3 Annotated Bibliography

Al Mamun, A., Lawrie, G. & Wright, T. (2020). Instructional design of scaffolded online learning modules for self-directed and inquiry-based learning environments, Computers & Education, 144, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103695

Tags: Instructional Design, Discipline-specific (STEM)
Summary: This article outlines a scaffolding model for use in asynchronous settings. Instructional design is ‘predict-observe-explain-evaluate’ (POEE). Inquiry-based approach is relevant to STEM disciplines.

Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271–289. https://doi-org.10.1037/stl0000121

Tags: Online Discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: This literature review discusses the challenges, benefits, teaching strategies and best practices for asynchronous discussions along with providing tables that outline these issues as well as listing the specific sources that address them. Many of these issues would also be relevant for synchronous and hybrid classes.

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1-14.

Tags: Group Work
Summary: Table 1 shows strategies to reduce attrition. Group projects are mentioned as one strategy to engage learners in an online environment and reduce attrition. Group project aims to create a community of learners.

Bacca-Acosta, J., & Avila-Garzon, C. (2020). Student engagement with mobile‐based assessment systems: A survival analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12475

Tags: Instructional Design, Discipline-specific (ESL), Assessment
Summary:  Research shows that mobile‐based assessment increases students’ learning outcomes and motivation. In this paper they show that students with positive acceptance of mobile based assessment and higher levels of self reported effort engage for longer periods of time.

Banta, T. W., Jones, E. A., & Black, K. E. (2009). Designing effective assessment: principles and profiles of good practice. Jossey-Bass. [link]

Tags: Assessment
Summary: The book highlights examples of effective assessment in higher education including a section on “CLASSE: measuring Student Engagement at the Classroom Level” by Robert Smallwood and Judith Ouimet. The Classroom Survey of Student Engagement is an adaption of the NSSE that has been piloted in in-person classrooms. Smallwood and Ouimet’s section indicates that an overview of the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement CLASSE  along with survey results and the instrument can be found at http://assessment.ua.edu/CLASSE/Overview.htm.  While these pages are no longer online, copies can be accessed using the Internet Archive’s WayBackMachine.

Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary: This article proposes guidelines for the design of computer-based scaffolds to promote motivation and engagement. Scaffolds are: establish task value, promote mastery goals, promote belonging, promote emotion regulation, promote expectancy for success, and promote autonomy. Through better motivational scaffolds, all three kinds of engagement (behavioral, emotional, cognitive) can be enhanced.

Bigatel, P.M. & Edel-Malizia, S. (2018). Using the “Indicators of Engaged Learning Online” framework to evaluate online course quality, TechTrends, 62, 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0239-4

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary: This paper uses the Indicators of Engaged Learning Online Framework (appendix 1) to assess the quality of online courses.

Bigatel, P., & Edel-Malizia, S. (2018). Predictors of instructor practices and course activities that engage online students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(1), 1-19. [link]

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary: This paper describes what activities and attitudes and behaviors of instructors most increase student engagement in online courses. An important finding was the sharing of knowledge and expertise within the learning community increases engagement.

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

Tags: Introduction, Assessment
Summary: This article maps 243 studies published between 2007 and 2016 on the area of student engagement and digital technology. Most studies focus on undergraduate, text-based tools such as online discussion boards and blended learning. Many studies did not define student engagement or used a theoretical framework.

Boton, E. C., & Gregory, S. (2015). Minimizing attrition in online degree courses. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1), 62-90.

Tags: Group Work
Summary: This paper uses qualitative case studies to find out in what way culture, motivation, learning management systems and online pedagogy can increase student engagement and reduce attrition. Group work is mentioned as one strategy.

Bovee, B. S., Jernejcic, T., & El-Gayar, O. (2020). A gamification technique to increase engagement in asynchronous online discussions. Issues in Information Systems, 21(3), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.48009/3_iis_2020_20-30

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: This article studied the effects of gamification on student video discussion posts. Winners of these posts were those with the most replies. A website displayed those students in the lead. The gamification increased both the behavioral and cognitive engagement.

Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18−35. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1876

Tags: Online Discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: Three key stages to community building: make online acquaintances (i.e., meeting people who may share similar interests), sensing community acceptance (i.e., being willing to share and accept similar and opposing points of view), and achieving camaraderie (i.e., mutual respect).

Cavanagh, S. R. (2016). The spark of learning: Energizing the college classroom with the science of emotion. West Virginia University Press. [link to publisher site]

Tags: Emotional Engagement, Instructional Design
Summary: This book focuses on the emotional aspect of student engagement.  It provides a combination of evidence from scholarly sources and practical, anecdotal examples.

Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60, 532-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary: This paper presents a 4-phase instructional design framework and strategies to foster student engagement in online classes. It combines student participation, motivation and student success.

Darby, F., & Lang, J.M. (2019). Small teaching online : Applying learning science in online classes. Jossey-Bass. [link to publisher site]

Tags: Online Discussions, Group Work
Summary: Part 1, design for learning includes both backward design (alignment of course goals, activities and assessment) but also student engagement. Part 2 specifically focuses on building community and giving feedback to foster student success. Part 3 is about motivating students specifically making connections and giving autonomy. Discussion boards and group work can both build community and establish connections.  A reference list is included at the end of the book.

Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58, 563-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9216-y

Tags: Group Work, Social Engagement
Summary: The paper discusses problems connected with group work such as free riding and ‘sucker effect’ and other problems and how the design of group work can alleviate these issues.

deNoyelles, A., Zydney, J.M., & Chen, B. (2014). Strategies for creating a community of inquiry through online asynchronous discussions.  MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 153-165. [link]

Tags: Online Discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: Designing online discussion with a community of learners in mind. Each member should have a social, cognitive and teaching presence. One strategy mentioned is students acting as peer-reviewers or peer-facilitators. By serving as such, students have a greater connection to the discussion as they may be leading the discussion or providing additional insights.

Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: Gamification of online discussion has a positive effect on student engagement (behavioral, emotional and cognitive). Practical items such as badges, thumps-ups, progress bars and avatars were used.

Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561

Tags: Assessment
Summary: This study provides validation of the Online Student Engagement scale (OSE) by correlating student self-reports of engagement (via the OSE) with tracking data of student behaviors from an online course management system.

Dziuban, C., Picciano, A., Graham, C., & Moskal, P. (2017). Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814605

Tags: Assessment
Summary: This book can be useful when designing research in online and blended learning environments. As a Faculty Learning Community, we found that not many papers research assessments of student engagement. In such a case this book can be valuable for future research.

Fehrman, S. &  Watson, S. L. (2020): A systematic review of asynchronous online discussions in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1858705

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: This systematic review identifies key themes on asynchronous online discussions in higher education found in peer reviewed literature with publication dates from 2010-2020.

Fredericks, J.A., 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

Tags: Behavioral Engagement, Emotional Engagement, Cognitive Engagement
Summary: This paper outlines three main types of engagement- behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. This paper gives concrete examples of engagement in face-to-face classrooms. They call for richer characterizations of how students behave, feel and think, to assess and develop interventions.

Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M. T., Linn, J. S., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009

Tags: Social Engagement, Discipline-specific (STEM), Assessment
Summary: This is a study of face-to-face STEM classes (middle school and high school). Table 1 contains indicators of engagement from interviews. A major conclusion is the need to develop valid and reliable measures of engagement in STEM. And to include a social engagement dimension.

Gay, G. H. E. & Betts, K. (2020).  From discussion forums to emeetings: Integrating high touch strategies to increase student engagement, academic performance, and retention in large online courses. Online Learning, 24(1), 92-117. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.1984

Tags: Group Work
Summary: Student engagement and group work are critical to developing competencies, deeper learning, and attributes that align with 21st-century skills. Quantitative data shows higher academic scores and lower attrition, qualitative data shows increased engagement.

Garrison D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1/2), 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

Tags: Online Discussions, Social Engagement, Cognitive Engagement, Emotional Engagement
Summary: This is an update on the evolution of the Community of Inquiry Framework. Initially presented in 2000 (see Garrison, Anderson, Archer, 2000) the three essential factors- social, cognitive, and teaching presence-were presented individually. In retrospect these three items are interconnected.

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

Tags: Online Discussions, Social Engagement, Cognitive Engagement, Emotional Engagement
Summary: Authors propose three essential factors that contribute to a student’s successful educational experience: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001

Tags: Social Engagement, Cognitive Engagement, Emotional Engagement
Summary: This paper tracks community of inquiry literature and finds that future research should include more quantitatively-oriented studies, and more cross-disciplinary studies. In addition more research is needed to find factors that moderate and/or extend the relationship between the COI framework components and online course outcomes.

Grandzol, C. J., & Grandzol., J. G. (2010). Interaction in online courses: More is not always better. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(2). [link]

Tags: Online Discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: An effective online discussion in part depends on the class size: small class sizes (e.g., fewer than 6 students) tend to have issues getting students to actively engage with the course discussions due to a lack of variety in replies to the discussion questions, large class size may hinder instructor participation.

Groccia, J. E. (2018). What is student engagement? New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2018(154), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20287

Tags: Definition of Engagement
Summary: This chapter reviews various definitions of student engagement in a general sense (not in the online environment per se).

Guajardo-Leal, B. E., Navarro-Corona, C., & González, J. R. V. (2019). Systematic mapping study of academic engagement in MOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.4018

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary: This is a synthesis of studies conducted from 2015 to 2018 on student engagement in MOOC’s.  One of the goals of the study was to develop a technique for locating and evaluating previous studies.  The synthesis found that a majority of studies used qualitative techniques to study engagement and learning analytics were the most common type of data collected.

Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 37-49.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123

Tags: Group Work, Social Engagement
Summary: This study surveyed students on their attitudes towards group work and free-riders, or students who do not contribute a perceived equal share by peers but receive the same group grade. Hypotheses for the causes of voluntary and involuntary free-riding in groups are proposed but additional work is needed.

Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005

Tags: Assessment
Summary: This paper identifies methods to identify effective methods to conceptualize and measure student engagement in technology-mediated learning. Table 8 shows how to operationalise engagement. More research is needed to study the role of emotional engagement in learning.

Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2) , 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235

Tags: Group Work, Online Discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: Five factors for MOOC popularity were found: (1) problem‐centric learning with clear expositions, (2) instructor accessibility and passion, (3) active learning, (4) peer interaction, and (5) using helpful course resources. These factors can guide course design.

Hirumi, A., & Bermudez, A. B. (1996). Interactivity, distance education, and instructional systems design converge on the information superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(1), 1−16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1996.10782183

Tags: Online Discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: Distance education programs were based on the correspondence course where little interaction took place. Course design for interactivity is possible and can create advantages over face to face design, for example, personal messages by instructor and quicker replies.

Hsieh, Y-H., & Tsai, C-C. (2012). The effect of moderator’s facilitative strategies on online synchronous discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1708–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.010.

Tags: Online Discussions, Group Work
Summary: Facilitators can increase collaboration and participation in online asynchronous discussion. Moderator messages to focus on the main topic and giving students positive feedback were the most common strategies observed.

Kim, M. K., Lee, I. H., & Wang, Y. (2020). How students emerge as learning leaders in small group online discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12431

Tags: Online Discussions, Group Work
Summary: Studied online asynchronous interactions of graduate students for emerging learning leaders. Student posts were coded for leadership style, and behavioral, cognitive and emotional engagement. Researchers used the IBM tone analyzer to recognize student emotions in the text.

Kim, M. K., Wang, Y., & Ketenci, T. (2020). Who are online learning leaders? Piloting a leader identification method (LIM). Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 1-15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106205

Tags: Group Work, Assessment
Summary: Referenced in Bacca article as providing evidence that emotional engagement is one of main attributes of leaders in online learning contexts. Refers to social network theory.

Kinsella, G. K., Mahon, C., & Lillis, S. (2017). Facilitating active engagement of the university student in a large-group setting using group work activities.  Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(6),  34-43.

Tags: Group Work
Summary: This study was conducted in face-to-face courses. It surveyed student participants on their experiences participating in small group exercises as part of large classes to enhance student engagement and promote peer learning.

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions and academic engagement: Introduction to the special issue. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 1-3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.11.004

Tags: Introduction
Summary: Introduction to a special issue about emotion and engagement: how and why student emotions emerge, how these emotions in turn shape students’ engagement and achievement, and the ways in which students can harness emotional resources for facilitating their engagement and achievement.

Liu, M., Liu, L., & Liu, L. (2018). Group awareness increases student engagement in online collaborative writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.001

Tags: Group Work, Instructional Design
Summary: Conducted a study of the impact of a tool called Cooperpad (to increase group awareness) on student engagement (behavior and cognitive). Article references sources that group awareness tools that provide evidence of individual participation increases participation.

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

Tags: Group work, Online Discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: Viewing engagement from a community or inquiry (learner to instructor, learner to learner, learner to content), they find that learner to content engagement is improved with realistic assignments, and that learner to learner engagement is improved with collaboration and discussions.

Mandernach, B. J.  (2015). Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature and assessment tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2), 1-14. [link]

Tags: Assessment
Summary: Engagement is dynamic concepts that comprises behavioral, affective and cognitive dimensions. In table 1 an overview is given how engagement data can be collected.

Mayer, G., Lingle, J., & Usselman, M. (2017). Experiences of advanced high school students in synchronous online recitations. Educational Technology & Society, 20 (2), 15–26. [link]

Tags: Online Discussions, Group Work, Discipline-specific (STEM)
Summary: Anonymous input and group work encouraged in learning activities. Student centered learning environment. High school calculus students.

Mendini, M., & Peter, P. C. (2019). Research note: The role of smart versus traditional classrooms on students’ engagement. Marketing Education Review, 29(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2018.1532301

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary:  This study compared a face-to-face classroom environment to one using smart technology in the classroom.  Results suggest higher student engagement with groups and instructor in a classroom without technology.

Morley, C., & Ablett, P. (2017). Designing assessment to promote engagement among first year social work students.  E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 11(2), 1–14. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1167329.pdf

Tags: Assessment
Summary: Assessing students on a group task (presentation) increased collaboration and cooperation. Assessing group work as a way to promote engagement.

Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96−108. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791990200108

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: Addresses a connection between motivation and participation/engagement in online courses.  Students in distance learning environments express feelings of isolation or alienation in comparison to traditional face-to-face classes which have a physical classroom and face-to-face interactions with other students.

Muir, T., Dyment, J., Hopwood, B., Milthorpe, N., Stone, C., & Freeman, E. (2019). Chronicling engagement: students’ experience of online learning over time. Distance Education, 40(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1600367

Tags: Assessment, Online Discussions
Summary: Weekly survey of students to uncover factors that affect student engagement and the factors that affect fluctuation in student engagement. Tracking of student engagement throughout the course as opposed to a fixed point in time.

Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., & Cronje, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: A case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701501028

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: Makes an argument that discussion forums are essential forms of communication for online classes. In addition, this paper highlights the negative aspects of online discussions such as read only participants.

Newton, D. W., LePine, J. A., Kim, J. K., Wellman, N., & Bush, J. T. (2020). Taking engagement to task: The nature and functioning of task engagement across transitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000428

Tags: Cognitive Engagement, Emotional Engagement, Behavioral Engagement
Summary: This is a job-based rather than a classroom-based study.  Engagement can differ between tasks, and there can be a spillover effect from one task to the next in that engagement in one task can influence engagement in the next task.

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

Tags: Introduction, Group Work, Instructional Design, Social Engagement, Cognitive Engagement
Summary: This was a multi-method study to examine student participation in asynchronous online discussions. Engagement on a social level can deepen interaction on a cognitive level and vice versa.

Pérez-López, R., Gurrea-Sarasa, R., Herrando, C., Martín-De Hoyos, M. J., Bordonaba-Juste, V., & Acerete, A. U. (2020). The generation of student engagement as a cognition-affect-behaviour process in a Twitter learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5751

Tags: Online Discussions, Group Work
Summary: This study evaluates the use of Twitter as online discussion tool, to increase student engagement. Recommendation is to use active and collaborative activities to increase engagement and performance.

Peterson, A.T., Beymer, P.N., & Putnam, R.T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7-25. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i4.1517

Tags: Group Work, Online Discussions
Summary: Asynchronous communication interferes with cooperative (group) learning dynamics.  Asynchronous work increases students’ perception of independence and therefore makes them perceive less interdependence for group work.

Rodriguez, R. J., & Koubek, E. (2019). Unpacking high-impact instructional practices and student engagement in a preservice teacher preparation program. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(3), Article 11, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2019.130311

Tags: Instructional Design, Group Work
Summary: High impact practices, like applied learning, collaborative assignments, understanding diverse points of view and constructive feedback on assignments as essential components of engagement and learning.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). A constructivist approach to online college learning. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79−93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.10.002

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: Some highlights include ways to improve student motivation (e.g., extrinsic factors like grades) and the importance of fostering a sense of community in the classroom (i.e., a sense of belonging and contributing to the greater good of the class tends to lead to greater engagement and the quality of the contributions is enhanced).

Rovai, A. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: This article presents a synthesis of the theoretical and research literature on facilitating asynchronous online discussions effectively. Building community, not only instructor-learner contact, but also learner-learner contact. For example choose topics in areas of student interest. Provide clear guidelines and grading rubrics.

Salter, N & Conneely, M. (2015). Structured and unstructured discussion forums as tools for student engagement.  Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.037

Tags: Online discussions, Instructional Design
Summary: Structured forums were seen as more engaging, students used the feedback more often than in unstructured forums. More peer engagement in less structured forums.

Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: a case study. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687760902951599

Tags: Online discussions
Summary: Participation by students is a prerequisite for building community. Students need to interject their own personal and emotional interests to increase participation (i.e., they need personally invested to get something out of the class). Instructors can choose topics /questions that align with student interest.

Sweat, J., Jones, G., Han, S., & Wolfgram, S. M. (2013). How does high impact practice predict student engagement? A comparison of white and minority students. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070217

Tags: Group Work
Summary: HIPS that have an effect on engagement across racial categories are service learning, undergraduate research, group assignments, learning communities, sequence courses, and, especially, having a close faculty mentor.

Taneja, A. (2014). Teaching tip: Enhancing student engagement: A group case study approach. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(3), 181-188. http://jise.org/Volume25/n3/JISEv25n3p181.pdf

Tags: Group Work
Summary:  Group work is seen as a learning goal on its own. Within the group case studies are used to transfer theoretical knowledge to real world practice.

Tofade, T., Elsner, J., & Haines, S. T. (2013). Best practice strategies for effective use of questions as a teaching tool. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(7). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe777155

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: Using different lenses to look at question formulation, ie. taxonomy of questions, Skinner (2009) mentions the importance of asking relevant questions

Truhlar, A. M., Walter, M. T., & Williams, K. M. (2018). Student engagement with course content and peers in synchronous online discussions. Online Learning, 22(4), 298-312. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1389

Tags: Online Discussions, Group Work
Summary:  Group reflection enhances critical student-content interaction, and assigning roles enhances critical student -student interaction. Interestingly self-reflection did not enhance either interaction.

Warburton, D. (1998). Community and sustainable development. Earthscan.

Tags: Online Discussions, Group Work
Summary: Participation precedes learning. A student needs to be present to be engaged, take part in a learning community to learn.

Waschull, S. B. (2005). Predicting success in online psychology courses: Self-discipline and motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3203_11

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary: A number of factors are measured relative to success in the course. Only self-discipline and motivation matter. Not factors like, time commitment, study skills, preference for text-based learning, access to technology, and technology experience.

Watson, F. F., Castano Bishop, M., & Ferdinand-James, D. (2017). Instructional strategies to help online students learn: Feedback from online students. TechTrends, 61, 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0216-y

Tags: Instructional Design
Summary: This paper reviews the top 10 preferred instructional strategies from online students.

Wollschleger, J. (2019). Making it count: Using real-world projects for course assignments. Teaching Sociology, 47(4), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X19864422

Tags: Group Work, Instructional Design
Summary: Redesign a course from lecture and real projects to community involved real world projects. This goes back to HIPS practices like community engagement, collaborative learning, inquiry based learning.

Woods, K. & Bliss, K. (2016). Facilitating successful online discussions. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 16(2), 76-92. https://uncw.edu/jet/articles/vol16_2/woods.html

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: Relevant to student engagement to discussions is the level of structure as well as the ability for conversations to evolve as the discussion progresses.  They make the case that less structure can allow more degrees of freedom in discussions. An interesting counterpoint to the argument that more structure is better for online courses.

Xie, K. & Ke, F. (2011). The role of student’s motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916-930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x

Tags: Online Discussions
Summary: Intrinsic motivation is a factor in individual interaction. Relatedness is a factor in collaboration. Low level interaction is related to perceived value, competency and autonomy. Knowing the type of motivation instructors can scaffold accordingly.