Online learning is very different than in-person learning. As an online teacher, I have done research on what it takes for students to be engaged.

One interesting article that I recently read on this topic was the “Trifecta of Student Engagement: A Framework for Engaging Students in Online Courses” written by Heather J. Leslie at the University of San Diego in 2020. The article can be found in the larger book called “Exploring online learning through synchronous and asynchronous instructional methods” by Dr. Cynthia Sistek-Chandler in 2019. I recommend the entire book, as there are many unique and insightful articles on a variety of Ed Tech topics.

Focusing on the work by Leslie, the article is practical and goes into detail about a new framework adapted from “Michael Moore’s three essential areas: student-content interaction, student-student interaction, and student-instructor interaction for engaging students in online courses” (77). The framework described as the “Trifecta of Student Engagement” can be seen below.

The framework is not complicated and draws attention to the different aspects of learning that should be considered by an online teacher. To be considered fully engaged, students need to be “engaged with the course curriculum content, with their peers, and with their instructor” (77). The research suggests that the role of the online instructor has expanded to “become less of a conveyor of knowledge and a subject matter expert to a more advanced role of an instructional designer, a facilitator, a coach, or even an orchestrator of online learning” (19). I often feel this way, especially when I am teaching such a wide range of ages and subjects.

Rather than dive into each of these three areas, I will write about the one that seems most interesting to me right now. This area is student-to-student engagement.

As I have mentioned, I work at an online school that is most asynchronous except for when I schedule meetings with students directly, or when students spend time in the learning Hub (which is a physical classroom). I have also explained that the school district is divided by the sea, and not all students can regularly visit the Hub. I have not spent much time focusing on how peers engage with each other up until recently. I have found that peers interacting at the Hub is simple enough to facilitate, and seems to occur naturally, with students of all ages helping each other and having fun together. Part of this positive connection could be because of the welcoming environment of the Hub, the culture of collaboration and kindness, and even the accessible snack drawer.

While I could spend more time thinking about intentional peer connections happening at the Hub, I will focus the rest of my writing on the connections available to those students who are only attending the online school asynchronously. Right now, I have approximately 18 students (or about half of my total students) that do not come to the Hub on a regular basis. This is for a variety of reasons, from mental health to lifestyle, with some students who travel abroad or have careers while completing their schoolwork. I am most curious about how I might use peer strategies to increase their engagement.

As noted in the research, there are “interactive discussion board activities that can promote student-to-student engagement and critical thinking. Examples include debates, negotiation exercises, role-play scenarios, and student-led discussions” (92). When I read this suggestion about discussion boards, I think about less-engaging exercises done in my undergraduate degree, that involved answering questions I did not care much about and responding to my peers. I do not use discussion boards in my courses for this reason. I also think that using discussion boards would be problematic as they are tied to each course in the LMS used by my school, and often there is only one student in a course. If I think about discussion boards more broadly, and include chat-type apps in this definition, then I agree that this could get students authentically engaging with one another. To make this practical, I would need to create a separate course or use a different application that allows students to be in one online “class” together so that they could collaborate. I might try this suggestion in my future practice.  

Another note in the research suggested that students could “share their papers, projects, or assignments via the discussion board for peer assessment and peer feedback” (92). After reading this, I did some quick research on peer assessment and the scaffolding that needs to go into preparing students to give each other feedback. While I think this could be a good idea, one major barrier would be the time required to ensure that students are able to give each other feedback. I am likely to write this suggestion down for a rainy day, when I feel like I have the time to devote to building this into my practice.

There are many other articles I have read related to my area of interest, but I will save those for another time.

Sources:

Sistek-Chandler, C. M. (2019). Exploring online learning through synchronous and asynchronous instructional methods (C. M. Sistek-Chandler, Ed.).

Leslie, Heather J. (2020). Trifecta of Student Engagement: A Framework for Engaging Students in Online Courses.

Photo by Carl Jorgensen on Unsplash.