Adopting a framework to support the process of critical reflection and understanding of online engagement

Abstract

Extensive literature within the learning sciences addresses the phenomenon of online engagement and strategies that support online learning. However, for academics, there is limited guidance to support them in the processes of reflecting on efforts to facilitate online learner engagement and, ultimately, to use those reflections to redesign approaches to teaching and learning. This paper reports on findings from an international case study that involved a group of interdisciplinary academics engaged in a process of critical reflection, which aimed to increase their understanding of the ways in which online engagement is supported in higher education. Findings from the current study suggested that reference to an online engagement framework heightens the effectiveness of critical reflection by elucidating an awareness of learning about ways of supporting student learning and online engagement to improve student success. The paper offers implications related to reflection on and of practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data availability

Data available on request from the authors.

References

  1. Albion, P. R. (2014). From creation to curation: Evolution of an authentic “assessment for learning” task. In L. Liu, D. Gibson, V. Brown, T. Cavanaugh, J. Lee, C. Maddux, M. Ochoa, M. Ohlson, D. Slykhuis, & J. Voogt (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 69–78). AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (with Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T.). (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

  3. And, K. A., & Armour, K. (2006). Reflecting on reflection: A case study of one teacher’s early-career professional learning. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(3), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980600986264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2016). QILT: Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/

  6. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2018). Higher education standards panel final report - Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. Canberra, ACT: Author. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/final_report_for_publishing.pdf

  7. Badia, G. (2017). Combining critical reflection and action research to improve pedagogy. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(4), 695–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baik, C., Naylor, R., Arkoudis, S., & Dabrowski, A. (2019). Examining the experiences of first-year students with low tertiary admission scores in Australian universities. Studies in Higher Education, 44(3), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1383376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Billett, S. (2008). Learning through work: Exploring instances of relational interdependencies. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(4), 232–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer Review, 7(2), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Organizing concepts and practices in adult education in the United States. In S. D. Brookfield (Ed.), Training educators of adults: The theory and practice of graduate adult education (pp. 1–21). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brookfield, S. (2001). Repositioning ideology critique in a critical theory of adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 52, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417130122087368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brookfield, S. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brown, A., & Reushle, S. (2010). People, pedagogy and the power of connection. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 7(3), 37–48.

  17. Burton, L. J., Summers, J., Lawrence, J., Noble, K., & Gibbings, P. (2015). Digital literacy in higher education: The rhetoric and the reality. In M. K. Harmes, H. Huijser, & P. A. Danaher (Eds.), Myths in education, learning and teaching: Policies, practices and principles (pp. 151–172). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chen, P., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers and Education, 54, 1222–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2016). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Devlin, M., & McKay, J. (2016). Teaching students using technology: Facilitating success for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (Rev). D. C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning Journal, 19(4), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Durksen, T. L., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The keys to a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Erlandson, P., & Beach, D. (2008). The ambivalence of reflection – rereading Schön. Reflective Practice, 9(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fleckhammer, L. & Wise, L.Z. (2011). The role of tutors in facilitating online student engagement. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, Hobart 2011: Changing demands, changing direction (pp. 392–397). Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/procs/Fleckhammer-concise.pdf

  28. Foote, S., & Mixson-Brookshire, D. (2014). Enhancing learning with technology: Applying the findings from a study of students in online, blended, and face-to-face first-year seminar classes. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 35–41.

  29. Fox, R. K., Dodman, S., & Holincheck, N. (2019). Moving beyond reflection in a hall of mirrors: Developing critical reflective capacity in teachers and teacher educators. Reflective Practice, 20(3), 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gibbs, G. (2014, May 1). Student engagement, the latest buzzword. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-engagement-the-latestbuzzword/2012947.article

  33. Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hampton, D., & Pearce, P. F. (2016). Student engagement in online nursing courses. Nurse Educator, 41(6), 294–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Harvey, M., Lloyd, K., McLachlan, K., Semple, A., & Walkerden, G. (2020). Reflection for learning: A scholarly practice guide for educators. Sydney, NSW: Advance HE. Retrieved from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/reflection-learning-scholarly-practice-guide-educators

  36. Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices. Paris, France: OECD’s Programme on Institutional Management of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://supporthere.org/sites/default/files/qt_policies_and_practices_1.pdf

  37. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117–136). SpringerVerlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 401–412). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Hewson, E. R. (2018). Students’ emotional engagement, motivation and behaviour over the life of an online course: Reflections on two market research case studies. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(10), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Johns, C. (2002). Guided reflection: Advancing practice. Blackwell Science.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kahn, P., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Education Technology Research and Development, 65, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9484-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Knight, E. M. (2013). Aligning the curriculum of the human resources management undergraduate courses at an English-speaking university in the Caribbean with the university’s 2012–2017 strategic plan. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(8), 61–86.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Krause, K.-L. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.659.6304&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  46. Kreber, C. (2001). Learning experientially through case studies? A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 229–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lawrence, J., Brown, A., Redmond, P., & Basson, M. (2019). Engaging the disengaged: Exploring the use of course-specific learning analytics and nudging to enhance online student engagement. Student Success, 1(2), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v10i2.1295

  49. Lawrence, J., & Ryan, R. (2015). Designing pedagogical experiences to facilitate first year students’ learning progression: A case study. Paper presented at the Students, Transitions, Achievement, Retention & Success (STARS) Conference, Melbourne, Vic.

  50. Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational Review, 67(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.839546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning: Research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1335172

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Meyer, K. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Moore, C., & Greenland, S. J. (2017). Employment-driven online student attrition and the assessment policy divide: An Australian open-access higher education perspective. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 21(1), 52–62.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Muir, T., Milthorpe, N., Stone, C., Dyment, J., Freeman, E., & Hopwood, B. (2019). Chronicling engagement: Students’ experience of online learning over time. Distance Education, 40(2), 262–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ouyang, F., & Chang, Y. H. (2019). The relationships between social participatory roles and cognitive engagement levels in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1396–1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Özhan, ŞÇ., & Kocadere, S. A. (2020). The effects of flow, emotional engagement, and motivation on success in a gamified online learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(8), 2006–2031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118823159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pithouse, K., Mitchell, C., & Weber, S. (2009). Self-study in teaching and teacher development: A call to action. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pittaway, S. (2012). Student and staff engagement Developing an engagement framework in a faculty of education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 3. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n4.8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pittaway, S., & Moss, T. (2014). Initially, we were just names on a computer screen: Designing engagement in online teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(7), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Putman, R. W. (2014). Double-loop learning. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of action research (pp. 778–781). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ragusa, A. T., & Crampton, A. (2018). Sense of connection, identity and academic success in distance education: Sociologically exploring online learning environments. Rural Society, 27(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2018.1472914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175

  66. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–20). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Rogers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflection. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2015). Stemming the flow: Improving retention for distance learning students. In Proceedings of the EDEN 2015 Annual Conference, European Distance and E-Learning Network. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/44537/1/

  76. Spellman-Cann, S., Luong, E., Hendricks, C., & Roberts, V. (2016). Social learning in online environments. In W. Kilgore (Ed.), Humanizing online teaching and learning (pp. 111–131). CC4.00 International Licence. Retrieved from https://humanmooc.pressbooks.com/chapter/social-learning-in-online-environments/

  77. Stone, C. (2016). Opportunity through online learning: Improving student access, participation and success in higher education: Equity fellowship final report. Perth, WA: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE) at Curtin University and the University of Newcastle. Retrieved from https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CathyStone_EQUITY-FELLOWSHIP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf

  78. Stone, C. (2019). Online learning in Australian higher education: Opportunities, challenges and transformations. Student Success, 1(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v10i2.1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Taggart, G. L., & Wilson, A. P. (1996). Models of reflective thinking. Educational Considerations. https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.1391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Taggart, G., & Wilson, A. P. (2005). Promoting reflective thinking in teachers. Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of Education. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_print.pdf

  83. The Social Research Centre. (2019). Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT). Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/

  84. Thompson, N. L., Miller, N. C., & Franz, D. P. (2013). Comparing online and face-to-face learning experiences for nontraditional students: A case study of three online teacher education candidates. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 233–251.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Vogt, K. (2016). Measuring student engagement using learning management systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/73213

  87. Wehlage, G., Rutter, R., Smith, G., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. (1989). Reducing the risk: School as communities of support. The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Weimer, M. (2016). What does student engagement look like? The Teaching Professor Blog. Retrieved from https://www.teachingprofessor.com/for-those-who-teach/student-engagement-look-like/

  89. Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wright, R., Jones, G., & D’Alba, A. (2013). Student preferences for rapport-building traits of online instructors. In Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1603–1612), Las Vegas, NV: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/115106/

  91. Young, M. R. (2010). The art and science of fostering engaged learning. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(S1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petrea Redmond.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Redmond, P., Foote, S.M., Brown, A. et al. Adopting a framework to support the process of critical reflection and understanding of online engagement. J Comput High Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09281-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Online learning
  • Online engagement
  • Conceptual framework
  • Critical reflection