Revisiting the Online Classroom: A Study on Instructors and Peers Affecting Students’ Engagement

ศรัญญา แซ่ตั้ง

Abstract


Coronavirus pandemic has changed the classrooms globally. Due to the pandemic, the online classroom plays a vital role in education systems instead of the traditional classroom. However, there are some difficulties that learners have to deal with which affect their satisfaction and engagement. This study aims to survey the critical aspects of instructors and student peers on the students’ engagement. In particular, interactions (instructor-student interaction and peer interaction), social presence, and communication channels that meet students’ needs to foster effective online learning were observed. The online questionnaires were used to capture student attitudes, experience, and broad insights into synchronous online learning. Results suggested that interaction with instructors and peers tended to positively impact students’ engagement (x̅ = 4.49, S.D = 0.82, and x̅ = 4.02, S.D = 1.12, respectively). Moreover, instructor presence tended to have a higher impact on students’ engagement than peer presence (x̅ = 4.00, S.D = 1.24 for the instructor presence, and x̅ = 3.36, S.D = 1.30 for the peer presence, respectively). Finally, it was found that the most favorite communication channels with instructors were chat applications (i.e. Line), e-mail and mobile phones, respectively. Additionally, the favorite communication channels with peers were chat applications (i.e. Line), social media (i.e. Facebook and Instagram), and mobile phones. These study findings should benefit the classroom design on choosing suitable activities and interactive tools to increase student engagement in an online learning environment.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Bardh, P., Giovanni, S., & Lorenzo, M. (2020). Challenges and Solutions to the Student Dropout Prediction Problem in Online Courses. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (CIKM '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3513–3514. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3412172

Buck, S. (2016). In their own voices: Study habits of distance education students. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 10(3–4), 137–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1206781

Calefato, F. & Lanubile, F. (2010). Chapter 6- Communication Media Selection for

Remote Interaction of Ad Hoc Groups. Advances in Computers. 78, 271-313.

Crews, T. & Butterfield, J. (2014). Data for Flipped Classroom Design: Using Student Feedback to Identify the Best Components from Online and Face-to-Face Classes. Higher Education Studies. 4(3), 38-47.

Farrell, O. & Brunton, J. (2020).A Balancing Act: a Window into Online Student Engagement Experiences. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 17(25). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00199-x

Garrison, D. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2004). Critical factors in student satisfaction and success: Facilitating Student Role Adjustment in Online Communities of Inquiry. Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream. 29-38.

Goh, W., Ayub, E., Wong, S. Y. & Lim, C. L. (2017). The Importance of Teacher's Presence and Engagement in MOOC Learning Environment: A case study. In Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). 127-132, DOI: 10.1109/IC3e.2017.8409250

Kahu, E. R., Stephens, C., Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2014). Space and time to engage: Mature-aged distance students learn to fit study into their lives. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(4), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.884177

Kemp, N. & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' Opinions and Test Performance in Classroom vs. Online Learning. Frontiers in Psychology. 5, 1-11.

Lin, Y.M., Lin, G. Y., & Laffey, J.M. (2008). Building a Social and Motivational Framework for Understanding Satisfaction in Online Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 38(1), 1-27

Murphy, E., Rodríguez Manzanares, M. & Barbour, M. (2010). Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology. 42. 583 - 591.

Nehm, R., & Schonfeld, I. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the CINS, and open-response instrument, and oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 45(10), 1131-1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20251

Orton-Johnson, K. (2009) “I’ve stuck to the path I’m afraid”: exploring student non-use of blended learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 40(5), 837–847.

Paechter, M. & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education. 13(4), 292–297.

Parahoo, S., Santally, M., Rajabalee, Y. & Harvey, H. (2015). Designing a Predictive Model of Student Satisfaction in Online Learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 1-19.

Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68-88.

Roach, V. & Lemasters, L. (2006). Satisfaction with Online Learning: A Comparative Descriptive Study, Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 5(3), 317-332.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing, Journal of Distance Education. 14(2).

So, H.J. & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education 51,318-336.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Journal of Distance Education. 22(2), 306-331.

Youngju, L. & Jaeho, C. (2011). A Review of Online Course Dropout Research: Implications for Practice and Future Research. Education Tech Research Dev. 59, 593-618.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.