Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdie20

Distance Education

ISSN: 0158-7919 (Print) 1475-0198 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

Instructor and student perceptions of onlinestudent engagement strategies

Doris U. Bolliger & Florence Martin

To cite this article: Doris U. Bolliger & Florence Martin (2018) Instructor and studentperceptions of online student engagement strategies, Distance Education, 39:4, 568-583, DOI:10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041

Published online: 18 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 272

View Crossmark data

ARTICLE

Instructor and student perceptions of online studentengagement strategiesDoris U. Bolliger a and Florence Martinb

aDepartment of STEM Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA;bDepartment of Educational Leadership, University of North Carolina Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to report findings pertaining tofaculty members’ perception of the importance of engagementstrategies utilized in the online learning environment and to com-pare them with student perception data that had been previouslycollected using the same instrument. A validated survey instru-ment, the online engagement strategies questionnaire, was usedto collect data from online instructors who teach in higher educa-tion. Email distribution lists of two professional associations wereutilized to collect the data. A total of 161 online instructorsresponded. While instructors and students agreed on the impor-tance of several engagement strategies, results also show thatinstructors perceive engagement strategies listed on the surveyinstrument as more important than do students.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 23 March 2018Accepted 2 September 2018

KEYWORDSOnline education;higher education; studentengagement; strategies

Introduction

Online learning is an appealing educational option because it offers flexibility and conve-nience to students. However, as in traditional classrooms, a leading concern prevails withkeeping students motivated and engaged in the online setting. Engagement is an importantfactor in online learning, where attrition rates are higher than in the traditional face-to-faceenvironment (Angelino, Williams, & Natvig, 2007). Student engagement has a positive rela-tionship with student satisfaction, persistence, and academic performance (Meyer, 2014).

Chickering and Gamson (1987) created a framework for student engagement in moretraditional environments that identifies seven principles. However, all of these principles canbe applied to distance learning environments: increased contact, cooperative work, activelearning, timely feedback, time requirements, high standards, and individualization. Studentengagement, however, is a complex issue with multiple factors. More recently, Kahu (2013)developed a more comprehensive conceptual framework that extends beyond the psycho-logical elements (e.g., affect, cognition, and behavior) and includes multiple facets such aspsychosocial and structural influences and proximal and distal consequences. According toKahu, “A key strength of envisioning engagement in this way is that it acknowledges thelived reality of the individual, while not reducing engagement to just that” (p. 766).

CONTACT Doris U. Bolliger dorisbolliger@gmail.com Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

DISTANCE EDUCATION2018, VOL. 39, NO. 4, 568–583https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041

© 2018 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.

According to Anderson (2003), interaction is instrumental in student engagement andshould be fostered in the online learning environment. For these reasons, interactionsthat foster student engagement, for example, learner–learner, learner–instructor, andlearner–content interactions (Moore, 1993), are useful in stimulating students’ interest inonline learning environments in order to assist students to achieve the best possibleeducational outcomes (Chen, Gonyea, & Kuh, 2008).

In 2016, Martin and Bolliger (2018) investigated students’ perceptions pertaining toengagement strategies in the online learning environment using the online engagementstrategies questionnaire (OESQ). Results indicated learners valued learner–instructorengagement strategies most among Moore’s (1993) three interaction categories. Inthis category, students rated regular announcements, or email reminders, and gradingrubrics as most beneficial. The most beneficial engagement strategies in the learner–learner category were icebreakers and collaborative work. In the learner–content cate-gory, real-world projects and structured or guided discussions were most beneficial torespondents. This article reports online instructors’ perceptions of the importance ofstudent engagement strategies and contrasts results of instructors and students.

Literature review

Learner–learner interaction

Learner–learner interaction is important in the engagement of students in the onlinelearning environment. This type of interaction provides opportunities for students tolearn from one another through the exchange of resources, discussion, sharing ofexperiences, and ideas. Through collaboration with peers, students also establish acommunity of online learners, which can foster deeper learning (Shackelford &Maxwell, 2012). Research indicates that strong peer interactions in online courses are apredictor of student satisfaction (Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002).

Several strategies can be implemented to initiate and support learner-to-learner inter-action. Ryle and Cumming (2007) suggest posting welcome messages and announce-ments to establish expectations and set the tone for the course, posting discussions inadvance to stimulate interest, and providing necessary resources. These activities establisha supportive online environment for students. Park (2015) states the importance offostering student interactivity and deeper learning through incorporating online reflectivepractice. Park (2015) further states that embedding reflective learning into an onlinelearning platform requires the student to collaborate with diversity in learning styles,personalities, learning preferences, and varying levels of technology competence. Thispromotes collaborative learning and reflection as each student reflects on their own andothers’ contributions to the discussion (Stepich & Ertmer, 2003). In addition, students arelikely to engage more meaningfully online when they feel they have an established senseof belonging to a community.

Learner–learner interaction can further be enhanced by constructing interactive intro-duction activities at the beginning of a course. This also increases feelings of belonging(Stepich & Ertmer, 2003). For instance, using online delivery platforms and other technolo-gies, students could share photos and other personal media artifacts to explain their back-grounds and interests in ways that allow their fellow community of learners to comment

DISTANCE EDUCATION 569

and engage in conversations around common interests and experiences. Sharing personalexperiences and exchanging ideas and resources through discourse is very important forestablishing an online community leading to greater student satisfaction (Kurucay & Inan,2017). Moreover, students who have taken multiple online courses are more likely toestablish a sense of community much quicker than novice learners (Shackelford &Maxwell, 2012). According to Lave and Wenger (1991), the benefit is that experiencedonline learners can quickly model a community of practice by providing novice learnersthe confidence they need to contribute through legitimate peripheral participation as theylearn the sociocultural rules for engaging online (Ardichvili, 2008).

Learner–instructor interaction

The learner–instructor interaction is an important predictor of students’ satisfaction andachievement in online learning (Andersen, Lampley, & Good, 2013; Kang & Im, 2013;Walker, 2016). Research shows that through interaction, the instructor has the ability tofoster the learner’s sense of community and belonging in multiple ways. Instructors cansupport student participation and learning through modeling online behaviors andestablishing presence by engaging and guiding online discussions. Instructors can alsoenhance students’ sense of community by providing multiple communication channels,support and encouragement, and timely feedback and by setting expectations for thecourse (Martin, Wang, & Sadaf, 2018; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012).

As good communication is pertinent to fostering student engagement and feelings ofsatisfaction in the online course, it is beneficial when instructors provide students withvarious means of communication that promote learner–instructor interaction. However,not all communication tools are valued. For example, students did not like chats orphone calls (Walker, 2016).

Students perceive a sense of belonging when they can interact with instructors andperceive that they are at least accessible through multiple means. Although the presenceof the facilitator is important, Ryle and Cumming (2007) suggest that each learningcommunity may have different needs pertaining to interactions with the facilitator.

Learner–content interaction

Many factors may influence interaction. According to Vrasidas and McIsaac (1999), thesefactors are course structure, class size, the students’ experiences with online courses, andfeedback. Learner–content interaction is another component of engagement crucial tostudent success (Vrasidas, 2000). According to Tuovinen (2000), learner–content inter-action is critical because students engage with instructional materials and plannedactivities. Essentially, learner–content interaction refers to the time students are involvedin studying instructional content in various formats (e.g., text, video, audio, interactivegames, and online resources;) (Su, Bonk, Magjuka, Liu, & Lee, 2005).

Xiao (2017) highlights the lack of research on learner–content interaction. The authorsuggests that the assumption that students know how to interact with content shouldbe further explored because learner–content interaction is crucial for learning in anyenvironment. Rodrigues and Armellini (2013) analyzed participants’ engagement withcontent in an online course without planned social interaction. They found that there

570 D. U. BOLLIGER AND F. MARTIN

was significant interaction between learners and instructional content. Students articu-lated that they learned a lot in their online course, and they received higher grades thanstudents who did not take the online course. These results support that content-basedlearning designs allow students to master content and progress at their own pace.

Chao, Hwu, and Chang (2011) combined online learning and knowledge sharing in anexperimental design. Results showed that knowledge sharing supports online learningeffectively. Similarly, learner–content interaction is related to students’ success in theonline environment. Zimmerman (2012) examined learner–content interaction as apredictor of success in online learning settings and investigated the relationshipbetween time spent with course materials and students’ grades. Findings indicate thatstudents who spent more time on course materials were more likely to pass the course.

Research purpose and questions

The purpose of the study was to investigate faculty perceptions of strategies that fosterstudent engagement in the online learning environment and contrast them with theperceptions of students. The following research questions guided the study:

(1) Which strategies do instructors perceive to be important in enhancing learner-to-learner, learner-to-instructor, and learner-to-content engagement in the onlineenvironment?

(2) Which strategies do instructors identify as most valuable and least valuable toengage students in the online learning environment?

(3) What differences exist in the perception of instructors and students on engage-ment strategies in the online environment?

Methodology

Setting and sample

Faculty members who teach online at several universities in the United States were invitedto participate via an email distribution list of two national professional organizations. Oneorganization consists of educators and others who have an interest in improving trainingand instruction with the use of technology. The second organization is an educationalresearch organization that seeks to improve education through research; it has over 100special interest groups. Participation of researchers and educators who have an interest inteaching and learning online was solicited. A total of 161 participants completed the survey.

Participants

Faculty membersMost participants in this 2016 study were female (70.3%), and 3.2% preferred not todisclose their gender. Their ages ranged from 26 to 90 years (M = 51.6 years).Respondents’ experience in higher education and online teaching varied considerably: 0–54 years (M = 13.7 years) and 0–25 years (M = 7.9 years), respectively. A few individualswere still very new to online teaching. The highest number of individuals held the rank of

DISTANCE EDUCATION 571

assistant professor, and most faculty members taught in education (Table 1). Onlinecourses were primarily delivered asynchronously (81.2%), synchronously (10.4%), blended(4.5%), or a combination of asynchronously and synchronously (3.9%).

StudentsThe sample of the study consisted of 155 online students enrolled at eight universities inthe United States. Most respondents were education majors (85.5%); however, otherdisciplines such as health sciences, engineering, arts and sciences, and business werealso represented. Their ages ranged from 20 to 67 years (M = 39.6 years), and a largepercentage was female (67.8%).

Instrument

The OESQ (Martin & Bolliger, 2018) was used to collect the data. The survey instrumentconsists of three factors based on Moore’s (1993) interaction theory: learner–learner,learner–instructor, and learner–content interactions. The instrument consists of 39 ques-tions: 29 Likert-type items ranging from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important), threeopen-ended questions, and seven demographic questions. Open-ended questions askedparticipants to share strategies they perceived as most and least valuable and otherbeneficial strategies not included in the questionnaire. Demographic questions con-sisted of age, gender, academic rank, discipline, years taught in higher education andonline, and delivery format of online courses.

The instrument had established psychometric properties and was considered avalid and reliable instrument. Previously, the instrument’s internal reliability coeffi-cient was .87. All three subscales had satisfactory internal reliability coefficients:learner-to-learner (α = .74), learner-to-instructor (α = .73), and learner-to-content(α = .73); (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). After the data collection for this research studyconcluded, the Cronbach’s alphas were calculated. All reliability coefficients weresatisfactory: instrument (α = .93), learner-to-learner (α = .76), learner-to-instructor(α = .81), and learner-to-content (α = .79).

Table 1. Ranks and disciplines of respondents.Demographics n Percentage

Academic rank (n = 154)Assistant professor 35 22.7Associate professor 33 21.4Adjunct 30 19.5Full professor 26 16.9Instructor 12 7.8Graduate teaching assistant 9 5.8Instructional designer 5 3.2Librarian 2 1.3Retired 2 1.3

Academic discipline (n = 149)Education 119 79.9Arts and sciences 10 6.7Health sciences 8 5.4Business 6 4.0Engineering/applied sciences 4 2.7Library science 2 1.3

572 D. U. BOLLIGER AND F. MARTIN

Procedure and data collection

The data were collected in Spring of 2017 with the use of an online survey tool that washoused on a secure server at one of the universities with which one of the researchers isaffiliated. Email invitation with information about the study and an embedded link wereforwarded to administrators of the mail distribution lists. An initial participation requestand one reminder were sent out in order to increase the number of responses. Participationwas voluntary and anonymous. To ensure anonymity, respondents were able to register forthe drawing of one of the three US$25 gift cards by completing an online form on Google.Prior to the data collection, approvals from institutional review boards were obtained.

Data analysis

One case was deleted because it had one-third of data missing. None of the 160 validcases had data missing. Frequencies and descriptives were calculated. Three new vari-ables were created: one for each of the subscales. After combining the two data sets(instructors and students), independent sample t tests were performed to ascertaindifferences in responses between the two groups. Responses to three open-endedquestions were coded by one individual. Analytical and topic coding were used inorder to form categories. Then, categories were sorted and compared to detect andreport common themes (Flick, 2006; Richards, 2009).

Results

To answer research question 1, participants thought strategies for engaging onlinestudents were important. The total scores of respondents ranged from 31 to 141(M = 117.90) on a scale with the lowest and highest score of 29 and 145, respectively(pertaining to the 29 five-point Likert-type items).

Learner–learner engagement

Instructors valued some engagement strategies more highly than others. Over 90% ratedicebreaker (93.8%) and collaborative activities (93.7%) as important or very important. Over80% of participating instructors rated interaction during presentations by students (89.4%)and peer review (80.6%) as important or very important. Participation in activities such asicebreakers, collaborative work, peer presentations, and peer review of assignments wasperceived as valuable. Virtual lounges were perceived as least important on the subscale.Four items on the learner-to-learner subscale had amean score of 4.00 or higher (see Table 2).

Learner–instructor engagement

Seven items had mean scores above 4.00 (Table 3). The item with the lowest mean score wasitem 20, which refers to the integration of synchronous online sessions. The overwhelmingmajority rated regular announcements or email reminders (96.9%) and an informal questionand answer forum (90.0%) as important or very important. Using student names (89.4%),posting grading rubrics (87.5%), creating course orientations (83.8%), and using reflections

DISTANCE EDUCATION 573

(81.3%) were also rated as important or very important. Respondents thought that it was mostimportant to regularly communicate with learners either via email, announcements, ordiscussions.

Learner–content engagement

A high percentage of participants believed it was important or very important to providestructured discussions (94.4%) and for students to work on realistic scenarios (93.7%) andinteract with content in more than one media format (92.5%). Students also should havetime and opportunity to reflect on course elements (87.5%). Six items on this subscale had amean above 4.00 (Table 4). The lowest valued strategies were the incorporation of synchro-nous sessions (for events and guest talks) and provision of self-tests for learners.

Table 2. Percentage, means, and standard deviations on learner–learner items (N = 160).Percentage

Item VU/U N I/VI M SD

1. Students use a virtual lounge where they can meet informally to sharecommon interests.

19.4 31.3 49.4 3.35 0.91

2. Students complete an integrated profile on the learning managementsystem that is accessible in all courses.

11.9 31.3 56.9 3.56 0.94

3. Students introduce themselves using an icebreaker discussion. 2.5 3.8 93.8 4.49 0.744. Students moderate discussions. 8.2 27.5 64.4 3.81 0.965. Students have choices in the selection of readings (articles, and books) thatdrive discussion group formation.

9.4 25.0 65.6 3.76 0.92

6. Students post audio and/or video files in threaded discussions instead ofonly written responses.

12.5 28.1 59.4 3.63 0.98

7. Students interact with peers through student presentations (asynchronouslyor synchronously).

2.5 8.1 89.4 4.32 0.76

8. Students work collaboratively using online communication tools to completecase studies, projects, reports, etc.

2.5 3.8 93.7 4.44 0.72

9. Students peer-review classmates’ work. 6.9 12.5 80.6 4.00 0.8810. Students are required to rate individual performance of team members onprojects.

15.6 25.6 58.8 3.55 1.00

Note. Scale ranging from 1 to 5: VU = very unimportant; U = unimportant; N = neither; I = important; VI = very important.

Table 3. Percentage, means, and standard deviations on learner-to-instructor items (N = 160).Percentage

Item VU/U N I/VI M SD

11. The instructor refers to students by name in discussion forums. 3.7 6.9 89.4 4.50 0.8112. The instructor sends/posts regular announcements or email reminders. 1.3 1.9 96.9 4.63 0.6513. The instructor creates a forum for students to contact the instructor withquestions about the course.

2.5 7.5 90.0 4.46 0.77

14. The instructor creates a course orientation for students. 3.8 12.5 83.8 4.21 0.8515. The instructor posts a “due date checklist” at the end of each instructionalunit.

8.2 20.6 71.3 3.94 0.96

16. The instructor creates short videos to increase instructor presence in thecourse.

5.1 21.9 73.1 3.99 0.90

17. The instructor provides feedback using various modalities (e.g., text, audio,video, and visuals).

5.0 17.5 77.6 4.08 0.88

18. The instructor provides students with an opportunity to reflect (e.g., via ajournal or surveys).

4.4 14.4 81.3 4.26 0.89

19. The instructor posts grading rubrics for all assignments. 5.6 6.9 87.5 4.37 0.9320. The instructor uses various features in synchronous sessions to interactwith students (e.g., polls, emoticons, whiteboard, and text).

11.9 25.0 63.2 3.77 1.06

Note. Scale ranging from 1 to 5: VU = very unimportant; U = unimportant; N = neither; I = important; VI = very important.

574 D. U. BOLLIGER AND F. MARTIN

Most and least valuable strategies

To answer research question 2, faculty members were invited to complete open-endedquestions regarding most and least valuable strategies. In total, Ten valuable strategieswere mentioned by 144 faculty members (Table 5). The most valuable elements wereensuring instructor presence or personal contact, including relevant course content, andproviding frequent communication with students.

In total, 11 strategies were mentioned by 137 faculty members who completed theopen-ended question (Table 6). The three most frequently mentioned strategies thatwere not highly valued by online instructors were the provision of a lot of textualinformation or content, inclusion of discussions or lounges that were used for adminis-trative reasons (e.g., seat time), and incorporation of inflexible synchronous sessions.

Other beneficial strategies not listed on the questionnaire

A total of 109 instructors completed the second open-ended question that promptedinstructors to share strategies not listed on the questionnaire. Respondents mentioned

Table 4. Percentage, means, and standard deviations on learner-to-content items (N = 160).Percentage

Item VU/U N I/VI M SD

21. Students interact with content in more than one format (e.g., text, video,audio, and interactive games or simulations).

2.5 5.0 92.5 4.34 0.72

22. Students use optional online resources to explore topics in more depth. 4.4 16.3 79.4 4.06 0.8323. Students experience live, synchronous web conferencing for class eventsand/or guest talks.

16.2 27.5 56.3 3.53 1.09

24. Discussions are structured with guiding questions and/or prompts todeepen their understanding of the content.

1.9 3.8 94.4 4.47 0.69

25. Students research an approved topic and present their findings in adelivery method of their choice (e.g., discussions forum).

4.4 16.3 79.4 4.08 0.84

26. Students search for and select applicable materials (e.g., articles, andbooks) based on their interests.

5.7 19.4 75.0 3.95 0.87

27. Students have an opportunity to reflect on important elements of thecourse (e.g., use of communication tools, and their learning).

3.8 8.8 87.5 4.24 0.82

28. Students work on realistic scenarios to apply content (e.g., case studies,reports, research papers, and presentations).

1.2 5.0 93.7 4.48 0.68

29. Students use self-tests to check their understanding of materials. 10.6 31.9 57.5 3.66 1.00

Note. Scale ranging from 1 to 5: VU = very unimportant; U = unimportant; N = neither; I = important; VI = very important.

Table 5. Categories of most valuable engagement strategies reported by respondents. (n = 144).Themes Frequency Example

Presence/personal contact 36 Strong evidence of instructor presence in the course. Students are moreengaged when they know the instructor is present in the course,interacting with them, and care about what they are learning in thecourse

Relevant content 19 High interest content and making connections with themCommunication 15 Active and proactive communication and presence by the instructorDifferent activities 13 Encourage the students to participate in learning activitiesCommunity building 12 Building a sense of community especially in asynchronous coursesDiscussion forums 12 #1 based on my experience teaching online for 13+ years is regular

instructor interaction with the discussion forumsClear instructions 8 Clear, specific instructions with different activitiesFeedback 7 Prompt feedbackVideos 6 Asynchronous video has been very effective for my online studentsDepends on the context 6 Maintaining a context that is relevant, practical, transferable, etc.

DISTANCE EDUCATION 575

11 strategies (Table 7). The three strategies mentioned most frequently were studentcollaboration on projects, instructor feedback, and well-structured courses.

Contrast of instructor and student perceptions

Results of the independent sample t tests revealed that 10 tests were statisticallysignificant. Instructors had higher mean scores for nine of 10 items (Table 8). Studentshad a higher mean for item 15 than instructors; they placed a higher value on instructorsto post due date checklists in each instructional unit compared to instructors. Instructorshad a statistically significant higher mean score on the learner-to-learner subscale, t(304) = 4.23, p < .001 (Table 9). Students (M = 3.63) valued learner–learner engagementstrategies less than instructors (M = 3.88).

Table 6. Categories of least valuable engagement strategies reported by respondents (n = 137).Categories Frequency Example

A lot of reading/text 29 Just reading a bunch of text onlineDiscussion forums andstudent lounges

24 Discussion boards just used for the sake of points or counting seat time

Synchronous sessions 18 Synchronous class-wide meetings. I believe that online learning should beflexible, so students can fit it into their existing schedules

Instructional videos 13 Recording/watching videos all the time is just burdensomeTeacher centered 8 An authoritative approach that implies superiority and establishes punitive

consequences for relatively arbitrary itemsWhen the instructor isnot present

8 Lack of instructor presence, no feedback in discussions and on assignments

Overuse of technology 8 You have to be careful not to overuse technology, so the concentrationremains on the content

Busy work 7 Writing assignments that seem like busy workGroup work 4 Group work in an online environment is difficult, at bestStudent profiles 4 The online profiles are n’t that useful for engagementGrading rubrics 2 Giving them a rubric or checklist for every assignment. They become doers

rather than engagers

Table 7. Beneficial engagement strategies not listed on the questionnaire reported by respondents(n = 109).Categories Frequency Example

Students’ collaboration 15 Co-construction of a common knowledge base (e.g., a real wiki)Feedback 10 Students have an opportunity to receive feedback on draft design work

prior to the assignment due dateWell-structured course 8 Organizing course content in modules by week, so students can easily

orient themselves in the courseOnline office hours 7 Online office hours so students can just drop in to ask a questionSocial media forcommunication

6 Use of social media as alternative to discussion board

Flexibility 5 Providing or allowing students great flexibility in how they satisfyassignments is beneficial for engagement

Technology support 5 Providing screencast instructions on how to make use of the requiredtechnology

Track student activity 5 A dashboard which shows student activity and progressBio/profile 4 I find that assigning a picture to a name makes it more approachable

when writing in the discussion forum or using other online toolsAuthentic assessment 3 It is also important to have authentic assessments that are relevant to

the real worldHumor 3 Comics that may lighten up the subject matter or offer humor during an

intense week

576 D. U. BOLLIGER AND F. MARTIN

However, students also believed that strategies to engage them in the online learningenvironment were important. The overall scores on the instrument were lower for studentscompared to instructors. Student scores ranged from 84 to 145 (M = 113.74), whereas themean for instructors was 117.90 (Figure 1). The results of an independent sample t test weresignificant, t(304) = 2.88, p = .004. The confidence intervals ranged from 1.31 to 7.00.

Discussion and conclusion

Learner–learner engagement

The findings from this study show faculty members rated students introducing themselvesusing an icebreaker discussion as the most important learner–learner engagement strategy.Research studies have found icebreaker activities to create a supportive and friendly atmo-sphere in online courses (Reushle &Mitchell, 2009). Vonderwell (2003) found that icebreakeractivities are also used as a strategy to start dialogue for collaborative learning.

Students working collaboratively using online communication tools to complete casestudies, projects, reports, and so on was rated the second highest by the faculty. This wasalso consistent in the responses to open-ended questions, where student collaboration wasrated as a beneficial strategy. A faculty member mentioned in the open-ended comment that“co-construction of a common knowledge base using a real wiki” is a beneficial engagementstrategy. Researchers have found that some students depend more on their peers and preferworking collaboratively instead of asking questions of their instructors (Beck, 2010).

Students using a virtual lounge where they can meet informally to share commoninterests was rated the lowest by instructors. While virtual lounges are helpful in buildingrelationships, graduate students may not have the time to participate in discussion

Table 8. Contrast between instructors’ and students’ perceptions.Instructors Students 95% CI

Item M SD M SD t(304) p LL UL

1** 3.35 0.91 3.03 1.17 2.69 .007 0.09 0.563*** 4.49 0.74 4.08 0.93 4.29 <.001 0.22 0.604* 3.81 0.96 3.55 0.93 2.38 .018 0.04 0.477*** 4.32 0.76 3.89 0.93 4.45 <.001 0.24 0.628*** 4.44 0.72 3.94 1.07 4.85 <.001 0.30 0.709** 4.00 0.88 3.66 1.09 3.06 .002 0.12 0.5711*** 4.50 0.81 4.13 0.87 3.86 <.001 0.18 0.5615*** 3.94 0.96 4.33 0.89 – 3.66 <.001 –0.60 –0.1818*** 4.37 0.89 3.67 0.99 5.48 <.001 0.38 0.8027** 4.24 0.82 4.00 0.81 2.63 .009 0.06 0.43

Note. Scale ranging from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. CI = confidenceinterval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Table 9. Mean and standard deviation scores for subscales for instructors and students.Instructors (N = 160) Students (N = 146)

Subscale M SD M SD

Learner-to-learner*** 3.88 0.50 3.63 0.56Learner-to-instructor 4.22 0.53 4.15 0.47Learner-to-content 4.09 0.52 3.99 0.46

Note. Scale ranging from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important). ***p < .001.

DISTANCE EDUCATION 577

outside of class (Harrell, 2008). Although faculty members create virtual lounge in theonline courses, they might know from experience that not all students have the time toparticipate in these lounges. Also, with the advancement in technology, students might beusing other communication methods to build relationships with their peers.

These results pertaining to learner–learner engagement are consistent with Martin andBolliger’s (2018) findings of student perception of learner–learner engagement strategies.Interestingly, students and instructors agreed on the top two engagement strategies and theleast important strategy for learner–learner engagement based on the OESQ. Althoughinstructors agreed on the twomost important and the least important engagement strategieswith students, this was the only subscale where instructors rated the strategies significantlyhigher than students.

Learner–instructor engagement

Findings from this study show that instructors rated instructors regularly sending emails orposting announcements or reminders as the most important learner–instructor engage-ment strategy. Cuthrell and Lyon (2007) point out that sending emails periodically providesan opportunity for the instructor to reach out and engage students. Ko and Rossen (2010)found sending email announcements through the learning management system beneficial.These results are also consistent with Martin and Bolliger’s (2018) findings where studentsconsidered this as the most important learner–instructor engagement strategy.

Referring to students by name in discussion forums was rated the second highest strategy.Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, andArcher (2007) believe referring to students by name is a better

Figure 1. Error bars (two standard deviations above and below the mean) for the total scale score ofinstructors and students.

578 D. U. BOLLIGER AND F. MARTIN

indicator of quality of interaction than having students’ names or message appear automati-cally due to software functionality. This tends to enhance social presence in the onlineclassroom.

The use of various features during synchronous sessions to interact with studentswas rated the lowest by the students. This is contradictory to research by others whofound synchronous features engage students (Martin, Parker, & Deale, 2012; Ward,Peters, & Shelley, 2010). This was also reported in the qualitative open-ended com-ments, where synchronous sessions were rated by 18 faculty as least valuablestrategy. One of the faculty responded in the open-ended question, “I teach gradstudents who are also working adults. I have never had good participation when Ischedule synchronous chats or office hours.” The busy schedules of graduate stu-dents could be one of the reasons that synchronous sessions and the features arenot perceived as engaging the students.

Learner–content engagement

Instructors rated students working on realistic scenarios to apply content (e.g., casestudies, reports, research papers, and presentations) as the most important learner–content engagement strategy. Other researchers have pointed out the importance ofproviding course materials and activities where students are able to apply content todiscover facts, practice and perfect their skills, and gain knowledge and skills(Stavredes & Herder, 2014).

Structured discussions with guiding questions and/or prompts to deepen studentunderstanding was rated the second highest. Several research studies have investigatedthe structure of discussions in online courses. Gilbert and Dabbagh (2005) found thatwhen discussions are guided by instructors, students have the potential to obtain adeeper understanding of content.

Live, synchronous web conferencing course sessions and/or guest talks was rated asthe lowest. This is contradictory to previous findings that showed synchronous toolsengage students (LaPointe, Greysen, & Barrett, 2004; Reushle & Loch, 2008), promoteinteractivity, develop community, and reach students at different locations (Martin &Parker, 2014). However, it is consistent with Martin et al.’s (2018) findings where studentsrated the use of various features in synchronous sessions low in terms of how helpful itwas to engage them. Perhaps, reasons for the low rating are time constraints, tool-related issues, and network connection (Park & Bonk, 2007). Additionally, there wasagreement between students and instructors on the top two most important and theleast important strategies based on the OESQ instrument.

Other engagement strategies

Not surprisingly, presence or personal contact was the top category that emerged formost valued engagement strategies. Baker (2010) found a positive relationship betweeninstructor immediacy and presence. One of the instructors wrote, “introducing yourselfand then responding to all of the students’ introductions. Establish a rapport as quicklyas possible.” Another person indicated:

DISTANCE EDUCATION 579

Consistent instructor presence in the course. This could be through regular video updates,posts to discussion boards, or whatever. However, it must be consistent. Students need toknow that the instructor is in the course, reads posts, and provides feedback.

A lot of textual information was the least valued engagement strategy. One instructorwrote, “Too many reading materials that make students overwhelmed by the volume ofarticles.” Although Ackerman and Goldsmith’s (2011) study was not specific to the onlinelearning environment, they found that students who read print materials scored betterthan those who read on-screen. Liu (2006) found that students access the readingmaterial electronically; however, they print the material in order to read it.

Students’ versus instructors’ perceptions

Instructors rated several strategies significantly higher than learners: the use of virtuallounges, icebreaker discussion, reflections, and peer review; interaction with peers;student moderation of discussions; collaborative activities and projects; and the use oflearners’ names in discussion forums by instructors. Students valued some of thesestrategies; however, they were not as important to them as they were to instructors.

Only one strategy was valuedmore by students than instructors. Students rated the itempertaining to the posting of due date checklists in each module higher than instructors.Checklists with activities and due dates can assist learners with organizing their time, stayingon task, being aware of deadlines for major assignments and activities, and submitting theirwork on time. Ko and Rossen (2010) also suggest duplicating this information in differentareas and to remind students via announcement, email, or text messages.

Limitations and future research

There were some methodological limitations. First, the sample size was small andincluded only 160 cases. However, faculty members from a variety of institutions wereinvited to participate via email distribution lists. Second, because email lists of profes-sional organizations were used to reach online instructors, it is difficult to determine aresponse rate. Third, all the data were self-reported. Some online instructors, particularlythose new to online teaching, may not use the strategies listed in the OESQ; therefore,their perceptions may be different from more experienced instructors who use severalstrategies to engage students online. Fourth, the list of engagement strategies is not anexhaustive list. The reader may interpret the results of the study with caution becausethey may have limited generalizability in different contexts and settings.

Future studies should focus on engagement strategies for blended courses and onlinecourses in order to ascertain differences among learning environments. Additionally, per-ceptions of online instructors who teach undergraduate courses could be examined.

Implications

Results of this study confirm that all three types of engagement (learner–learner,learner–instructor, and learner–content) are important in online teaching and learning.Instructors and students agreed on the importance of several engagement strategies.

580 D. U. BOLLIGER AND F. MARTIN

Most of the strategies included in the survey were rated as important or very importantwhich reinforces the need to use these strategies in the design and development ofonline courses. Many options are available to faculty to engage students or increasestudent engagement. Based on the results, instructors may select and combine a varietyof strategies in order to increase student engagement and learning.

The results of this study can assist instructional designers in the design and devel-opment of online courses and support their collaborations with online instructors whowish to convert courses from traditional to online environments. Instructors who wish toincrease student engagement in online courses may also benefit from the findings.Finally, findings may be of interest to administrators who provide support to faculty andprogram professional development opportunities for online instructors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Doris U. Bolliger serves as an associate professor at Old Dominion University. Her researchinterests include faculty and student satisfaction, communication, community, engagement, andinteraction in the online environment. Secondary research interests include the utilization ofmobile technologies in informal learning environments.

Florence Martin is an associate professor in the Instructional Systems Technology program at theUniversity of North Carolina, Charlotte. She received her doctorate and master’s degree inEducational Technology from Arizona State University. Her research focuses on designing andintegrating online learning environments. She may be reached at florence.martin@uncc.edu.

ORCID

Doris U. Bolliger http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-6243

References

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versuson paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. doi:10.1037/a0022086

Andersen, J. C., Lampley, J. H., & Good, D. W. (2013). Learner satisfaction in online learning: Ananalysis of the perceived impact of learner-social media and learner-instructor interaction.Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning, 6(21), 81–96. Retrieved from http://www.intellectbase.org/RHESL.php

Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments andresearch questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education(pp. 129–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduceattrition rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1–14. Retrieved from https://www.thejeo.com

Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice:Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541–554.doi:10.1177/1523422308319536

DISTANCE EDUCATION 581

Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affectivelearning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–30. Retrieved fromhttps://www.thejeo.com

Beck, V. S. (2010). Comparing online and face-to-face teaching and learning. Journal on Excellencein College Teaching, 21(3), 95–108. Retrieved from https://celt.muohio.edu/ject

Chao, C.-Y., Hwu, S.-L., & Chang, -C.-C. (2011). Supporting interaction among participants of onlinelearning using the knowledge sharing concept. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,10(4), 311–319. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/

Chen, P.-S. D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? Innovate:Journal of Online Education, 4(3), Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduateeducation. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Retrieved from https://www.aahea.org/index.php/aahea-bulletin

Cuthrell, K., & Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer? Journal ofOnline Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 357–362. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/

Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse:

A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x

Harrell, I. (2008). Increasing the success of online students. Inquiry:Tthe Journal of the VirginiaCommunity Colleges, 13(1), 39–48. Retrieved from https://commons.vccs.edu/inquiry/

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learningachievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Educationand Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162. doi:10.1080/14703290252934603

Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education,38(5), 758–773. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.598505

Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner-instructor interaction which predict perceived learningoutcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 292–301.doi:10.1111/jcal.12005

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Kurucay, M., & Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfac-

tion and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 115, 20–37.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010

LaPointe, D. K., Greysen, K. R. B., & Barrett, K. A. (2004). Speak2Me. Using Synchronous Audio for ESLTeaching in Taiwan. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5, 1.doi:10.19173/irrodl.v5i1.166

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Liu, Z. (2006). Print vs. electronic resources: A study of user perceptions, preferences, and use.Information Processing and Management, 42(2), 583–592. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2004.12.002

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance ofengagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222.doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

Martin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and how?Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 192–210. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/index.html

Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms.The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 228–261. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1174

Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategiesthat enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses.The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003

Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE HigherEducation Report, 40(6), 1–114. doi:10.1002/aehe.20018

582 D. U. BOLLIGER AND F. MARTIN

Moore, M. J. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distanceeducation: New perspectives (pp. 19–24). New York, NY: Routledge.

Park, J. Y. (2015). Student interactivity and teacher participation: An application of legitimateperipheral participation in higher education online learning environments. Technology,Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 389–406. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2014.935743

Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential learners’perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6, 245–264.Retrieved from https://www.ncolr.org

Reushle, S., & Loch, B. (2008). Conducting a trial of web conferencing software: Why, how, andperceptions from the coalface. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 19x–28.Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/

Reushle, S., & Mitchell, M. (2009). Sharing the journey of facilitator and learner: Online pedagogy inpractice. Journal of Learning Design, 3(1), 11–20. Retrieved from https://www.jld.edu.au/index-3.html

Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rodriguez, B. C. P., & Armellini, A. (2013). Student engagement with a content-based learning

design. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1), 1–10. doi:10.3402/rlt.v21i0.22106Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). Assessing social presence in asyn-

chronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & DistanceEducation, 14(2), 50–71. Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/

Ryle, A., & Cumming, K. (2007). Reflections on engagement in online learning communities.International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 3(3), 35–46. doi:10.5172/ijpl.3.3.35

Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online education:Contribution of learner to learner interaction. International Review of Research in Open &Distance Learning, 13(4), 228–249. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1339

Stavredes, T., & Herder, T. (2014). A guide to online course design: Strategies for student success. SanFrancisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2003). Building community as a critical element of online coursedesign. Educational Technology, 43(5), 33–43. Retrieved from http://www.bookstoread.com/etp

Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S.-H. (2005). The importance of interaction in web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of Interactive OnlineLearning, 4, 1–19. Retrieved from https://www.ncolr.org

Tuovinen, J. E. (2000). Multimedia distance education interactions. Educational Media International,37(1), 16–24. doi:10.1080/095239800361473

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspec-tives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77–90.doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1

Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design,and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications,6, 339–362. Retrieved from https://www.aace.org/pubs/ijel

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. AmericanJournal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36. doi:10.1080/08923649909527033

Walker, C. H. (2016). The correlation between types of instructor-student communication in onlinegraduate courses and student satisfaction levels in the private university setting (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). Carson-Newman University, Tennessee.

Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of onlinelearning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 57–77.doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.867

Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interactionresearch. Distance Education, 38, 123–135. doi:10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982

Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in onlinecourses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 152–165.doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302

DISTANCE EDUCATION 583