Advertisement

Student Engagement in an Online Environment: Are We Trying to Mimic Contact Education? A South African Perspective

  • Sunet Eybers
  • Apostolos (Paul) GiannakopoulosEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 160)

Abstract

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that human contact can never be replaced 100 % by any other means. When it comes to higher education it is not different. Graduation rates at contact institutions are higher than distance learning institutions. It is equally true that since the inception of distance education the assumption has been that the greater the duplication of contact education the greater the chance of success. Although the content could be identical in both modes of delivering education, and the difference is contact versus non-contact from there on the differences exceed the similarities.

This study examines existing literature in student engagement and uses post facto research. Then it proposes a framework which could enhance student participation which increases the possibility of graduation of a student in an Open Distance Learning institution.

Keywords

Student engagement Graduation rates Attrition eLearning Open Distance Learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Pierrakeas, C., Xenos, M., Panagiotakopoulos, C., Vergitis, D.: A comparative study of dropout rates and causes for two different distance education courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 5(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu, H., Driscoll, M.P.: Self-regulation in e-Learning environments: a remedy for community college? J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 16(4), 171–184 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tinto, V.: Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breier, M., Mabizela, M.: Higher Education. HSRC Press, Cape Town (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T.: How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Jossey Bass, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salmon, G.: e-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strydom, J.E., Mentz, M., Kuh, G.D.: Enhancing Success in Higher Education by Measuring Student Engagement in South Africa. http://sasse.ufs.ac.za/dl/userfiles/documents/SASSEinpresspaper_1.pdf
  8. 8.
    Sweet, R.: Student dropout in distance education: an application of tinto’s model. Distance Educ. 7(2), 201–213 (1986)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strydom, J.E., Mentz, M.: Focusing the Student Experience on Success Through Student Engagement. Council on Higher Education, Pretoria (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chena, P.D., Lambertd, A.D., Guidryb, K.R.: Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based technologies on college student engagement. Comput. Educ. 54(4), 1222–1232 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darabi, A., Jin, L.: Improving the quality of online discussion: the effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Educ. 34(1), 21–36 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kožuh, I., Jeremić, Z., Sarjaš, A., Bele, J.L., Devedžić, V., Debevc, M.: Social presence and interaction in learning environments: the effect on student success. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(1), 223–236 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Neill, K., Singh, G., O’Donoghue, J.: Implementing eLearning programmes for higher education: a review of the literature. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 3, 313–323 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tinto, V.: Dropout from higher education. J. Rev. Educ. Res. 45(1), 89–125 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crosling, G., Heagnet, M., Thomas, L.: Improving student retention in higher education: improving teaching and learning. Aust. Univ. Rev. 51(2), 9–18 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Subotzky, G., Prinsloo, P.: Turning the tide: a socio-cultural model and framework for improving student success in open distance learning at the University of South Africa. Distance Educ. 32(2), 177–193 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prinsloo, P.: Modeling Throughput at Unisa: The Key to the Successful Implementation of ODL. Unisa, Department of Information and Strategic Analysis (DISA), Pretoria (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Hare, S.: The role of the tutor in online learning. Ascilite 2011, 909–918 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., Miller, R.: An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17(1), 42–53 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giannakopoulos, A., Buckley, S.B.: The role of the educator in an open distance learning environment in the 21st century: human versus machine? a pragmatic approach. In: ZAWWW Annual Conference on WWW Applications (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solomon, M.Z.: The Diagnostic Teacher: Constructing New Approaches to Professional Development. Teachers College Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shulman, L.S.: Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15(5), 4–14 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu, J., Du, J., Fan, X.: Students’ groupwork management in online collaborative learning environments. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18, 195–205 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Günüç, S., Kuzu, A.: Factors influencing student engagement and the role of technology in student engagement in higher education: campus-class-technology theory. Turk. Online J. Qual. Inq. 5(4), 86–113 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sunet Eybers
    • 1
  • Apostolos (Paul) Giannakopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.University of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations