Student Engagement

In the context of Massive Open Online Courses

Student Engagement
Student engagement refers to how much effort and interest a student is willing to invest in
learning. Participation is one measure of student engagement that pertains to how involved the student is
in his learning environment. Research studies on the learning process have revealed several
interconnected factors that affect student engagement motivation, interest, responsibility, selfregulation, skill acquisition, to name a few as well as psychological and environmental factors. Student
engagement is being studied in order to help educational institutions determine what measures or
interventions to take to improve the learning process in a diversified student body.
A study defining school engagement as a multidimensional construct (cognitive, affective, and
behavioural) examines school structure, environment, curriculum relevance, teacher-student relationships,
student-peer relationships, and providing students with the choice and freedom to make decisions and
their relation to student engagement (Wang and Eccles, 2013). The results of the study validate previous
research showing that students are more likely to participate if their environment is socially supportive
and that they value learning more if they are allowed to pursue their own interests, are given clear
expectations, and are assessed constructively and consistently. Giving students the freedom to choose
what type of task to accomplish is only effective if the choices are related to the students personal
interests.
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses)
Massive Open Online Courses are online courses that allows anyone with Internet to access
various learning materials (videos, readings, activities, exercises, etc.) on a subject matter. Interactive user
forums and communities are provided to encourage collaboration among peers and professors alike (Yuan
and Powell, 2013). Open access to educational resources is an aspect of distance learning; aiming to
provide education to third world countries as well as places affected by terrorism and war. Based on two
distinct pedagogies, MOOCs are divided into two types: Connectivist MOOCs and Content-based
MOOCs. Connectivist MOOCs are based on the connectivist approach to learning which emphasize peer
review and group collaboration. Content-based MOOCs on the other hand, rely on automated feedback
based on objective, online assessments.
However, MOOCs being just recently introduced innovations, still have quite a few issues that
have to be resolved. Due to the rather large and continuously growing collection of MOOCs online, it is
difficult to evaluate their quality. The lack of a standardized structure of MOOCs make it hard to ascertain
whether or not a specific course is established. Another problem is the assessment of the learners as well

as certification and credit due to them. Subjects such as literature and philosophy require more than an
automated computerized checking of learners output. The rather large population of a single course
renders it impossible to be checked by a single judge while employing multiple judges introduce a whole
new set of biases. Other possible concerns are cheating, plagiarism, and the concept of digital literacy.
Student Engagement and MOOCs
As more individuals around the world embrace massive open online courses as a successful
development in terms of distance learning, several studies regarding the implications and effects, pros and
cons, qualities and components of MOOCs emerge.
Participation is considered to be an intrinsic part of learning which is why Connectivist MOOCs
or cMOOCs target peer collaboration. Special interest groups and forums are formed in order to
encourage learners to exchange ideas and think amongst themselves.
A 2013 study conducted by Moon-Heum Cho and B. Joon Kim examines self-regulating
behaviour of students in their interaction with both their peers and their teachers in the context of online
learning. It aims to determine which variables (age, gender, grade, the extent of mastery goal orientation,
importance of interacting with an instructor, importance of interacting with other students, and instructor
scaffolding for interaction) had a correlation to the self-regulating behaviour of students in the context of
online learning. 407 student participants enrolled in online courses wherein there was no face-to face
contact with either their professor or their peers. According to self-reports by the students, part of the
coursework involved collaborative and participatory tasks. After the online courses, the researchers
administered surveys regarding the students perceived importance on his instructor, peers, and mastery of
the course content as well as the students perception of his instructors ability to interact and provide
scaffolding. The results of this study indicate that the instructors' scaffolding for interaction most
significantly affected students self-regulating behaviours.
Another study by Fengfeng Ke and Kui Xie (2009), observes the contingencies between the
design of learning engagement and online course models, as well as online discussion types and selfperceived and observable learning performance. The studys results has similarities to Cho and Kims
study on self-regulatory behaviour. Well-structured content together with support from instructors and
peers tend to reinforce knowledge-constructive interaction. Collaborative learning and discussion are
more likely to encourage higher-level learning.
These results poses concerns for MOOCs since most MOOCs do not have utilize instructor interaction
due to the sheer number of students enrolled in one course. Despite the presence of learning forums where

online students are given the chance to ask questions, not all will be recognized by the instructor.
However, collaboration between peers and an integrated online course model prove to significantly
improve online students perception of their learning satisfaction and performance thus motivating them
to increase student engagement behaviours.
In another study conducted by Pu-Shih Chen and colleagues (2010), the National Survey of
Student Engagement, which is a survey intended to measure the time and energy spent by students in the
pursuit of education, was administered to 77,714 students although only 17,819 respondents were
considered valid by the researchers to be used in the statistical analysis. Included in the survey were
questions pertaining the students use of online courses, hybrid courses, and face-to-face courses as well
as their utilization of educational content found online. Results showed that students enrolled in the first
two categories were more likely to make use of online educational resources. Also, these students were
also more likely to use both synchronous and asynchronous communication tools which actually provide
more flexibility for a student. The overall results of this study has implications for the digital literacy of
students who enrol in online courses versus students who do not. The researcher observed that certain
demographic data such as the course, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status of the students had an effect on
whether or not the student participated in online courses. The study indicates that there is a positive
correlation between the use of technology and engagement.
References
CETIS. Yuan, L. and Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher
Education. The University of Bolton. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667
Cho, M. & Kim, B. (2013). Students' self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning
environments. Internet and Higher Education. 17 (2013) 6975.
Wang, M. and Eccles, J. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A
longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and
Instruction, 28, 12-23.
Chen, P., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K., (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based earning
technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education. 54 (2010) 12221232.
Ke, F. & Xie, K. (2009) Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. Internet and Higher
Education 12 (2009) 136145