Online education witnessed rapid growth over the past decade. According to The Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (2018), more than two-thirds of Canadian higher education institutions offer online courses. In 2018, roughly one in five Canadian students are taking at least one online course for credit. Furthermore, 74% of institutions expected online registration to increase in the future and almost all institutions mentioned that the main advantage of online education is improved students’ access.
As a result of this growth, educators are constantly assessing the quality and effectiveness of online courses. A key issue in online education is the learners’ sense of isolation and disengagement (Al Samarraie, 2016). Many solutions were suggested by research findings to tackle disengagement issues. Despite the efforts implemented and strategies suggested to solve the issue of disengagement, lack of student engagement remains a current issue in online education (Kebritchi, 2017).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The purpose of this paper is to explore the existing limitations of the solutions suggested to solve the disengagement problem in online courses in higher education. The paper will start by defining disengagement and online courses. The next sections will present the perils of the disengagement issue, some causes of disengagement, and some of the solutions suggested. The paper will then examine the limitations of the solutions suggested and conclude by offering some recommendations and future areas of research.
Definitions
Before we discuss the lack of engagement in online courses, we will start by defining both engagement and online courses. There are numerous definitions of engagement in the literature. One of the most useful definitions was introduced by Kuh as quoted in Stott (2016) as “the time and energy students devote to educationally-sound activities” (p. 51). That definition adds a quantifiable dimension to an abstract concept like engagement, which makes it measurable for research purposes. In online courses, in particular, students’ disengagement displays itself in unique ways. One common way is gaming the system (Baker, Corbett, Koedinger, & Wagner, 2004). Gaming the system is defined as taking advantage of the feedback feature of an online module to progress through the module without really exerting any thinking about the content (Baker et al., 2004)
The definition of online learning is not to be confused with distance learning. Distance learning existed many years ago, whereas online learning is a relatively new phenomenon resulting from the development of the internet in the 1990s (Guri-Rosenblit, & Gros, 2011). Online learning can either be synchronous or asynchronous. In synchronous courses, all participants and the instructor log in to the web and interact at the same time. In asynchronous courses, there is no real-time interaction, so the instructor and students may log in to the web at the time most convenient to them (Appana, 2008). This paper will consider disengagement in asynchronous courses since it is the most commonly used format in higher education (Bonk, 2004).
Why Bother?
The lack of student engagement is a challenge worth exploring since the perils of disengagement can have negative implications on students, instructors, as well as higher education institutions at large. On one hand, disengagement impacts students’ participation, satisfaction with the course, and attrition rate (Morris, 2005). On the other hand, dissatisfaction with a course was found to negatively impact the evaluation of the course’s instructor (Stott, 2016). According to Stott (2016), students who fail to reach their goals in online courses tend to punish the instructors through poor ratings, which in turn renders some instructors reluctant to teaching online courses to avoid the risk of damaging their careers. Furthermore, higher education institutions are reported to be concerned about students’ engagement. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) gathers and reports several engagement indicators among participating schools in the USA and Canada. The reported engagement indicators often impact the perceived image of the school, which in turn influences students’ enrollment and the school ranking (Maclean, 2018)
Causes of disengagement.
Several factors were documented to lead to a sense of disengagement among students enrolled in online courses. Causes of disengagement can be student-related, instructor-related, or technology-related. For example, student-related causes of disengagement include high work and life commitments as well as learners’ lack of readiness for online learning (Stott, 2016, Hung et al, 2010). Instructor-related causes include slow instructor response time, instructors’ lack of interest in teaching online courses, and the challenge of transferring face-to-face content to the online environment (Stott, 2016, Fein & Logan, 2003; Osika, Johnson, & Buteau, 2009). Technology-related causes include a non-user-friendly LMS, poor connectivity, the inadequacy of equipped e-learning system, and the lack of advanced multi-media tools (Stott, 2016, Zhang, 2004).
An opposing view to the idea that online learning causes disengagement was presented by Li and Akins (2004) who considered the whole idea a myth. The authors argue that technology alone does not have to promote disengagement. According to them, technology is only a tool, so an effective online course should be driven by sound pedagogical considerations. In other words, objectives need to be set to create an engaging learning environment in any course whether it is delivered online or offline. If that is not done properly, then a sense of disengagement can develop any way regardless of the mode of delivery. While Li and Atkins’ (2004) argument has merits, it is important to note that the disengagement problem is a multi-dimensional one that is caused by a mix of factors as noted in the literature. It is therefore over-simplistic to reduce the causes of the problem to only the proper planning of an engaging environment.
Possible solutions
Several strategies were suggested to raise the engagement levels of students online from a learner, institutional as well as instructional perspectives. From a learner perspective, the most quoted strategies in the literature were online communities, student collaboration with each other, and open-ended assignments (Trumbore, 2014). From an institutional perspective, a leading influential factor in student engagement is how supportive the environment is (Lundberg, 2015). A supportive environment is defined as one that includes a combination of positive interactions with faculty, staff, and students. It was found that student learning increases when the campus environment is broadly supportive of their success and when it encourages them to interact with diverse peers. Likewise, faculty make an important contribution to student learning by providing feedback that encourages students to work hard in order to meet academic expectations (Lundberg, 2015). From an instructional perspective, strategies that combat disengagement include mixing audio and videos with text discussions and changing the incentive structure to de-incentivize gaming the system (Ching & Hsu, 2015; Olesova, Richardson, Weasenforth, & Meloni, 2011, Baker et al., 2006)
Solutions’ limitations
It appears that research findings offer a wide range of solutions to the disengagement issue. However, as mentioned earlier, disengagement in online courses remains a current issue that needs attention (Kebritchi, 2017). This implies that there are limitations to the solutions offered. The literature suggests that limitations emerge either from the nature of online courses, or the reliability and adequacy of e-learning research.
The first limitation is related to the nature of online courses. Protopsalti (2019) clarified that whenever technology is used to fully replace face-to-face interaction, disengagement is inevitable. To him, technology can add to the learning experience when it supplements, rather than replaces, face-to-face interaction. He pinpointed that the outcomes of the hybrid models of blended learning employing this philosophy do not create the problems that emerge in fully online courses. In other words, according to Protopsalti (2019), solutions to disengagement in online courses do not live up to their promises because the full online presence of a course does not inherently lend itself to engagement.
The second limitation is related to the reliability and adequacy of e-learning research studies. Guri-Rosenblit (2011), highlighted that current research on e-learning is largely composed of sporadic studies that yield contradictory results, suffer from various biases, or do not yield conclusive findings that enable policymakers to use them in a useful way. Zawacli-Richter et al. (2009) identified three broad areas of e-learning research, macro, meso, and micro. The macro-level research covers the theoretical framework of e-learning and strategy-level issues. The meso-level research is concerned with administration and managerial issues. The micro-level research tackles the pedagogy of e-learning. Zawacli- Richter et al (2009) found out that there is a significant imbalance between research studies conducted at each level, with the majority of studies focusing on the micro-level. That could explain why suggested solutions to disengagement in many research studies did not live up to their promises or help eliminate the disengagement problem so far.
Now what?
This section will attempt to offer recommendations to tackle the previously discussed limitations. It will particularly recommend focusing on the blended learning approach and improving the quality of e-learning research.
A first recommendation is to increase the focus on blended learning. Since the inherent nature of online courses does not lend itself to engagement, it may seem appropriate for higher education institutions to re-design their course development strategy to incorporate the blended learning approach more often than the fully online model. The assertion that blended learning improves engagement and learning outcomes is supported in the literature (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Bonk et al., 2006;). Blended learning is believed to combine the best of the two worlds of face-to-face and online learning (Osguthorpe, & Graham, 2003). While research findings did not agree on the optimum mix of face-to-face and online components in a blended learning course, most of the studies speak to the superiority of the blended model over the fully online one in terms of student achievement and satisfaction (Precel, K., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Alberto, Y., 2009). From a cost perspective, contrary to conventional wisdom, blended learning courses may prove more cost-effective than fully online courses. (Guri-Rosenblit, & Gros, 2011). The authors argued that the more intensive the technology used is, the higher the cost of installation, maintenance, and technical support.
A second recommendation is for institutions as well as governments to improve the quality of e-learning research at the macro, meso, and micro levels. At the macro and meso levels, efforts should focus on funding and encouraging more studies since studies at these levels are currently in severe shortage. At the micro-level, most studies focus on measuring the impact of one technology on students’ achievement (Guri-Rosenblit, & Gros, 2011). Such studies tend to be repetitive and limited in their ability to convey a comprehensive examination of the impact of e-learning. Efforts at the micro-level should focus on supporting a change in research design. Moreover, several sources pointed out the lack of e-learning strategy at many higher education institutions and at the national level. (Arafeh, 2004; OECD, 2005). Perhaps, that is one of the causes behind the sporadic nature of existing studies and perhaps that is where efforts should be directed to reverse the situation.
Stuck on your essay?
