1 / 21

Quality Course Design for Effective Student Engagement

Quality Course Design for Effective Student Engagement. Dr. Roseann Wolak SCSU Online/Academic Technologies St. Cloud State University rmwolak@stcloudstate.edu. Outline of Presentation. Community of Inquiry Theory Research on student engagement

martinezaaron
Télécharger la présentation

Quality Course Design for Effective Student Engagement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality Course Design for Effective Student Engagement Dr. Roseann Wolak SCSU Online/Academic Technologies St. Cloud State University rmwolak@stcloudstate.edu

  2. Outline of Presentation • Community of Inquiry Theory • Research on student engagement • Research on effective online instruction • D2L Tools and best practices for quality online course design.

  3. Theoretical Framework

  4. Student Engagement • 3 Ways to Engage: Behavioral, Affective, Cognitive Behavioral: Attendance, time spent online, number, quality, and frequency of online posts, persisting Affective: student-student interactions, positive comments, curiosity, interest level, task-absorption Cognitive: reflection, questions, problem solving, deep learning rather than surface-level, critical thinking

  5. Student Engagement Employ 5 powerful strategies to engage adult learners: 1. Foster active learning 2. Monitor learning 3. Make meaningful connections 4. Promote interaction 5. Use helpful course resources (D2L tools) (Hew, 2105)

  6. As good as F2F? Research into effective online instruction determined: • Online instruction can be as effective as traditional instruction; given, the instructor has a strong teaching presence, and the learning activities are authentic, collaborative, and promote deep and meaningful interaction (Dixson, 2010). • The instructor is critical to a student’s success.

  7. As good as F2F? • Dixson (2010) said that an online course must be as strong as a face to face class. Students expect a well organized, structured course with an engaged instructor. • According to Wagner et al. (2011), when online students are given the proper materials such as online lecture notes, multimedia presentations, clear instructions, reasonable assignments, a quality textbook, and access to an instructor via website or e-mail, they are as successful as those students who engage in traditional classroom learning.

  8. Better than F2F? • The research of Maki and Maki (2007) found that “online students can and often do outperform traditional students since they are required to do more in online courses than in traditional courses.” (Dixson, 2010) • The researchers concluded that, “to be effective, online instruction required strong methodology and opportunities for students to interact with each other and the instructor.” (Dixson, 2010)

  9. Student Experience What do students say about their online experience? • Need timely instructor feedback • Need clear instructions, clear structure • Struggle w/time management • Clear purpose for activities • Emotional (frustration is frequent) • Accountable (own one’s ideas/comments) Students are expecting more than just texts and videos in an online course. Early and frequent contact with students is critical. The instructor’s interaction with the student matters (Jaggers & Xu, 2016).

  10. Multiple ways of connecting Student engagement = multiple ways of creating meaningful communication • Students reported they wanted more personalized feedback, to hear the instructor’s voice, multiple channels of communication, accessibility of course materials and technology, more hands-on activities and real-world tasks • Students in online courses expect faculty to be more readily and promptly available at non-class times than F2F students expect of faculty in responding to the students’ communications (Hew 2015).

  11. Multiple ways of connecting Reisetter& Boris, (2004) noted that the “teacher’s voice in the course design was critical. The more often students had the opportunity to sense teachers’ personalities in the course materials, the more connected they felt to the class” (p. 288). Research found that students generally enjoyed hearing their instructor's voice through audio feedback; audio feedback was supportive, motivating, interactive, and personal. Overall, audio feedback contributed to a better student-instructor relationship.

  12. Multiple ways of connecting Student engagement = multiple ways of creating meaningful communication • According to the students, effective instructors work hard to involve everyone in the learning activities, communicate well, offer flexibility, provide meaningful and practical connections between theory and practice, and are committed to doing what is necessary to make an online course effective (Young, 2006)

  13. What do students find engaging? High Impact Learning Activities (Do, Experience, Reflect, Share) • Case Study, Problem-Solving Activities • Peer Reviews, Focused Discussions • Experiential Learning • Social Media, Current Events • Role Play, Simulations • Shift from Direct Instruction to Collaborative Learning

  14. Effective Instruction Awaken Curiosity • Give students opportunities to explore a problem, and share their observations • Students learn when they interact with each other and the course content (engage in informal learning, re-mix and re-formulate the content). • The more quality time students spend engaged in content, the more of that content they learn.‖ • Allow enough time for students to digest the material and complete the tasks.

  15. Effective Instruction These four elements are found to consistently characterize effective online instruction: • Active, student-centered learning • Social interactions with peers • Interactions with instructors • Prompt feedback In many cases, the interactivity found in online courses is actually preferred over that found in F2F classrooms (Young, 2006).

  16. Effective Instruction Swan, Shea et. al. 2000: three factors associated with successful online courses: • Consistency in course design, • Contact with course instructors • Active discussion Students with high levels of interaction with classmates reported higher levels of satisfaction and learning; online students need reassurance that they are doing the right thing.

  17. Effective Instruction Research has identified six common characteristics of effective online instruction: • Inquiry-based instruction • Scaffolding • Methods of Communication • Discussion and Reflection • Visualizations • Simulations and modeling

  18. Summary Key points from this presentation: • For course design, the CoI model is useful to maximize social, teaching, and cognitive presence. • Include experiences that emphasize active learning, collaborative learning, and experiential or learning. • Create learning activities which engage students with the content, other students, and outside experts. • Create learning activities which foster belonging and a sense of community.

  19. References Chickering, A.W., Gamson, Z.F. (1987). The seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin. 39, 3-7. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf Dixon, M. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?ournal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2010. www.iupui.edu/~josotl Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. Hew, K. F. (2015). Towards a model of engaging online students: Lessons from MOOCs and four policy documents. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 5 (6): 425–431. Jaggars, S.; Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education 95 (2016) 270-284 Maki, R.H. and Maki, W.S. (2007). Online Courses. In F.T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 527-552). New York: Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  20. References Robertson, J.S., Grant, M.M. and Jackson, L. (2005). Is online instruction perceived as effective as campus instruction by graduate students in education? Internet and Higher Education, 8, 73- 86. Robinson, C.C. and Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. [Electronic version]. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2, 23-49. Young, S. (2006). Student Views of Effective Online Teaching in Higher Education, American Journal of Distance Education, 20:2, 65-77

More Related