when on the surface it might in other contexts seem they are not trying. This change in how we relate to our students when we are already spending time giving feedback and providing information can make a substantial difference with regards to which students tend to stay and engage.
In one example of how I use micro-coaching in my courses, I have created a jingle (song) to go with my weekly video announcements. I give my weekly announcements off-the-cuff, with only an outline of notes to guide what I will be discussing. I do not edit the content, and instead poke fun at my own mistakes. This is not only because it is familiar to many students to see raw and genuine video, and is not at all actually because of the time savings; this is to help students connect, and to see me as a real person who is really telling them about the week. And while the course data does suggest that some people do not watch regularly, or some people skip around, there are other reports of people who watch with their spouses every week or notice when the announcements are late.
Information
It has become common to hear online lectures get a bad reputation, with many comedians joking during the pandemic that online teaching is simply no better than watching YouTube or Ted Talks. That does not match with either the data or with my experience. There is evidence that students do tend to lose attention after a certain amount of time, however I have yet to see a comparison regarding this group-level attention check in online lectures and in-person lectures. An alternate interpretation of this evidence can simply be: many students do zone out during lectures, and this might be even worse online – especially in longer videos. What’s missing from the discussion that shorter lecture videos are essential is how incredibly essential it is for the genuine presence of the instructor to break down the material in the context of the course, in lecture format (Brown et al., 2016). In a far less-scientific way, I have also consistently found through internal surveys that students select lectures as the first or second most useful assignment in each online class I’ve taught over the last seven years. That said, everyone who worked during 2020 had our fair share of zoom burnout and became familiar with how hard it would be to consume information if it was delivered in the same format as in-person lectures. So what becomes important then may be to recognize that while lectures are essential, to be successful online, they ought to be made into micro-studies and ought to use some micro-coaching to combat the increasing problems with engagement.
To use micro-coaching and micro-studies in my lectures, I first am sure to be genuine, and to “bring myself” to my lectures. I often tell stories about my own life at times that I’m trying to convey examples. To make these lectures into micro-studies, I started with the outcome, and determined that simple attention to the content (simple reiteration) was the DV, with an added goal of reinforcing “showing up” if possible. So, I focus on the outcome of attention and memory to what was just said. To do this, I pause the lectures at key times using lecture interaction software (I use Kaltura, but many are available), and it asks a question that is meant only to ask how to re-state content that was said at some time over the last several minutes. The questions are spaced out and intentionally simple, which focuses on attention but also helps to reinforce “showing up” as opposed to punishing drifting off (that which naturally occurs). This slight change in focus shifts students out of multiple patterns, including zoning out after a few minutes. This occurs because of playing to the modality of the online medium. By helping students to keep their attention between questions, because they don’t know which part of the lecture will be important for the simple question coming up, this helps to keep students attending. By bringing myself – by being genuine and showing up in each lecture of the semester, there’s a steady and stable presence throughout the semester that allows for connection in the course, and keeps students connected not only to the content, but to the instructor.
Conclusion
Ultimately, it is much more time-intensive to teach online courses than in-person courses. This is due to the editing time that is avoided by just showing up in-person, due to the motivational coaching needed for the different modality itself, but also for the different types of students that find their way to online courses. This time comes from putting a lot of yourself into the course as well – to adding to your feedback the little comments that let your students know you’re a person, maybe one who laughs and sees good in people and their work. This all can be quite time intensive. And because of this differential time impact, matched with the loss of smiling faces and interactions unless something is wrong. It might not be for everyone, but I find it useful to remember that we are reaching a different set of students, in a more challenging environment, and providing the same promise of education. It’s a tall order and a meaningful one, and that challenge can be rewarding.Page Break
References
Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. The international review of research in open and distributed learning, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293
Bart, M. (2012). Online student engagement tools and strategies. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/ free-reports/online-student-engagement-tools-and-strategies/
Brown, G., Leonard, C., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2016). Writing SMARTER goals for professional learning and improving classroom practices. Reflective Practice, 17(5), 621-635.
Dennen, V. P., Aubteen Darabi, A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor–learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79.
Johnson, J. M. (2015). On-Campus and Fully-Online University Students: Comparing Demographics, Digital Technology Use and Learning Characteristics. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 12 (1), 11-13.
Masland, L. (2019, October). You were trained as a scientist. Isn't it time to start teaching like one? [Keynote Address] The 19th Annual Conference on Teaching in Denver, CO, United States.
Mbukusa, N. R., Kibuule, D., Lates, J. (2017). Overcoming barriers of isolation in distance learning: Building a collaborative community in learning. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(17). 34-42.
Ortagus, J. C. (2017). From the periphery to prominence: An examination of the changing profile of online students in American higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 47-57.
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580852.pdf
Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2, 73-85.
