Student engagement and satisfaction in online graduate education

1. Student engagement and satisfaction in online graduate education John LeBaron College of Education & Allied ProfessionsWestern Carolina University, Cullowhee NCjlebaron@email.wcu.eduphone: +1.828.227.7415http://paws.wcu.edu/jlebaron/ Primary project site Graduate School of EducationContinuing Studies and Corporate EducationUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

2. To discuss today • Technologically simple and straightforward tactics that advance student engagement knowledge construction, and human interaction: • linked media to humanize “conversation” • group “icebreaking” to launch sense of course community • Web-based forms to support student work, prompt student feedback and disseminate information • making all required and recommended resources “click-accessible” • discussion of student perceptions and implications for pedagogy

3. … But first: A shifting landscape • Online learning: deep incursion into prestigious tiers of US academe • yadda, yadda, yadda • Global leadership in online scholarship • …and so on, and so forth • Global partnerships in online scholarship • boy! is that true or WHAT!? • Naaaaaa-a-a-a-a-h! (next slide, please)

4. Project course; host programs • University of Massachusetts Lowell Graduate School of Education Online M.Ed. program in educational administration Theory & Research in Curriculum (2002-2004) • University of Oulu, FinlandOpen and Flexible Online Learning (1999-2002) • University of Aveiro, Portugal Change and Innovation in Higher Education (2001)

5. Student demographics • adult, mid-career • well motivated • rough equality in gender • geographically and internationally diverse (especially cross-border courses in this and other online initiatives) • Brazil • Finland • Portugal • South Africa • USA

6. Introducing the instructional team

7. Default LMS class list format Etc. 

8. Supplementary online student data form

9. Expanded class list: mock student “ID card”

10. The icebreaker: What it is • an assessed assignment in its own right (20%) • peer-to-peer online introductions • instructor creates private 2-3 person student teams in LMS • instructor assigns students to teams based on common interests • students review online peer biographies • within teams • students question partners (professional/personal) • students respond to questions posed • the team writes a summary of the conversation • to entire class • each team posts summary of the team “conversation” • students continue “conversation” across teams • instructor pursues issues raised in weekly course “chat”

11. Icebreaker: top of intro page Tool for private team discussion Tool for “whole class” discussion

12. What did students think? One assessment tool

13. What did students think? Results (N=15) • Most agreed; nobody disagreed that: • expanded class list effective for peer acquaintance • icebreaker promoted sense of community • icebreaker promoted peer acquaintanceship • keep icebreaker in future courses

14. Moving beyond text with embedded media: What we do • use video or audio to introduce each new course section • use hot-linked media to introduce weekly “chats” • use hot-linked media to “talk” in the threaded discussions

15. Embedded Media: Introducing the weekly course section

16. Embedded Video: Introducing the weekly chat

17. Embedded Audio: Discussion thread response

18. Embedded media: International videoconferencing

19. Embedded media: What did students think? (N=14) • All but one student able to open media files • strong assent that embedded media: • promoted sense of human interactivity • provided useful course information • should be retained for future course iterations

20. Online task organizers: What we do • secure in-depth student data • secure anonymous student feedback about course • formative • summative • create focused instructor-student conversation • structure purposeful exchange with human resources jump 2

21. Online task organizers: Purposeful dialogue Final course project: Theory & Research in Curriculum Students will identify an educational site where curriculum or curriculum reconstruction has recently been designed and implemented. You will arrange to examine documents and interview at least three key personnel representing diverse interests and perspectives at the targeted site.

22. Online task organizers: Instructor feedback form

23. Online task organizers: Feedback on student data Student-sent data in yellow;instructor feedback in green

24. Online task organizers, University of Aveiro Portugal: Communication with external scholars

25. Task organizers: What did students think? (N=12) unanimous consensus from T&R in C that: • the task organizer helped students plan assignment • it promoted understanding of assignment requirements • the instructor’s feedback was timely • the instructor’s feedback was helpful

26. The course resource “tripod”: Bridging theory and research to practice • the “virtual course text” • the “Web hot spots” • current news flashes jump 2

27. The course resource “tripod”: Bridging theory and research to practice • to provide most contemporary literature available • to shape the research base to course goals more precisely • to link student research with proven practice • to diversify the course research base • to spur further student research • to promote electronic research • to save the excessive cost of textbook purchase

28. The course resource “tripod”: The virtual course text

29. The course resource “tripod”: Web hot spots

30. The course resource “tripod”: Regular weekly news flashes

31. The “virtual text”: What did students think? / 1 (N=12) Compared with printed textbook: • VT easy to access and use (strong agreement) • VT offered more variety of perspective (strong agreement) • VT more relevant to course goals/objectives (major problem)

32. The “virtual text”: What did students think? / 2 (N=12) Compared with printed textbook: • VT coherent thematically (strong agreement) • VT content credible/reliable (needs work) • VT more contemporary/up-to-date (strong agreement)

33. The Web “hot spots”: What did students think?(N=29: drawn from 2 course iterations – different instructors) Students suggested that they: • regularly checked the hot spots to determine usefulness (very strong agreement) • used the hot spots to supplement course research (very strong agreement) • used the hot spots to enhance professional work in their fields (very strong agreement)

34. The newsflashes: What did students think? (N=11) regarding the “news flashes”: • all agreed that they made the course more enjoyable • all opined that they offered a “real world” perspective • most felt that they updated awareness on educational events

35. Student perceptions: The bigger questions • Over time, experienced students responding to questions about the relative challenge and human interactivity of online versus classroom-based graduate study showed that: • an overwhelming majority found the challenge equal or greater • a significant majority found the human interactivity equal or greater N = 66, spanning 4 course iterations

36. Ocean or mountain views? It all depends on what suits you In a retrospective online course evaluations, two student perspectives about online learning: • “I have really enjoyed this class. Reading all of your interesting comments on the readings and responses to each other's comments has been enjoyable and enlightening… I also enjoyed putting my own two-pennies worth at every opportunity… I'll really miss it.” • “I thought [that this course] would be the chance to interact [electronically] with people from a different culture. That has not really happened … Being on the Web can be a solitary endeavor.” Actual comments; dubbed voices

37. End:Student engagement and satisfaction in online graduate education John LeBaronWestern Carolina University jlebaron@email.wcu.eduphone: +1.828.228.7415http://paws.uml.edu/jlebaron/ With thanks to the: University of Massachusetts Lowell Graduate School of Education Continuing Studies and Corporate Education The Fulbright Senior Scholar Program: DC and Helsinki The Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon

38. Addendum 1: A shifting landscape • Online learning incursions into top tier of US academe, e.g.: • Duke • Pennsylvania State • Stanford • Columbia • The “upstarts”, e.g.: • Walden • Capella • Global leadership in online scholarship, e.g.: • Deakin University, Australia • University of Oulu, Finland • Twente University, Netherlands • Global partnerships in online scholarship, e.g.: • Dundee, Hong Kong, Brown (first 2 years med school online)

39. Addendum 2: Background discussion on efficacy of networked learning • the relative inutility of technology in its own right (e.g., Harasim) • the need for purposeful human intervention (e.g., Roblyer & Wiencke, Stepich & Ertmer) • in design • in execution • in follow-up • the necessity of personal connection and trust • with “personal folders” (Woods & Ebersole) • with structured group work (Hill et al.) • Anderson’s notion of teacher as agent provocateur