University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction

(USC Thesis Other)

Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Student Engagement in Online Learning: Examining Undergraduate Student Engagement
in Online Learning Communities to Improve Instruction

Thaddeus Reichley

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2023

© Copyright by Thaddeus Reichley 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Your Full Name certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Alison Muraszewski
Sheila Banuelos
Robert Filback, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Online learning is prevalent in higher education, especially given the rapid expansion of remote
education prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, ensuring student engagement
remains a challenge. This dissertation explored the factors that influence student engagement in
online learning to provide recommendations for improving student engagement in higher
education. The findings highlight student-teacher relationships, student-student relationships,
course format, and distractions. The impact of instructors, subject matter, and tools on student
learning was also examined. Furthermore, students preferred clear expectations, interactive and
collaborative activities, and accountability in online classes. The study also discusses
motivations for taking online classes and the influence of course outcomes, particularly grades.
Policy recommendations include using data to determine when courses should be taught online,
developing instructor training and support, and utilizing dynamic platforms and data. Practice
recommendations emphasize student-teacher relationships, fostering a sense of community, and
providing clear expectations and accountability. Additionally, research recommendations suggest
further exploration of balancing accessibility with positive course outcomes and refining the
community of inquiry and technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge frameworks.
Institutions can enhance the quality of online education and create a more engaging learning
environment for students by implementing the recommendations provided.

v
Dedication
To the educators of the future, may this dissertation inspire and empower you to transform the
lives of countless students through your dedication, knowledge, and unwavering commitment to
fostering a love for learning. May you continue to be catalysts of change and champions of
education.

vi
Acknowledgements
Completing this dissertation would not have been possible without the support of several
people. To my parents, Stephen, and MaryAnn Reichley. You have always been there for me and
have taught me the value of hard work and dedication. Thank you for providing me with a
wonderful foundation that made all this possible.
To my amazing wife, Leigh, and my wonderful daughters, Gabby and Hannah. You have
been my constant source of support and inspiration throughout this journey. Your love, patience,
and encouragement have made all the difference in this process. Thank you for being my support
system and my cheerleaders. I am forever grateful for the sacrifices you have made to help me
achieve this crazy goal.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Robert Filback. Your guidance and understanding have
been invaluable. Your patience and expertise have helped me navigate the challenges of this
dissertation. Your unwavering support and encouragement have meant the world to me. Thank
you for your dedication and commitment.
To the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Alison Muraszewski and Dr. Sheila
Banuelos. Your expertise and support have been instrumental in helping me complete this
dissertation. Your feedback and insights have helped me shape my research and present it in the
best possible way. Thank you for your support and encouragement throughout this process.
This dissertation is dedicated to all of you with gratitude and admiration.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of Study .....................................................................................................1
Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................3
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................8
Methodology ......................................................................................................................10
Positionality Statement ......................................................................................................11
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions ....................................................................13
Paper Contents and Organization .......................................................................................14
Definitions ..........................................................................................................................15
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................17
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................18
History of Online Education ..............................................................................................19
Teacher Competency and Framework of Knowledge .......................................................27
Community of Inquiry .......................................................................................................33
Student Engagement ..........................................................................................................38
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................47
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................48
Research Questions, Purpose, and Problem .......................................................................48
Site Selection .....................................................................................................................49

viii
Population and Sample ......................................................................................................50
Data Collection Strategies ..................................................................................................52
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................53
Trustworthiness Measures .................................................................................................55
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................56
Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................................57
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................59
The Role of Relationships ..................................................................................................61
Factors Influencing Student Participation ..........................................................................67
Factors Contributing to Student Learning ..........................................................................72
Tools Used by Professors ...................................................................................................77
What Students Want in Online Classes .............................................................................80
Why Students Take Online Classes ...................................................................................84
Course Outcomes ...............................................................................................................88
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................89
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................91
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................91
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................96
Study Limitations and Delimitations ...............................................................................112
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................114
References ....................................................................................................................................117
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................136
Background ......................................................................................................................138
Setting Climate .................................................................................................................138
Supporting Discourse .......................................................................................................139

ix
Selecting Content .............................................................................................................139
Engagement and Outcomes ..............................................................................................139
Appendix B: Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument .............................................................141
Teaching Presence ...........................................................................................................141
Social Presence ................................................................................................................142
Cognitive Presence ...........................................................................................................143
5-Point Likert-type scale ..................................................................................................144
Appendix C: Strategies for Increasing Engagement in Online Classes .......................................145

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Elements of Engagement 40
Table 2: Participant Data 52
Table A1: CoI Framework and Elements of Engagement Indicators 137

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: PCK Framework 29
Figure 2: TPACK Framework 32
Figure 3: Community of Inquiry Framework 36
Figure 4: CoI-TPACK Framework 111
1

Chapter One: Overview of Study
The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on education worldwide, leading to an
immediate shift to online learning (Magda et al., 2020). Although online education in
postsecondary institutions had been growing steadily over the previous 2 decades, the pandemic
caused a sudden acceleration in its adoption rate in March 2020 (Seaman & Seaman, 2017).
Almost all learners, from elementary to college, experienced a transition to remote or online
learning during the pandemic’s height, with an estimated 98% affected (Pokhrel & Chhetri,
2021). At postsecondary institutions, enrollment in online education more than doubled during
this time (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). While the shift to online learning has
not been consistent across all institutions, and some have returned to in-person learning, the
impact of the pandemic has altered the education landscape forever. Researchers and educational
leaders agree that online learning will play an integral role in the future of postsecondary
education (Bevins et al., 2020).
While nearly all educational institutions have implemented some form of virtual learning,
the methods and success of online education differ greatly among organizations (Alqahtani &
Rajkhan, 2020). The disparities in outcomes can be attributed to various factors, such as
resources, prior experience with online education, organizational leadership, and instructor
competence. As a result, there are differences in approach, student engagement, and overall
effectiveness of online programs. Some institutions have replaced traditional face-to-face
offerings with online programs, while others have added online programs to supplement in-
person classes. On the other hand, some institutions have struggled to adapt to the online
environment or found it impractical for certain programs or student populations.
2

Educational organizations’ rapid adoption of online platforms requires understanding
what makes online learning effective and engaging for students. The availability of computers
and widespread internet access since the late 1990s had already spurred the evolution of online
education before the COVID-19 pandemic (Agostinelli, 2019). However, online education
remained limited in scope, with only 10% of all undergraduate students participating in some
form of online learning in 1999-2000 (Sikora, 2002). With the onset of the pandemic, there has
been a substantial increase in online education. Given the increasing population of students
engaging in online learning (Seaman et al., 2018), there is a need for research on best practices.
The growth of online education has generated a mixed conversation surrounding its
effectiveness, student engagement, and outcomes, with varied research findings. Some studies
have found online learning to be less engaging and effective than in-person learning due to
inadequate teacher training, ineffective use of technology, and lower student engagement
(Bettinger & Loeb, 2017). Conversely, other researchers have found that online learning
provides opportunities for asynchronous work that can enhance student reflection and higher-
order thinking (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008). Additionally, online courses have increased the
need for collaborative work, which can boost overall student engagement (Dumford & Miller,
2018; Thurmond & Wambach, 2004). Despite the mixed research findings, successful online
learning requires effective teacher training and proper use of technology.
Despite the differing opinions regarding student outcomes, online education is here to
stay. As early as 2013, nearly 70% of higher education institutions in the United States reported
that online education would be part of their long-term strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2013). The
upward trajectory of increasing online learning in higher education means that lower student
engagement and outcomes could lead to devastating consequences if left unaddressed.
3

Stakeholder groups in higher education, both internal and external, need to fully understand the
impacts of online learning to ensure that student engagement and outcomes do not suffer. Further
research should be conducted to better understand the true effects of online education.
This chapter will begin by stating the problem in the context of the current environment
in online higher education. The problem’s importance and the study’s purpose will then be
presented, along with some recent historical background. Following this will be a description of
the methodology and research question. Next is a positionality statement and an
acknowledgment of the study’s limitations, delimitations, and assumptions. Finally, the content
and organization of the paper will be outlined.
Problem Statement
The shift in higher education to offering more online learning, advanced by the COVID-
19 pandemic, means that increasing numbers of students will take courses online in the
foreseeable future. This includes a growing number of students who did not seek out online
education for convenience, financial, or access reasons but were forced to take some or all their
courses online. In some cases, this may be due to ongoing safety protocols related to the
pandemic. In other instances, institutions have maintained online offerings post-pandemic for
other reasons, such as cost or convenience. Regardless of the cause, the move to more online
education for more students will require many instructors to teach some or all their courses
online.
This dissertation addressed the issue of the continued growth of online education,
specifically in higher education, and the fact that many instructors are not equipped to design and
implement effective and engaging learning experiences in online environments. With the
increasing adoption of online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors, there is
4

a pressing need for instructors to be equipped with the skills and knowledge to create engaging
and effective online learning experiences for their students. This study explored strategies and
approaches to improve instructor preparedness for online teaching and learning, with the goal of
enhancing the quality of online education in higher education. To ensure a positive student
experience and deliver acceptable student outcomes, instructors must be adequately equipped to
design and deliver effective online curricula and instruction that will lead to high student
engagement and positive course outcomes. Failure to ensure that instructors understand the
behaviors and teaching strategies that lead to high student engagement will continue to hinder
student outcomes and higher education institutions.
The current body of research provides evidence that quality online education requires
regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors. This type of engagement
leads to increased student satisfaction, learning, and improved outcomes (Protopsaltis & Baum,
2019). Examining the student experience in online learning environments provides insight into
how to enhance engagement.
The theoretical framework used to guide this study is the community of inquiry (CoI)
framework developed by Garrison et al. (1999). The CoI framework is a process for creating a
meaningful and in-depth learning experience by developing three interdependent components:
social, cognitive, and teaching presence. This framework will be discussed in more detail in
Chapter Two. Investigating the student experience through the CoI framework helps to
understand how these three components translate to an online environment. This is important
because it ensures that the growth of online learning stems from training in pedagogy proven to
increase engagement and improve student outcomes.
5

Failing to continue researching and implementing appropriate instructor training for
online education can have negative consequences for multiple stakeholder groups. Recent studies
have reported lower levels of student and community engagement at higher education institutions
as well as instructors feeling ill-prepared to teach online (Marinoni et al., 2020). Additionally,
there have been reports of the lower perceived value of online courses by students in higher
education and lower course outcomes (Coman et al., 2020). Another negative impact is the
higher levels of student attrition in online courses (Su & Waugh, 2018). Moreover, there is a
growing concern about workforce preparedness. Prior to the pandemic, many employers
expressed concerns about the lack of skills and knowledge of recent college graduates entering
the workforce (Krishnamoorthy & Keating, 2021). The potential consequences of not addressing
these issues are problematic for students, instructors, higher education institutions, and society.
Therefore, continued research and effective training for online education will aid in ensuring
positive outcomes for all stakeholders.
Importance of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic damaged the financial health of most higher education
institutions, particularly due to the loss of tuition revenue resulting from the shutdown of in-
person classes. At the same time, government funding for higher education is declining, further
exacerbating the budget challenges these institutions face (Blankenberger & Williams, 2020).
Additionally, there has been a recent decline in postsecondary education enrollment, adding to
the problem that higher education institutions must address. Therefore, higher education
institutions need solutions to address these budgetary challenges and ensure long-term financial
sustainability.
6

As previously mentioned, online education represented a dimension of growth for higher
education even ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic tipped the scales toward online
learning in a way that makes it unlikely to ever return to previous balances between in-person
and online learning. Though some rebalancing will undoubtedly occur, the prevalence of online
learning and the impact it will have on the global education system is likely to continue to grow
rapidly. This requires educational leaders to focus on this issue to maintain academic integrity
and the financial health of the institutions they oversee.
It is widely acknowledged that effective learning in any environment requires student
engagement, as demonstrated by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which
identified four key engagement indicators: academic challenge, learning with peers, experiences
with faculty, and environment (2013). While there is considerable evidence on student
engagement as important in in-person education, research on online learning environments is still
growing. Therefore, this study aimed to contribute to the current knowledge by identifying
effective strategies for engaging and teaching online learners in higher education. The goal was
to ensure that online learners have effective and enduring learning to benefit the health of the
education system and society at large.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant increase in the prevalence of online
education. However, the study of effective online learning strategies has been ongoing for
decades. Previous research has explored the relationship between successful in-person and online
learning strategies, with a focus on grades and student experiences as key indicators.
Understanding these indicators can inform the development of tailored approaches that optimize
academic achievement and student satisfaction in the online learning environment.
7

Engagement has been widely recognized as integral to the student experience. Studies
conducted in in-person settings have consistently found a relationship between student
engagement and student outcomes (Carini et al., 2006). Fredricks et al. (2004) developed a
conceptual model that defines engagement elements for in-person learning. This model
highlights the instructor’s role in student learning through engagement. Redmond et al. (2018)
expanded the model to include additional elements that are integral to online learning, such as
technology and communication. The expanded framework also underscores the instructor’s role
in facilitating engagement and supporting student learning. Previous research and the conceptual
models developed by Fredricks et al. (2004) and Redmond et al. (2018) highlighted the
instructor’s role in facilitating engagement and impacting student learning and emphasized
student engagement in both in-person and online learning.
Related to student engagement is the concept of a sense of community. The feeling of
belonging and value within a group is at the heart of a sense of community. Research has shown
that a sense of community, or lack thereof, can impact student engagement and outcomes
(Gallagher-Lepak et al., 2009). With the close link between community and engagement,
instructors are also key influencers in developing a sense of community in their courses
(Stephenson, 2019).
Instructors can facilitate the development of a sense of community in various ways. For
instance, they can create opportunities for students to interact with each other, such as through
group projects, discussions, and peer reviews. In addition, instructors can model positive
communication behaviors and encourage respectful interactions among students. They can also
provide feedback and support to students, which can help to build a sense of trust and belonging.
Furthermore, instructors can leverage technology to promote community building, such as by
8

using social media or discussion forums to encourage students to connect and share their
experiences. Ultimately, cultivating a sense of community promotes student engagement and
improves learning outcomes in online courses.
As the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, the impact of the increased investment in online
learning since 2020 will endure. Online learning will continue to be important in education,
making it vital to ensure positive student outcomes in this modality. This qualitative study aims
to enhance understanding of the student experience in online learning environments, exploring
the relationship between student perceptions of engagement and instructor pedagogy. While
considering similar research done for in-person learning, this study focused on postsecondary
online learning environments to identify specific strategies that instructors can use to foster a
strong sense of community, promote student engagement, and enhance learning outcomes for all
students.
Purpose of the Study
Focusing on the student experience, this study utilized the information gathered from
interviews to understand better students’ engagement and their connection to their classmates,
instructor, and course content. Specifically, the study sought to understand how students engage
with their peers, instructors, and course content and how these factors contribute to positive or
negative experiences. Through the examination of interview data, the study aimed to identify
instructor actions or inactions that elicit these reactions. The resulting data were used to suggest
techniques and strategies for instructors to build relationships, develop a sense of community,
increase student engagement, and enhance student outcomes. However, the effectiveness of these
techniques will need to be confirmed through research and testing.
9

This study adds to the current literature on increasing student outcomes in online
education. It also contributes to pedagogical practices that foster a sense of community and
increase student engagement. These contributions are centered around relationships in effective
learning communities and the inherent barriers to developing relationships in online
environments. The potential benefits of this study and others like it are multi-dimensional. There
are potential benefits to students enrolled in online courses out of convenience or necessity.
Academic institutions stand to benefit from improved student outcomes due to this research.
Society at large will also benefit if the growing online education sector experiences positive
movement in student outcomes. The contribution of this research may help students, faculty, and
institutions.
By identifying the key factors contributing to student engagement and the pedagogical
practices for effective online teaching, this study’s results could be used to enhance course
design and instruction, improve engagement for online students, and improve course outcomes.
Academic leaders in postsecondary institutions may benefit from this study, specifically those
developing or maintaining online learning programs. Instructional designers, course developers,
and faculty responsible for developing, delivering, and managing online academic programs
could all benefit from this study’s results. Additionally, academic leaders in higher education
institutions may benefit from understanding how to improve the quality and efficacy of online
educational programs and ensure continued success. This could lead to better student outcomes
and institutions’ financial health and security.
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the financial health of most higher education
institutions. One element of this impact is the loss of revenue from tuition associated with
shutting down in-person classes. This negative impact has come when government funding for
10

higher education is declining, creating substantial budget challenges for many institutions
(Blankenberger & Williams, 2020). This, coupled with the recent decline in postsecondary
education enrollment, creates a problem that higher education institutions must address.
Though the financial soundness of academic institutions is essential, this study
concentrated on how institutions can maintain or improve the quality of online education as it
experiences exponential growth. The population of focus was undergraduate students enrolled in
in-person programs but taking some of their required coursework online. This population has
different reasons and motivations for enrolling in online courses than students who may seek out
programs specifically because they are offered online. This population of students is likely to
grow in the coming years, and their unique perspective can provide insight into what instructors
can do to improve the student experience.
Methodology
As a qualitative study, this research collected data through student interviews using a
semi-structured interview protocol, which follows the guidelines set out by Merriam and Tisdell
(2016). The interview protocol (Appendix A) was adapted from the indicators for engaged
learning online (IELO) framework developed by Edel-Malizia and Brautigan (2014). The IELO
is a modified version of the indicators of engaged learning created by Jones et al. (1995),
specifically tailored for online learning environments. It incorporates the multi-dimensional
understanding of student engagement proposed by Fredricks et al. (2004), which encompasses
social-emotional, behavioral, and cognitive aspects. The interview questions focused on the five
elements of engagement described by Redmond et al. (2018) from students’ perspectives.
Through this approach, the study attempted to enhance the understanding of the relationship
between student engagement and the instructor’s role.
11

This study aimed to answer a central research question: What specific teaching strategies
and instructor behaviors contributed to high levels of engagement among students in online
learning environments? To answer this question, the study investigated the student experience in
online courses to identify the factors that impacted student engagement, both planned and
unplanned. The study aimed to inform the design of more engaging and effective online courses
by better understanding the instructor’s role in shaping the online learning experience.
Positionality Statement
I have worked in K–12 education for the past 23 years, beginning as a classroom teacher
and then as a school administrator for 15 years. Having taught Grades 1 through 8 and working
as an administrator in Grades K–8, I have spent my career primarily working with elementary-
aged students. I currently work in an independent K–8 school in Marin County, California.
However, I also have experience in public and charter schools. In the last 5 years, I have worked
with a university as a guest lecturer in the education department, both online and in person.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, I was part of a small administrative team tasked with leading a
school through the transition to fully online learning, into hybrid learning, and back to in-person
instruction. Having been a part of the leadership team addressing this crisis-fueled transition, I
gained an understanding of some of the limitations and possibilities associated with online
learning and have also had experience designing and implementing curricula for online
instruction.
My current career goal is to employ my 2-plus decades of experience in education and
my recent experience in online learning as an opportunity to help shape the evolution of online
learning. The hope is to better understand the instructor’s role in improving the student
experience and explore how technology can be leveraged to support instructors in increasing
12

student engagement. This study focused on higher education represents a departure from my area
of expertise in elementary education. This lack of experience mitigates potential bias associated
with preconceived notions about instructional design for online learning in higher education.
However, my role as a leader in developing an online learning platform for a K–8 school creates
the potential for bias that research design cannot easily overcome.
Furthermore, I am currently enrolled in a doctorate program delivered entirely online. I
have been enrolled in this program for over 2 years and have experienced various instructional
practices. I have reflected on my perceived level of engagement based on these practices and the
role of the instructors. This reflection has been formally prompted through formal course
evaluations throughout the participation in the program. This experience also creates potential
biases that research design cannot easily avoid.
I am aware of these potential sources of bias and understand the potential impact of
unknowingly allowing their influence on the research. This study had some limitations. As
mentioned earlier, at the time of the study, I was enrolled in an online doctorate program, and
therefore, no participants from the same program were included. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
noted by this could lead to potential bias as I might be perceived as a peer by participants from
the same program. To mitigate this potential bias, undergraduate students from fields unrelated
to my area of expertise were selected as participants. This was done to ensure that my personal
experiences and preconceptions did not influence the study’s outcomes. Therefore, adherence to
stringent documentation processes in data collection, and reflection with key advisors, helped
ensure I maintained high ethical and legal research standards as outlined by the institutional
review board.
13

Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
This study has some limitations. As stated above, I am currently enrolled in an online
doctorate program. The study did not include any participants enrolled in the same program.
However, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) pointed to this as a potential for researcher bias as a
potentially perceived peer. I sought to minimize this by selecting participants in undergraduate
programs in fields unrelated to my own.
Another limitation of the study was the scale, as it was focused solely on higher
education in the United States. This may have limited the potential takeaways and made it
difficult to generalize the findings to other online learning environments outside the United
States. Furthermore, the study was limited to students who were U.S. citizens, which meant that
the experiences of international students taking online courses at U.S. institutions were not
included. This further narrowed the transferability of the data to a relatively small demographic,
which should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.
This study was limited to a small group of participants, and although efforts were made to
include a diverse population of participants, the sample size further limited the data’s
applicability. A small sample confined to U.S. institutions meant that the findings might not be
generalizable to a broader population, as Patton (2014) noted. Despite this limitation, the study
sought to capture a range of perspectives by selecting participants with varying backgrounds and
experiences in higher education. Finally, online interviews may have made it more difficult to
establish rapport and trust with the participants. This limitation was addressed by taking time in
the interview to get to know the participants and make them comfortable with the platform.
This study has three significant delimitations. First, the study only focused on higher
education, as this was a deliberate choice to reduce bias associated with personal experience in
14

K–12 education, including both in-person and online. Second, participants for the study were
selected solely from programs not designed as online programs. This decision was made to avoid
motivational factors that might influence levels of student engagement and overall course
outcomes. Students seeking out online programs may have a perceived level of engagement that
differs significantly from students taking an online course out of necessity based on factors
outside the scope of the study. Finally, the study focused on undergraduate students enrolled in
higher education for the first time. This decision was also made to avoid motivational differences
between graduate and undergraduate students. These delimitations were carefully considered to
narrow the study’s focus and increase the validity of the findings.
Two significant assumptions were associated with this study. The first assumption was
that online education would continue to be a growing part of the educational environment. While
current trends and research supported this assumption, it was noted that the future of education
was not certain. The second major assumption was that outcomes in online learning courses
should be improved. This followed from the first assumption with the belief that as online
learning continues to grow, it is essential to ensure the highest possible outcomes. To address
these assumptions, the study explored how instructional practices could impact student
engagement and outcomes in online courses.
Paper Contents and Organization
This study is structured into five chapters to present its findings. The first chapter
introduces the research problem, justification, importance, positionality statement, research
questions, and a list of defined terms. The second chapter reviews the relevant literature,
including theoretical and conceptual frameworks that serve as the foundation for the research
15

question and the study. This chapter elaborates on how the study is positioned in the greater body
of research on student engagement in online learning environments.
The third chapter details the methodology used in this qualitative study, including
research design, data collection, and analysis. This chapter addresses threats to the study’s
validity and describes the participants and sampling method used. Next, the fourth chapter
documents the findings of the qualitative study conducted during the fall of 2022 and winter of
2023. This chapter includes data and narrative descriptions of the results obtained.
In the fifth chapter, the research findings are interpreted in the context of current
research. The scholarly significance of the results is summarized, and conclusions are drawn
from the study findings. Recommendations are made for changes in instructor practice that can
improve student engagement and outcomes, as supported by the study results. The final chapter
also includes suggestions for future research that can build on this study’s findings.
Definitions
Asynchronous learning: A student-centered teaching method widely used in online
learning. Its basic premise is that learning can occur at different times and spaces particular to
each learner, without instructors and students being in the same space (Finol, 2020).
Community of inquiry (CoI): A widely used framework in online education that describes
the process of learning in a collaborative, online environment. It posits that effective learning in
such environments is facilitated by three key elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and
teaching presence (Arbaugh et al., 2008).
Distance learning: A learning model where an instructor is physically located in a
different place from the learner, as well as possibly providing the instruction asynchronously
(Moore et al., 2011).
16

Emergency remote teaching (ERT): A temporary shift in delivery mode due to crisis
circumstances (Hodges & Fowler, 2020, p. 2).
Learning management system (LMS): A software application or web-based technology
used to manage, deliver, and track educational content and resources. It provides a platform for
instructors to create and deliver educational materials, monitor student progress, and administer
assessments and assignments (Bradley, 2021).
Online learning: A learning model where access to learning relies on technology. It can
be synchronous or asynchronous (Moore et al., 2011).
Pedagogy: The methods and principles of teaching, instruction, and education. It
encompasses a wide range of teaching approaches and strategies, including the use of
technology, group activities, and assessments (Steele et al., 2019).
Sense of community: The feeling of belonging and value an individual has within a group
(Gallagher-Lepak et al., 2009).
Student engagement: Participation by an individual in educationally effective practices,
both inside and outside the classroom, leading to a range of measurable outcomes (Kuh et al.,
2008).
Synchronous learning: All types of learning in which learner(s) and instructor(s) are in
the same place, at the same time, for learning to take place (Finol, 2020).
Technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework: A theoretical model
that highlights the interplay between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge in effective
teaching with technology. It emphasizes that teachers need a deep understanding of all three
components to effectively integrate technology into teaching practice (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
17

Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly transformed the current educational landscape,
and that change will continue to be a constant. Through the examination of past research on
student engagement and outcomes in in-person learning environments, it is evident that there is a
need for further exploration of the online learning experience. This study aimed to contribute to
the conversation on improving all students’ learning experiences by examining the student
experience in online learning environments, thereby advancing the body of knowledge in this
area.

18

Chapter Two: Literature Review
In this chapter, the goal is to review the literature on improving student engagement and
outcomes in postsecondary education programs that went fully or partially online due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The literature review takes a broad approach, starting with the history of
online education and ending with an examination of the impact of COVID-19 on the growth of
online education. A significant focus of this chapter is on the research related to student
engagement, with the CoI framework serving as a lens for examining this literature.
Additionally, the review will outline the teacher competencies that are necessary to develop a
sense of community in an online learning environment, which can lead to increased student
engagement and improved outcomes. As the study focuses on the student experience, the
literature review will be limited in scope.
This chapter includes five sections analyzing the literature relevant to understanding the
role of student engagement in enabling positive outcomes in online education, followed by a
summary. The first section briefly reviews the history of online education, with a focus on the
period beginning in the late 1990s and the most recent research conducted before the COVID-19
pandemic. The second section introduces the CoI theory, which informs the study and serves as a
foundation for understanding how people learn. The following section focuses on teacher
competency, with an emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) described by Shulman
(1986) and Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) expansion of this concept, technology pedagogy and
content knowledge (TPACK). The subsequent sections explore student engagement and a sense
of community to inform the discussion on improving student outcomes. Overall, these sections
provide background information for understanding this study’s relevance.
19

History of Online Education
In this section, the history of online education will be discussed, with a specific focus on
the period from the 1990s to the present day. The broader history of distance learning, which
includes print, radio, and television correspondence courses, will not be addressed. Rather, the
section will examine the timeline of online learning, highlighting the development of technology
tools and significant events in the history of online education.
Early Years of Distance Education
A precursor to online education was distance education. Distance education is defined as
an asynchronous teaching model whereby learning content is distributed to the user, forgoing the
need for students to attend classes at a specific time and space (Anderson & Rivera-Vargas,
2020). Modern documented examples of distance learning date to the 1850s in the form of
newspaper and correspondence courses relying on print as the medium (Barbour, 2021). Online
learning is a form of distance learning defined as access to learning experiences via some use of
technology (Moore et al., 2011). Online learning can be either synchronous or asynchronous. For
this study, synchronous online learning will refer to a learning experience in which the students
and instructor are engaged at the same time. Asynchronous online learning is the opposite when
there is no real-time interaction between students and the instructor.
Rapidly evolving technology has made synchronous online education relatively easy and
accessible. This has led to a steady increase in the number of higher education students enrolled
in online courses or programs. However, the history of online education in a form that would be
familiar to students today is relatively short. Though the focus of this study was specific to
online education since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, it is helpful to
20

understand the recent history of online education, which experienced a consistent increase for
many years, followed by a dramatic increase in response to the pandemic.
Online Education
From 2000 to 2012, the annual online enrollment growth rate grew between 6% and 37%
each year, which outpaced the overall enrollment rate in higher education (Protopsaltis & Baum,
2019). Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES,
n.d.) reported that 73% of all postsecondary students were enrolled in some form of online
education by the fall of 2020.
Before the 1990s and the creation of the World Wide Web in 1991, distance learning was
essentially a one-way medium concerned primarily with the distribution of learning materials
(Casey, 2008). However, the transformational impact of distance learning has primarily resulted
from the domestication of personal computers and high-speed internet access (Agostinelli, 2019).
“With the introduction of high-speed broadband transmission, distance learning over the internet
became the next instructional frontier. The potential for interactive, virtual classrooms was
limited only by the budget, institutional vision, and course management software” (Casey, 2008,
p. 48).
The history of online education as a learning model dates to the Electronic University
Network, founded in 1984, which began offering online courses in 1986 and a virtual Ph.D.
program by 1992 (Finkle & Masters, 2014). The first private online university, Jones
International University, was founded in 1993 (Finkle & Masters, 2014). In October 1998, New
York University (NYU) was the first sizeable nonprofit university to create a for-profit
21

online education subsidiary, NYU Online (Kentnor, 2015). Since then, technological innovations
have increased the proliferation of online learning institutions and those offering some form of
online learning.
Dziuban and Picciano (2015) present four historical phases of online education in the
United States. Phase 1, in the 1990s, internet propelled, with increased internet access allowing
for distance learning to take place online. Phase 2, 2000–2007, involved increasing the use of
learning management systems (LMS), allowing for more synchronous online experiences. Phase
3, between 2008 and 2012, brought the growth of massive open online courses (MOOCs), with
many postsecondary institutions foraying into online education. Phase 4, from 2013 and beyond,
refers to the growth of online higher education enrollments outpacing traditional higher
education enrollments (Palvia et al., 2018).
During the early days of online education, the delivery method was mainly asynchronous.
It consisted of instructors delivering content that students could access at a time and place
convenient for them. Learning management systems, such as Blackboard, founded in 1997,
allowed educators to centralize materials and make them available as the course progressed. The
90s was also when some of the most well-known online universities launched. The University of
Phoenix is one such organization; in 1997, it was the largest private for-profit university in the
United States (Finkle & Masters, 2014). During this time, growth in the online education domain
was slow and inconsistent.
A disruptive force to the traditional higher education system, online education has
historically been touted as potentially providing greater access to a more diverse population at a
decreased cost. It was not until the early 2000s that synchronous options, enabled by web
conferencing with video, that online education began to resemble a traditional classroom setting.
22

Lacking the geographical limitations of face-to-face classroom settings, this new era of online
education combined synchronous class time with asynchronous tools. Educators could now hold
virtual online classes and provide classroom materials outside the classroom. The result was
universities offering online courses and more students enrolling in them. By 2002, over 1.6
million postsecondary students were enrolled in online courses (Kentnor, 2015).
Massive Open Online Courses
This rapid increase in online enrollment did not secure the future of online education
institutions. Traditional universities making the foray into the online space were also not
guaranteed success. Still, overall enrollment in online courses increased each year between 2004
to 2018, irrespective of economic downturns or changes in overall college enrollment numbers.
During this same period, enrollment in traditional face-to-face institutions declined (Seaman et
al., 2018). This shift paved the way for new platforms and ways to deliver content to a broader
audience that only needed access to the internet to engage. One example during this time was
MOOCs. MOOCs are online courses aimed at groups ranging from a few individuals to
unlimited participants. They are offered open access online and are usually free.
The original goals of MOOCs were accessibility and equity. Stracke et al. (2019)
identified 2008 as the year the first MOOCs were offered with the intent to network and share
information between participants. In 2011, a more traditional educator-led design emerged and
focused on providing the content. Though there is some disagreement about the first MOOC,
there is some consensus that it was Norvig and Thrun’s Artificial Intelligence, which attracted
more than 150,000 participants (Davidson, 2013). Since 2012, the number of MOOCs in the
United States has continually grown (Gaslkell & Mills, 2014). Key players in this field include
23

Coursera, Udacity, and edX. The growth in this field has led to ongoing research and debate
regarding MOOCs’ quality and educational value.
From 2012 until 2020, online education saw a steady rise in enrollment, even while
enrollment in traditional face-to-face institutions plateaued or declined. In the fall of 2012,
Nearly 70% of academic leaders reported that online learning was essential to their future
strategy. Of the 20.6 million higher education students, 6.7 million were enrolled in at least one
online course (Kentnor, 2015). According to Allen and Seaman (2018), in 2012, there were
nearly 21 million students in higher education across all degree-granting institutions that were
open to the public. By 2016, this number had dropped almost four percent. This decline was on
the heels of a steady increase in enrollment enjoyed across the higher education space from 2002
through 2012. The reasons for this decline in higher education enrollment numbers can be
debated, but one result was an increase in the pervasiveness of online education.
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
In the decade leading up to the pandemic, student enrollment in higher education
institutions underwent fundamental changes. Between 2012 and 2019, the total number of
students enrolled at U.S. degree-granting institutions dropped by over a million. The number of
students taking at least one online course grew by almost 5.5 million, to 37.2% of the entire
higher education student population in 2019. This resulted in fewer students studying solely on
campus in the years leading up to the pandemic (Seaman & Seaman, 2017). Even with this initial
shift in enrollment from in-person to online, nothing could have adequately prepared the world
of higher education for the forced shutdown in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
However, the decrease in enrollment over the period leading up to the pandemic did work to
lessen the impact and was a trigger for change in some institutions. Institutions with a substantial
24

number of students enrolled in distance education, or a considerable percentage of their students
taking at least one distance course, were likely to have some of the infrastructures to support the
transition to fully online learning brought on by the pandemic. The result was that some
institutions were better prepared than others when the pandemic struck.
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a
pandemic. Education systems worldwide experienced an unprecedented disruption, with
estimates of as much as 70% of the worldwide student population impacted (Bouchrika, 2020).
The global pandemic forced many academic institutions to shut down overnight. In the fall of
2020, 44% of students were enrolled exclusively in distance education compared to 17% in the
fall of 2019, while 73% were enrolled in some distance education courses in 2020, compared to
about 37% in 2019 (NCES, n.d.). What followed this influx in online enrollment was a mix of
approaches to online learning driven by necessity and defined by individual organizations’
resources, experience, and leadership. Institutions with established online learning programs may
have been better equipped, but most institutions were not sufficiently prepared. Emergency
remote teaching (ERT), defined as the unplanned and temporary shift of a course to online
instruction by any means necessary, emerged during this time (Bond et al., 2021). A 2020 survey
of 2,200 colleges and universities found that at 97% of the institutions surveyed, faculty with no
previous online teaching experience were asked to teach classes online, and 56% of these faculty
members reported using teaching methods they had never used before (Johnson et al., 2020).
Even though higher education was woefully ill-prepared for the transition to online learning, the
shift happened, and with it came a great deal of learning about the limitations and possibilities of
online education.
25

Initial Response
The sudden disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic meant that instructors in
higher education were forced to teach in unfamiliar ways and quickly adopt new platforms and
technology. The term “emergency remote teaching” (ERT) appeared in 2020 and is defined by
Hodges and Fowler (2020) as “a temporary shift in delivery mode due to crisis circumstances”
(p. 2). This teaching requires fully remote solutions to teaching courses that would otherwise be
taught in-person or via a blended or hybrid experience. In most cases, ERT is meant to be
temporary, with a shift back to traditional teaching methods following the crisis. However, some
organizations have experienced a more enduring change to fully or partially online learning post-
pandemic.
A key aspect of ERT is that it is unplanned and based on a response to an immediate need
(Bond et al., 2021). With no other options, educators in ERT situations use the technology and
resources at hand to deliver their curriculum to the best of their ability. A growing body of
research focused on better understanding ERT’s impacts on the education field. In the coming
years, more will be learned about what worked and what did not in ERT, along with the impact
felt by individuals, institutions, and society. Though this study did not set out to explore this
issue directly, learnings from ERT experiences will be part of the discussion regarding strategies
to improve outcomes in online learning.
Over 2 decades of research examining effective online learning strategies existed before
COVID-19. There are documented design principles, best practices in pedagogy, and outcome
data to compare against face-to-face instruction. The immediate nature of the mass transition to
online learning in higher education did not allow time for careful examination of this research.
Nor does all pre-pandemic research apply to the types of programs or the scale growth
26

experienced in 2020 and beyond. Enrollment in higher education is continuing a trend of
decreasing numbers in in-person programs and increased enrollment in online learning. Given
this, it is important to study past research and make further research in this area a priority.
Changing Perspectives
As highlighted in the above history, online education is not a new phenomenon. Since the
onset of the pandemic, virtually all teachers and students in higher education have had
experience with online learning in some form. Early data from this new paradigm indicates that
student and teacher perspectives of online learning are shifting. A survey conducted by Educause
before the pandemic found that 69% of students preferred in-person instruction, compared to
21% who preferred hybrid courses and 10% who preferred online or mostly online courses
(Gierdowski et al., 2020). A similar study conducted by Higher Education Strategy Associates in
December 2020 found that 62% of students preferred hybrid courses, followed by 20% who
preferred online courses and 18% who preferred in-person courses (HESA, 2021). These
perspectives are likely to continue to shift. However, it is important to note that the experience of
online learning, forced on many by the pandemic, has changed how students think about online
education.
Similarly, instructors’ perceptions have shifted since the pandemic forced many to teach
some or all their courses online. Fox et al. (2021) explored the lasting impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on higher education instruction. They found that faculty opinions about online learning
have grown positively overall since the onset of the pandemic. Johnson et al. (2021) conducted
national surveys of U.S. higher education administrators and teaching faculty. Of the faculty
surveyed, only 8% expect their teaching will return to pre-pandemic modes. Administrators
polled shared similar positive shifts in attitude and optimism about online education since the
27

pandemic. This shift in attitude among students, faculty, and administrators in higher education
provides evidence of the increasing role of online education in the future.
Teacher Competency and Framework of Knowledge
Training higher education faculty is essential for successful online education (Young &
Duncan, 2014). However, historically, training for university faculty in online education has
been limited and inconsistent in methodology (Porter & Graham, 2015). Many instructors lack
experience in online learning settings and are unfamiliar with common online teaching strategies.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a renewed emphasis on instructor training and course quality for
online learning environments in higher education. As more institutions were forced to pivot to
fully or partially online instruction due to the pandemic, it became necessary to ensure that
instructors received training and support in developing effective online teaching practices
(Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020).
Effective instructor-learning environments depend on instructor competency. A
competent instructor must have mastery of specific techniques to develop knowledge and
increase student engagement. The comprehensive framework of knowledge that a competent
instructor should possess has been widely researched and discussed. This section will examine
instructor PCK as a commonly referenced conceptual framework throughout the literature. It will
delineate the iterations of PCK over time and present an overview of the significant research and
contributors to the evolution of PCK. Additionally, this section will focus on the integration of
technology into the framework, discussing the resulting TPACK model and its variations in the
literature. Examining the evolution of PCK and TPACK helps to better understand the
competencies instructors need to succeed in online learning environments.
28

Pedagogy and Content Knowledge
The concept of PCK emerged in the mid-1980s, stemming from a multi-year study led by
Shulman and colleagues (as cited in Berry, Friedrichsen & Loughran, 2015). Prior to the
introduction of PCK, teaching practice typically focused on either subject-specific content
knowledge or developing pedagogical techniques. Shulman believed that neither approach fully
encompassed effective teaching. Thus, PCK was defined as “that special amalgam of content and
pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional
understanding” (Evens & Depaepe, 2015, p. 1). In 1985, the term “pedagogical content
knowledge” was first introduced in a presidential address to the American Educational Research
Association. The phrase was defined as “a second kind of content knowledge” that extends
beyond subject matter knowledge to include knowledge of subject matter for teaching (Shulman,
1986, p. 9). Since then, PCK has been widely adopted as a research topic, with researchers in
language, science, and mathematics contributing to its evolution by adding discipline-specific
elements (Evens & Depaepe, 2015).
Several researchers contributed to the PCK’s development and clarification since its
introduction by Shulman (1986). Grossman’s work is particularly influential, as it provides a
concrete framework for PCK with four key elements. The first element is the knowledge and
beliefs about teaching a subject at different grade levels. The second is the understanding of
students’ conceptions and misconceptions related to the subject. The third element is knowledge
of the scope and sequence of the curriculum. Finally, the fourth element is the knowledge of
instructional strategies that can be used to teach the subject (Grossman, 1990). While some
researchers have argued that these variations of PCK are simply combinations of content
knowledge and pedagogy, others believe that they represent different areas of focus in PCK.
29

Figure 1 depicts the relationship between content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and the
resulting PCK, where teachers transform the subject matter to enhance learning outcomes.

Figure 1
PCK Framework

Note. Adapted from “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching,” by L. S.
Shulman, 1986, Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
(https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004)

30

Effective online learning environments depend on instructors’ competency and
knowledge framework. The concept of PCK, which combines content knowledge and pedagogy,
was introduced in the mid-1980s (Shulman, 1986) and has been widely researched and expanded
upon by subsequent researchers. Grossman’s (1990) four key elements of PCK, including
teaching purposes, knowledge of students, curricular knowledge, and knowledge of instructional
strategies, are commonly referred to in PCK research. To integrate technology, the TPACK
model was developed to represent the intersection of TPACK. This section discussed the
evolution of PCK and emphasized its continued relevance in online education, especially during
the COVID-19 pandemic (Evens & Depaepe, 2015; Grossman, 1990).
Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge
In their attempt to extend the concept of PCK to the realm of technology, Koehler and
Mishra (2005) proposed a new framework called TPACK. This framework differs from previous
variations of PCK in that it includes technology as a distinct knowledge domain. The interplay
between technology, content, and pedagogy is emphasized in TPACK, which is viewed as more
than simply the sum of its components, similar to Shulman’s (1986) original concept. The
framework acronym was later changed to TPACK to improve accessibility and better represent
the three knowledge areas: technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Thompson & Mishra,
2007). Mishra and Koehler’s contribution to the evolution of PCK highlights technology in
teaching and learning and underscores the need to integrate it with content and pedagogy.
The foundation of TPACK, as described by Koehler and Mishra (2005), includes three
areas of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. Content is simply the subject matter to
be taught. Technology includes modern technology such as computers, the internet, and
everyday tools like whiteboards and projectors. Pedagogy refers to teaching methods,
31

understanding learning outcomes, and assessing student learning. When combined in different
configurations, these components can describe how a teacher’s knowledge of technology might
transform their pedagogy or how their knowledge of the subject matter might be recast using
technology. Mishra and Koehler asserted that true technology integration into the framework
requires understanding and negotiating among technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.
They described the impact on teaching in this way:
Good teaching is not simply adding technology to the existing teaching and content
domain. Rather, the introduction of technology causes the representation of new concepts
and requires developing a sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between
all three components suggested by the TPACK framework. (Koehler & Mishra, 2005, p.
134)
As with Shulman (1986) and others, this description highlights incorporating various skills and
knowledge for teachers to be effective. The integration of the elements described in the TPACK
framework is represented in Figure 2.

32

Figure 2
TPACK Framework

Note. Adapted from “What happens when teachers design educational technology? The
development of technological pedagogical content knowledge” by M. J. Koehler & P. Mishra,
2005, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
(https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV)

As depicted in Figure 2, instructor competency and knowledge are comprised of
interrelated components. To be effective, an instructor must possess pedagogical knowledge
(PK), content knowledge (CK), and technological knowledge (TK). The intersections of these
domains create additional knowledge components, namely technological content knowledge
(TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and PCK. At the heart of the framework is
the concept of TPACK, which demands a highly skilled and experienced educator.
33

Community of Inquiry
Though online education has been around for decades, few theoretical frameworks have
been presented to address this specific form of instruction. Social constructivism is a theory that
addresses the collaborative aspects of knowledge creation. Vygotsky, Dewey, and Piaget are all
educational theorists who contributed to this field (Picciano, 2021). Though well established, it is
not specific to online learning. Other theories, such as Harasim’s online collaborative learning
(OCL) theory, are specific to online learning. Established in 2012, OCL is relatively new and
somewhat narrow in focus. OCL draws from constructivism, focuses on smaller learning
environments, and emphasizes the role of the instructor as both a facilitator and a learning
community member (Picciano, 2021).
A theoretical framework specific to online learning that is appropriate in scope for this
study is the CoI framework developed by Garrison et al. (1999). This section will define this
framework and highlight the connection to online education. It will discuss the past work
influencing this framework and situate it within the literature. It will then briefly address the
limitations and strengths. Finally, a connection will be made to this study and why this
framework serves as a valuable lens to examine this study.
The CoI framework attempts to understand the social, technological, and pedagogic
processes that lead to collaborative knowledge construction (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). The
following section on student engagement will relate to this framework by showing how
relationships increase engagement. CoI is based on a constructivist view and is grounded in the
progressive ideas of John Dewey. Dewey (1897/1959) believed that inquiry is a social activity.
He saw inquiry as the heart of the education experience and fundamentally believed in the
essence of community. He presumed that a supportive and collaborative community would allow
34

students to engage in learning and construct meaning. Lipman et al. (1984) collaborated on
another framework related to the work of Dewey with a similar name. The community of
philosophical inquiry is a framework based on the role of philosophy in developing human
knowledge and thought and should not be mistaken with the more recently presented CoI
framework.
A historical characteristic of higher education has been a collaborative learning
community engaging in critical thinking and discourse. The CoI framework concentrates on the
deliberate development of an online learning community, focusing on the processes of
instructional exchanges that are likely to lead to student engagement. The framework articulates
specific behaviors and pedagogical approaches to nurture the collective construction of
knowledge. The catalyst for the development of the CoI framework was the increased emphasis
on human connection and social presence in the infancy of online conferencing and ensuing early
synchronous online education efforts. The purpose of the CoI framework is to construct deep and
meaningful online learning experiences that incorporate the social presence of the students and
instructor, the ability of students to identify with the community, meaningful communication in a
trusting environment, and the development of interpersonal relationships (Garrison, 2009). The
solution was to propose three overlapping facets of presence that are highly interdependent. At
the center of the overlap of these elements is an in-depth and meaningful learning experience.
These are teaching social and cognitive presence. Garrison et al. (1999) asserted that skillful
cultivation of these by an instructor and students collaboratively leads to productive learning
communities with positive outcomes (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009).
Teaching presence includes facilitating instruction, and the CoI framework highlights the
design aspects of instruction that target productive discourse and the development of a
35

collaborative learning community. Social presence can be thought of as the need for students in
online learning communities to view themselves as active or authentic community members.
This can be challenging in online environments because the emphasis on non-verbal
communication underlies much of the discourse in knowledge construction lacking in online
environments. Social presence in online learning communities cannot be assumed and is the
instructor’s responsibility to foster. The final aspect of CoI is cognitive presence, which
corresponds to the extent to which students can engage in critical thinking in a learning
community. CoI presents each of these as interconnected. Cognitive presence can be developed
through sufficient emphasis by the instructor on teaching and social presence. This relationship is
illustrated in Figure 3.

36

Figure 3
Community of Inquiry Framework

Note. Adapted from “Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in
higher education” by D. R. Garrison, T. Anderson, & W. Archer, 1999, The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6)

In this model, teacher presence and student engagement are connected, with the teacher
playing a pivotal role in creating and maintaining a positive community climate. Here, the three
aspects of presence interact to create the overall educational experience. At the intersections of
these elements are setting the climate, supporting discourse, and selecting content.
Since its introduction, the literature and research on CoI have been promising. The CoI
framework has developed into a practicable framework to understand the complexities and
address the challenges associated with online learning. It has been widely adopted and has been
37

influential in defining effective online learning experiences. A growing body of research
examines the framework’s potential to help produce learning environments where specific
techniques are employed to attain higher-order learning outcomes (Vaughan & Garrison, 2005).
The critiques of CoI are rooted in the difficulty of quantitative research regarding the aspects of
the theory that are inherently difficult to measure. Some simply disagree with the constructivist
foundation on which the framework is constructed. Moreover, some say that the framework is
outdated and that a novel framework is needed to address the rapidly evolving landscape of
online education and the complex intersection of technology, pedagogy, and community that
educators are asked to navigate.
The CoI framework has important potential implications for the future of online learning.
The constructivist basis of the theory connects directly to the efforts of this study to link a sense
of community in online learning environments to increased student engagement and improved
course outcomes. The emphasis that CoI places on teaching, along with social and cognitive
presence, makes it a sound theoretical framework to guide this study.
This study used two frameworks, TPACK and CoI, to understand the elements that led to
successful online learning communities. TPACK, developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006),
identified PK and CK as key components for effective teaching. Similarly, CoI has characterized
three types of presence, teaching, social, and cognitive, that intersect to create a collaborative and
supportive learning community. The aim of this research was to build on the work related to
these frameworks and contribute to the body of knowledge on methods and strategies that higher
education instructors could use to enhance student engagement and build community in online
classes. This study examined how instructors can create and maintain knowledge in online
learning communities by drawing on TPACK and CoI.
38

Student Engagement
Designing effective academic experiences requires a fundamental element of student
engagement. Multiple studies have shown a strong relationship between student engagement and
improved achievement and outcomes, such as course persistence, course completion, and grades
(Kuh et al., 2008). On the other hand, a lack of student engagement has been demonstrated to
hinder student learning outcomes (Leach & Zepke, 2011). This section will define student
engagement and include the description used in this study. Additionally, the section will
differentiate between motivation and engagement and highlight research related to student
engagement. Finally, a comparison will be drawn between student engagement in online
education versus face-to-face environments, including tools developed to measure engagement in
each domain.
Various researchers have defined student engagement over the years. Kuh (2009)
explained student engagement in relation to the time and effort students devote to activities
linked to desired outcomes. The Glossary of Education Reform (2016) describes student
engagement as “the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students
show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the motivation they have to learn
and progress in their education” (para 1). Fredricks et al. (2004) conceptualized three dimensions
of student engagement, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive. Axelson and Flick (2010)
described student engagement as “how involved or interested students appear to be in their
learning and how connected they are to their classes, their institutions, and each other” (p. 38).
These ideas, linking involvement” to “connectedness, will be a recurring idea in this study, as a
case is presented how relationships enhance student engagement.
39

More recent efforts to define and delineate student engagement also concentrated on the
online learner and contained additional dimensions. Redmond et al. (2018) expanded the
conceptual model of engagement to include social and collaborative engagement, as illustrated in
Table 1. They asserted that engagement is a multi-dimensional concept with interrelated
elements that can be utilized to reflect on both in-person and online learning. Whether talking
about in-person or online learning, the role of the instructor is a key factor influencing student
engagement. Consciously or not, instructors influence all elements of student engagement,
regardless of the environment.

40

Table 1
Elements of Engagement
Online engagement element Indicators (illustrative only)
Social engagement Building community
Creating a sense of belonging
Developing relationships
Cognitive engagement Thinking critically
Activating metacognition
Integrating ideas
Justifying decisions
Developing deep discipline
understandings
Distributing experience
Behavioral engagement Developing academic skills
Identifying opportunities and
challenges
Developing multidisciplinary skills
Developing agency
Upholding online learning norms
Supporting and encouraging peers
Collaborative engagement Learning with peers
Relating to faculty members
Connecting to institutional
opportunities
Developing professional networks
Emotional engagement Managing expectations
Articulating assumptions
Recognising motivations
Committing to learning

Note. From “An Online Engagement Framework for Higher Education,” by P. Redmond, A.
Heffernan, L. Abawi, A. Brown, & R. Henderson, 2018, Online Learning: The Official Journal
of the Online Learning Consortium, 22(1), 183–204. (https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175)

This table enumerates the five elements of online engagement along with possible
indicators of each element. Though instructors influence all aspects of engagement, the balance
of each element between instructor and student differs for each element. The indicators for social
41

engagement, building community, creating a sense of belonging, and establishing trust, fall under
the instructor’s control. The indicators for emotional engagement, managing expectations,
articulating assumptions, and committing to learning, are more under the student’s control.
However, the instructor creates the environment wherein all these elements can be developed.
Engagement Versus Motivation
There is discussion in the literature about whether the terms motivation and engagement
should be used interchangeably. Schlecty (2002) characterized engagement as a phenomenon
that cannot be observed. Engagement has also been described as an observable manifestation of
effort in action (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). The terms dedication, enthusiasm, and value can also
be found when researching engagement, and over the last few decades, researchers have
attempted to develop tools to measure these characteristics. Nayir (2017) said this about the
relationship between motivation and engagement:
Students must be actively engaged and show interest in classes to achieve effective
learning in school. For this, they must be highly motivated and interested in classes. What
is expected from students during the teaching-learning process is to have intrinsic
motivation and authentic engagement in classes. To achieve this, students’ motivation
levels must first be identified, and activities must be planned to promote their active
engagement in classes. Therefore, teachers must be aware of their students’ motivation
levels and employ motivation strategies to ensure their authentic class engagement. (p.
60)
This idea reflects a prevalent view spanning the literature that motivation is a precursor to
engagement and that motivation is the unobservable force acting as a catalyst for engagement
(Reschly & Christenson, 2019). This study is predicated on the idea that motivation and
42

engagement are closely related and that motivation must be present for student engagement to
exist. Further exploration of this relationship will be presented in the accompanying research.
Several decades of research have focused on student engagement. Astin’s (1984)
essential student involvement theory, based on a longitudinal analysis of college dropouts, is a
construct that identifies an involved student as “one who, for example, devotes considerable
energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates actively in student organizations,
and interacts frequently with faculty members and other students” (p. 518). Astin drew a
connection between motivation and involvement. However, he emphasized the behavioral aspect
of engagement and what individuals do versus what they might think or feel. As with other
scholars, Astin was curious about how pedagogy influences student involvement and the
potential for improved outcomes through explicit teaching strategies. This question is directly
related to this study’s research question.
The work of Fredricks et al. (2004) applied a similar lens to the concept of school
engagement and the potential contributions to influencing teacher interventions to increase
student outcomes. They drew on prior research and presented a three-pronged vision of
engagement consisting of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Behavioral
engagement relates to participation during and outside of the classroom setting. Emotional
engagement encompasses positive and negative reactions to teachers, classmates, and the overall
learning environment. Cognitive engagement describes the investment and the willingness to
expend energy to pursue the desired result. Their work posited that engagement could be
considered a meta-construct encompassing the three engagement components. Other engagement
components have been suggested in more recent studies, including academic, social, and agentic.
43

However, the elements of behavior, emotion, and cognition are more commonly referred to
across the literature.
Kahu and Nelson (2018) have drawn together key constructs historically associated with
engagement to refine a framework for student engagement theory. Aligning with the work of
Astin and Fredricks et al. (2004), Kahu and Nelson drew a direct connection between student
engagement and student success. They stated, “Students who are engaged with their studies are
more likely to be successful” (Kahu & Nelson, 2018, p. 59). Their proposition is that
engagement is a dynamic process “within an educational interface at the intersection of the
student and their characteristics and background, and the institution and its practices” (Kahu &
Nelson, 2018, p. 59). The refined student engagement framework presented links with the three
approaches to engagement identified by Kahu in the relevant literature; behavioral, which
emphasizes teaching methods and student actions; psychological, viewing engagement as an
internal psychosocial process with behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions; and
sociocultural, emphasizing the broader social context of engagement (Kahu, 2013). Kahu and
Nelson also presented four psychosocial constructs, which they view as integral levers
institutions can influence to impact student engagement. These are self-efficacy, emotion,
belonging, and well-being. Their work represents the evolution from Astin’s involvement theory
to the more nuanced idea of engagement commonly understood today and is a continuation of
the historical efforts of other researchers to understand what institutions can do to identify,
measure, and activate student engagement.
The literature on engagement is expansive and includes attention to online learning
environments. However, engagement’s importance in the growing online academic landscape
has fueled the research in the last decade, with the COVID-19 pandemic acting as a further
44

accelerant. Though improved access and cost reductions are often touted as advantages of online
education, there have been historical challenges with attrition rates compared to face-to-face
environments (Perna et al., 2014). It has also been noted that students in online learning
environments require more self-discipline, which has been linked to motivation, a precursor to
engagement (Allen & Seaman, 2007). The lack of personal connection between students and
peers and students and teachers has been highlighted as a reason engaging learners in online
environments can be challenging. Engagement, an antecedent for positive learning outcomes, can
thus be lower in online environments relative to face-to-face (Hu & Hui, 2012).
Because student engagement drives student outcomes, measuring engagement has a body
of research comparable to that related to identifying and defining student engagement. The
literature concerning measuring student engagement in in-person courses includes several
potential tools. Of these, two are most referred to as Quimet and Smallwood’s (2005) Classroom
Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE) and Handelsman et al.’s (2005) Student Course
Engagement Questionnaire. The NSSE is also commonly used to measure institutional
engagement. The National Survey of Student Engagement identifies five academic components
related to learning engagement: level of academic challenge, a supportive campus environment,
enriching educational experiences, student-faculty interaction, and active and collaborative
learning (NSSE, 2005, p. 11). The tools used to measure engagement in in-person courses have
been adapted for online courses. Tools developed specifically to measure online engagement
have been designed as well. Dixson (2010, 2015) developed a validated scale for measuring
online student engagement, the Online Student Engagement Scale. It measures study skills,
students’ feelings about their learning, and overall connections with the instructor and peers.
45

With the ongoing growth of online education worldwide, measuring engagement to improve
outcomes will remain necessary. Therefore, the body of literature will likely continue to grow.
Sense of Community and Social Presence
A sense of community and student engagement are two factors to examine as contributors
to improving student outcomes in online education. There is ample research showing the
connection between engagement and outcomes. However, there is less research and literature on
methods instructors should use to increase student engagement. Similarly, many studies point to
the relationship between a strong sense of community and positive levels of student engagement.
Though the elements of a sense of community have been defined in the literature, the strategies
an instructor should employ to develop a sense of community online are sorely lacking in the
current literature.
As online learning becomes a more prevalent form of education, it is essential to look
beyond teacher competency and frameworks of knowledge as the sole ingredients for effective
teacher-learner interaction. This section will briefly explore a sense of community as a core
characteristic of learning environments’ effectiveness. It will overview the findings in the
research about the impact of a well-developed sense of community in a learning environment and
point to a lack of research regarding methods teachers can employ to develop a sense of
community and increase student engagement. The instructor influences the sense of community
students experience, which affects their engagement in the course. This idea supports the efforts
of this study to explore this topic through the student experience and contribute to further
academic discussion.
In simple terms, a sense of community is the feeling of belonging, involvement, and
value within a group (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Research has established that a sense of
46

community is more commonly developed in in-person environments than in online learning
(Sadera et al., 2009). In distance education, both the teacher and the students can experience a
sense of isolation. The expansion of online education globally means that more students are
potentially experiencing this sense of isolation. Failure to address this issue may lead to a decline
in academic outcomes on a large scale.
A case is made in the literature that a strong sense of community could combat students’
feelings of isolation and lead to better learning outcomes. Research indicates that a sense of
community can improve student engagement and learning outcomes, specifically in online
courses (Gallagher-Lepak et al., 2009). Given this, academic institutions should seek to
understand the steps teachers can take to increase a sense of community in their courses and
therefore improve engagement and outcomes. Currently, research is scarce on this topic, and it
should be an area of increased research in the future.
There is still a valuable body of knowledge concerning the elements contributing to a
sense of community. Stephenson (2019) reviewed the literature and noted four foundational
aspects of establishing a sense of community in online settings. These are early establishment,
social presence, social cohesion, and the instructor’s role. Early establishment is essentially the
tone the instructor sets for the course. Social presence is the sense a learner has of being with
other people and being recognized and heard. Social cohesion is the formation of group identity.
The role of the instructor refers simply to the teacher’s role as the center of the class structure
and the key to how the community develops.
The research and literature on the topic of a sense of community connect to the elements
listed above. The role of the instructor, social cohesion, social presence, and early establishment
all contribute to the formation of an online community and combat the isolation that can quickly
47

develop, especially when all interaction is virtual. The correct course structure and pedagogical
approaches to create a collaborative atmosphere should lead to a sense of community and an
effective learning environment. Further research in this area will benefit the efforts of educators
and improve student outcomes.
Conclusion
Online learning has evolved a great deal since its inception. This evolution has rapidly
accelerated in the last few years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused much of the
world to transition to online education in some form. The momentum of the growth in online
education is not likely to slow and, therefore, should be an area of focus for researchers. Even
before the pandemic, the benefits of online education for postsecondary institutions were evident.
Flexibility and lack of a need for a physical space are just two benefits of online education that
are often highlighted in the early literature.
While the benefits of online education have been identified in earlier literature, research
has also established a positive relationship between student engagement, a sense of community,
and course outcomes. The CoI framework emphasizes building relationships in online
communities to lead to the creation of knowledge. Additionally, the TPACK model provides
instructors with a foundation for designing their courses to promote student engagement. A
systematic approach to instructor competence can improve student engagement, leading to better
course outcomes. As online education grows, it is imperative to continue investigating the factors
that contribute to its success and enhance student engagement.

48

Chapter Three: Methodology
As described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), qualitative research seeks to understand the
meaning individuals construct and how they make sense of their experiences. This form of
applied research aims to enhance the quality of a specific discipline’s practice. In line with this,
the present study investigated the experiences of higher education students in online learning
environments to inform and improve instructional practices in this field.
This chapter provides a detailed overview of the research design and methodology used
in this qualitative study. It will cover the sampling strategy, data collection methods, and data
analysis procedures. In addition, it will discuss the steps taken to ensure validity and reliability
and the ethical considerations taken to ensure participants’ anonymity and security.
Research Questions, Purpose, and Problem
This qualitative study sought to explore student perceptions of online learning. The goal
was to explore the relationship between student perceptions of their sense of community and
levels of engagement and their self-perceptions of their learning in online courses. Using student
perceptions of learning as an indicator of course outcomes, the study explored how students
report specific instructor practices and guided activities related to personal engagement and
learning in online courses. A qualitative research question guided this study: What instructor
behaviors and teaching strategies lead to high levels of engagement as perceived by students in
online learning environments?
The purpose of this research question was to help understand the fundamental
relationship between students’ experiences, the role of the instructor, and the resulting course
outcomes through the lens of cognitive, social, and teaching presence. Students’ experiences
include their perceived sense of being part of a community of learners and their self-described
49

sense of engagement. The instructor’s role refers to the instructor’s skills and pedagogy and the
planning and implementation of lessons and activities in an online course. Student outcomes
refer to course completion rates, grades, knowledge and skills acquired, and engagement with the
material.
Previous research has established student engagement as essential in developing and
sustaining highly effective student learning environments (Carini et al., 2006). Studies of in-
person learning environments have also established a clear connection between knowledge
creation and increased student engagement in learning within a course (Pike et al., 2011). Less
academic research has been done on these topics regarding online learning, specifically since the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The data analysis in this study can add to the body of
knowledge in this area and improve the collective understanding of the relationship between
student experiences, instructional practices, and course outcomes.
Site Selection
The COVID-19 pandemic served as an accelerant for the growing field of online
education. Though some institutions and programs have shifted back toward more in-person
offerings, many have made a permanent shift to online education or experienced a permanent
increase in the prevalence of online offerings in the organization or program. Still, institutional
factors can impact the potential success of online programs, including an understanding of online
pedagogy, faculty qualifications and training, student enrollment, student experience, and
employers’ perceptions of online degrees (Kentnor, 2015). This study addresses only the student
experience and the role of the instructor from this list.
This study focused on higher education institutions in the United States. Specifically, it
focused on institutions with well-established in-person programs forced to begin or increase
50

online courses due to the pandemic. Institutions with well-established online programs, or
programs offered solely online, were not part of this study. This decision was made to narrow the
focus of the research and draw participants from institutions with similar characteristics that are
more typical or average (Patton, 2014).
This study relied solely on online interviews. Therefore, the participants were not
restricted to one site and were drawn from several higher education organizations. A strength of
this approach is that it allowed for a more diverse and representative study (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). Online interviews also enabled the recording and transcribing of interviews
easily. Drawbacks to using online interviews included possible technology issues and difficulty
establishing rapport and trust in online interview settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Population and Sample
The target population for the study consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in in-
person programs who were compelled to take some of their coursework online. Participants were
not mandated to be taking online courses for the first time, but they had to be registered in an in-
person program that they did not choose based on its online learning focus. Participants who
wanted a primarily online experience might have different perceptions and motivations than
those who sought an in-person experience but were taking some online courses. The study aimed
to comprehend the experience of the general population of students in higher education in in-
person programs who might increasingly be obligated to take some of their courses online.
Participants for this study were selected by a purposeful sampling method. This means
that participants are deliberately chosen to provide information relevant to the research questions
and goals of the study (Patton, 2014). Convenience, network, and snowball sampling, all forms
of purposeful sampling, were used in this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Initial participants
51

were selected based on convenience. These participants were then asked to refer other potential
participants in their network.
My confidence in reaching data saturation determined the sample size. Data saturation
occurs when no new analytical information arises during data collection (Moser & Korstjens,
2018). Ultimately, the study included 12 participants, and they were initially contacted through
email. After expressing interest in participation, participants were scheduled for an online
interview at their convenience.
In Table 2, demographic data is presented for the 12 participants. The gender distribution
included five women, six men, and one non-binary individual. The racial makeup of the group
was three participants identifying as Caucasian, four as Asian or Pacific Islander, two as East
Asian, and three as mixed-race. Three participants attended private universities, while the
remaining nine were enrolled in public universities. Their academic levels were also diverse,
with eight in their 4th year of undergraduate studies, one in their 3rd year, and three in their 2nd
year. All had experience in both online and in-person courses. Additional data will be presented
in Chapter Five.

52

Table 2
Participant Data
Participant Sex Race Year School
1 Nonbinary Caucasian 4 Private
2 Male Asian/Pacific
Islander
2 Public
3 Male East Asian 4 Public
4 Male East Asian 4 Public
5 Male Caucasian 2 Public
6 Male Mixed race 2 Public
7 male Asian/Pacific
Islander
3 Private
8 Female Asian/Pacific
Islander
4 Public
9 Female Mixed race 4 Public
10 Female Asian/Pacific
Islander
4 Public
11 Female Caucasian 4 Public
12 Female Mixed race 4 Private

Data Collection Strategies
Semi-structured interviews were used in this study to collect qualitative data from the
participants. This interview format provided a balance between consistency and flexibility.
Consistency in data collection from all participants was important for data analysis and for
enhancing the study’s validity. On the other hand, flexibility in exploring issues that emerged
during the interview provided a better understanding of the student experience. This approach
enabled me to respond to new ideas that arose during the interview and incorporate them into the
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In this study, the interview protocol (see Appendix A) was designed to focus on the
research question and the relevant components of the CoI framework. The protocol was
influenced by the CoI survey instrument (see Appendix B), which was developed by Arbaugh et
53

al. (2008) as an open resource. Using Zoom to conduct interviews allowed for remote
communication and flexible scheduling, which increased the accessibility of the study to
participants. Recording and transcribing the interviews using Zoom also facilitated efficient data
management and analysis, enabling the researchers to identify key themes and patterns more
easily in the data. Additionally, Zoom’s transcription feature helped to mitigate potential issues
with inaccurate or incomplete notetaking during the interview. This ensured that the interview
data were as comprehensive and accurate as possible and helped to increase the validity and
reliability of the study’s findings.
Data Analysis
Due to the limited number of participants, there was no need to use data analysis
software. Instead, I employed an iterative approach and emerging design for data analysis. This
method involved moving between sampling, data collection, and analysis to accumulate in-depth
data and valuable findings. The key idea behind this approach is that what emerges from data
analysis guides subsequent decisions (Moser & Korstjens, 2018).
Because of the small sample size, I devoted considerable time and attention to the data
from each participant. This allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the nuances of the data
and identify patterns that might not have emerged with a larger sample. Through this iterative
approach, I refined my research question and hypotheses and adjusted data collection and
analysis strategies.
One of the key advantages of the emerging design approach is that it allows for flexibility
and adaptation throughout the research process. Rather than being bound to a fixed methodology
or research plan, I adjusted my approach as I gained more insight into the data. This approach
54

allowed me to produce more nuanced and detailed findings and to generate new hypotheses and
research questions for future investigation.
I utilized the transcription feature on Zoom, which enabled me to quickly transcribe
interviews verbatim. This function also allowed me to check for accuracy in the transcripts. As a
result, these transcripts served as the exclusive data source for this study. Having immediate
access to the transcripts allowed me to move efficiently between data collection and analysis.
Using the transcripts as the sole data source, I maintained consistency and ensured that the
analysis was based on accurate and complete information. The transcription feature on Zoom
was an efficient and effective tool for collecting data. The real-time transcription enabled me to
focus on the content of the interviews. This saved me time and allowed me to devote more
attention to the nuances of the data. Additionally, moving back and forth between the collection
and analysis of data allowed me to refine the research question and hypotheses. As I analyzed the
transcripts, I identified areas of the data that required further investigation and adjusted my
approach accordingly.
While this study did not aim to result in a substantive theory, it did utilize the constant
comparative method of data analysis. The constant comparative method involves analyzing the
data in a continuous cycle of comparing, categorizing, and refining to identify patterns and
themes within the data. This iterative process allowed me to connect different aspects of the data
and to develop a more nuanced understanding of the research topic. Employing this method, I
drew meaningful conclusions from the data, despite not aiming to develop a substantive theory. I
identified gaps in the data and adjusted my data collection approach accordingly.
The constant comparison method involves coding data into themes, categorizing them,
and drawing conclusions (Hewitt-Taylor, 2001). To begin this method, I analyzed specific
55

information from an interview and compared it with other interviews. This process led to the
identification of initial categories, which were then tested and refined through comparisons with
other interviews and data types. These constant comparisons allowed for a nuanced
understanding of the data and the potential formulation of conclusions, or a substantive theory,
which could be applied to the specific aspect of the practice being studied (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Using this method, I identified patterns and themes in the data and developed a more
nuanced understanding of the research topic. Additionally, the iterative nature of this approach
allowed for adjustments in data collection and refining of the research question and hypotheses.
The constant comparison method of data analysis was effective, as it allowed for systematic and
thorough data analysis. This method ensured that all aspects of the data were considered and that
the data supported potential conclusions.
Trustworthiness Measures
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized trustworthiness in high-quality qualitative
research. Other scholars concur that a study’s reliability is essential in determining its value and
contribution to the body of knowledge (Gunawan, 2015). Validity, reliability, and ethics affect
the trustworthiness of a study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To ensure trustworthiness in this study, I followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) four
criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Specifically, in terms of
credibility, all interviews were recorded via Zoom, and a transcript was generated. I checked the
transcript against the recording to ensure accuracy, and the participants received a copy of the
final transcript to verify its accuracy.
Furthermore, to address transferability, any themes established from reviewing the
interviews were shared with the participants to gather any questions or concerns. If any aspects
56

needed clarification, I addressed them with the participants. Finally, to ensure confirmability, I
kept a detailed record of the data analysis. I shared the themes with the participants to ensure that
their perspectives were accurately represented in the findings, which increased the credibility and
trustworthiness of the research. Keeping a detailed record of the data analysis also enabled me to
provide a clear audit trail of decisions and conclusions, which supported the confirmability and
transparency of the research.
Trustworthiness is essential in any qualitative study, and in this study, measures were
taken to ensure that credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were
established. The rigorous application of these measures strengthens the findings’ reliability and
adds value to the study’s contribution to the field of education.
Ethical Considerations
Patton (2014) emphasized that high-quality research depends not only on the
methodology and research design but also on the ethical standards of those involved in collecting
and analyzing the data. Therefore, this research focused on ensuring that ethical considerations
were upheld throughout the study, in addition to sound methods and design. To ensure ethical
standards were maintained, participants were only selected if they had no prior relationship with
me. No personal relationships were established with the interviewees beyond communication to
solicit participants, schedule interviews, and verify data. The interviewees were informed that
they were participating voluntarily, and the invitation to participate stated this. Participants were
also assured that their interviews and transcripts would remain confidential and only be used for
research purposes.
All participants were reminded that the interviews would be recorded and pseudonyms
used when referring to their names and institutions during data analysis. At the beginning of each
57

interview, the purpose of the study was explained, and participants were reminded of their
privacy rights and right to refuse to answer any questions or to end the interview at any time.
Participants were also asked to give their verbal consent and to sign off on the final transcripts to
be used as data.
Overall, this research prioritized maintaining high ethical standards to ensure the
trustworthiness of the data and analysis.
Role of the Researcher
According to Grenier and Merriam (2019), the researcher is the primary instrument in
qualitative research and must examine and acknowledge their personal assumptions and biases.
Maxwell (2012) argued that there is a higher potential for research bias in qualitative research
because of the researcher’s role as the primary source of data collection.
To ensure that the research methods and processes are free from bias, I had other cohort
peers, non-participant faculty, and my dissertation committee review them for potential bias.
Furthermore, I spent time reflecting on personal assumptions and biases before the study and
acknowledged these aspects of my identity that have the potential for bias and assumptions to
influence the process.
Firstly, as an experienced educator and school administrator with over 2 decades of
experience in K–12 education, I recognized that my experience in online education planning and
implementation could introduce bias. However, I mitigated this potential bias by focusing on
higher education, an area outside my expertise, as the focus of this study.
Secondly, my enrollment in a doctorate program conducted entirely online exposed me to
online practices in higher education and led to personal perceptions about engagement, effective
practices, and the role of the instructor. To address this potential bias, I carefully constructed an
58

interview protocol, solicited peer review throughout the data collection and analysis, and
received feedback from the dissertation committee.
I recognized that my experiences could influence my personal beliefs about online
education and remained neutral throughout the data collection, analysis, and reporting of key
findings by reflecting on my identities and striving to minimize the potential impact of my
biases.

59

Chapter Four: Findings
Online learning has become increasingly prevalent, with the COVID-19 pandemic having
a significant impact on how many students learn. While current research recognizes some
benefits of online learning, ensuring student engagement remains challenging. Therefore,
identifying the instructor behaviors and teaching strategies that promote high levels of
engagement among students in online learning environments is essential. This study investigated
this issue by examining the instructor behaviors and teaching strategies that lead to high levels of
engagement as perceived by students in online learning environments. According to research by
Lee et al. (2019), interactive technologies, providing clear instructions, and establishing a sense
of community significantly enhance student engagement in online learning. This study draws
from the work of Lee et al. and others to identify additional instructor behaviors and teaching
strategies that can promote high levels of student engagement in online learning environments.
The increasing popularity of online learning has created a growing need to understand
instructor behaviors and teaching strategies that promote high levels of engagement among
students in online learning environments. This has further emphasized understanding how to
effectively engage students in online courses, as disengagement can negatively impact academic
performance, motivation, and student outcomes. To address this issue, the present study was
conducted to answer a central research question: What specific instructor behaviors contribute to
high levels of student engagement in online learning environments? By examining this research
question and building on the literature, this study aimed to provide a deeper understanding of
how to promote student engagement in online learning environments.
The CoI model is a theoretical framework that has been widely used to study online
learning environments, specifically in terms of how they impact student engagement. According
60

to the CoI framework, high engagement in online learning environments can be achieved through
the intersection of three main elements: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching
presence (Garrison et al., 2010). Social presence refers to the degree to which students feel
connected to each other and the instructor. Cognitive presence refers to the extent to which
students can construct meaning and participate in meaningful learning activities, and teaching
presence involves the instructor’s design, facilitation, and direction of learning activities. A
meta-analysis by Martin et al. (2022) found that the CoI model is a valid and reliable predictor of
student engagement in online learning environments and that each of the three elements is
essential to achieving high overall student engagement. The CoI framework is a valuable lens to
use when looking at the research question, as it seeks to identify specific instructor behaviors and
teaching strategies that can contribute to the three elements of presence and ultimately enhance
student engagement in online learning environments.
The TPACK model is a valuable tool to use in conjunction with the CoI framework to
address the research question. The CoI model emphasizes teaching presence, cognitive presence,
and social presence in online learning environments, while the TPACK model focuses on the
intersection of technology, pedagogy, and CK to improve teaching and learning outcomes.
Recent research has explored the connections between these two frameworks, highlighting the
value of integrating them in online learning environments. For example, Karabulut-Ilgu and
Jahren (2020) found that technology-enhanced instruction can increase cognitive and social
presence as well as improve the integration of technology, pedagogy, and CK. Using these
models together to address the research question, this study can help instructors create engaging
and interactive online learning environments that incorporate technology to enhance pedagogical
practices and increase CK attainment.
61

Identifying instructor behaviors and teaching strategies that promote students’ high
engagement in online learning environments is a timely issue in the current education landscape.
To address this issue, this study drew from the literature and examined how to better promote
student engagement in these environments. The following section presents the study’s findings.
The Role of Relationships
This study examined the factors that contribute to student engagement in higher
education online courses. The study revealed that relationships between students and their
teachers and among peers largely determine engagement. Specifically, the quality of the
relationship between participants and their instructors was key to students’ engagement in their
coursework. The study found that when students feel valued, respected, and understood by their
instructors, they are more motivated to learn and succeed academically. In addition, the research
also found that positive student-student relationships foster a sense of belonging in the academic
community, which is also a significant factor in engagement. Participants who felt a sense of
belonging were more invested in their academic pursuits and had a more positive overall
experience. For instance, Participant 5 said, “I appreciate collaborative work and having a
relationship with my classmates and professor.” These two key takeaways highlight fostering
positive relationships between students and teachers and among peers to enhance student
engagement in higher education.
Student-Teacher Relationships
This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of online courses and instructor actions in
promoting effective student-teacher relationships. However, the findings indicated that these
courses and actions did not achieve this goal. The study revealed three key findings: Firstly,
participants reported a significant absence of meaningful relationships with their professors in
62

the context of online classes. Secondly, the professors themselves did not invest much effort in
building these relationships with their students. Lastly, students appreciated having a relationship
with their professors and felt more connected and engaged when one was present. As positive
student-teacher relationships enhance academic achievement and well-being, these results
highlight the need to foster such relationships in virtual learning environments. Higher education
institutions should facilitate positive interactions between students and their instructors to ensure
students receive the support and guidance they need to succeed. Effective teaching presence and
social presence, including personal connections, communication, and feedback, build positive
student-teacher relationships, which will be discussed in detail in a later section.
The shift toward online classes in higher education brought about new challenges for
both students and teachers. One of the key challenges is building and maintaining effective
relationships between students and teachers in virtual environments. Student-teacher
relationships have been widely recognized as an important factor in academic success, and
research has shown that positive relationships between students and teachers can enhance
learning outcomes, increase student engagement, and promote overall well-being. This section
describes the findings related to student-teacher relationships and the factors that contribute to
building effective relationships in virtual learning environments.
Participants were asked to describe their relationship with their professor in an online
course. Of the 12 participants, only one said that they had any meaningful relationship with their
professor. This was because it was a small class of only 10 students. The remaining participants
described having little to no relationship with their professors. Participant 3 shared, “I’ve only
spoken to the professor one time, so I’d be surprised if he even knows my name,” and then, “I’ve
63

never really stayed behind in the class to speak to the professor.” Similarly, Participant 2
described their experience in this way:
It was virtually no relationship outside of just coming to class online and then listening to
her talking and turning in my work. There were a couple of times when she would just
end class early, like halfway through, because she felt like there was a lack of
engagement.
A few participants mentioned office hours as something their professor provided, but
none cited them as valuable in helping to develop a relationship with the professor. Participant 5
said, “I just don’t do Zoom office hours. Maybe I should do more, but it has not been that helpful
to me.” Participant 7 described their student-teacher relationship and the impact on the online
class as “less interactive, and I had less motivation to engage completely.”
When asked about the role of student-professor relationships, Participant 1 described an
in-person example: “During class, you’ll just have a quick break, and because I knew the
professor, I would just go up, and we discuss what’s been talked about, and it really helps to
break down these complex ideas.” Participant 5 described a particularly impactful in-person
relationship:
Last year, I had an in-person class, and the professor, just because I ended up going to
talk to him at the end of class once, ended up being this huge inspiration for me to switch
majors, which was a big decision in my life. So that’s a good example of how impactful
relationships can be.
Finally, when asked about the impact of having a relationship with the professor, Participant 10
said, “I just feel more engaged. I feel like knowing my professor is a huge part of helping me
stay engaged in the class.”
64

Relating the data from this study to the CoI framework, the student-teacher relationship is
rooted in teaching presence and social presence. According to the CoI framework, social and
teaching presence both require student-teacher relationships, which in turn, affect student
engagement and learning outcomes (Garrison et al., 2010). Schutt (2007) found that students
identified personal connections with instructors as a key factor in their online learning
experience, which led to higher engagement and motivation. However, participants in a study by
Ong and Quek (2023) reported that their instructors did not provide enough opportunities for
interaction and engagement, resulting in a lack of social presence and a diminished sense of
community in the online classroom.
Student-Student Relationships
The results underscore the significance of productive student-student relationships in
online classes for student engagement and success. Unfortunately, the findings suggest a
significant absence of these relationships, as reported by the participants. None of the
participants developed meaningful relationships with their peers, and even when breakout rooms
were used to facilitate interactions, students often did not participate. This lack of social presence
is in stark contrast to the connections formed in traditional in-person classes, where students
frequently collaborate during and outside of class. The study identified the following key
findings: Firstly, participants reported a lack of meaningful relationships with their peers in
online classes. Secondly, professors in online classes made minimal attempts to foster student-
student relationships, mainly through breakout rooms. Lastly, students appreciate making
connections with their peers in online classes. As student-student relationships affect academic
success and overall well-being, these findings emphasize the need to develop effective strategies
for promoting such relationships in virtual learning environments. Higher education institutions
65

should prioritize initiatives that foster interactions between students in online classes to ensure
they receive the support and guidance they require to thrive. Effective communication, group
projects, and discussion forums help to build positive student-student relationships, as will be
discussed in a later section.
This section of the findings explores the role of productive relationships between students
in online classes. Specifically, this section highlights the impact of student-student relationships
on student engagement and possible individual course outcomes. It is essential to understand
how these relationships can promote student engagement and success in online classes.
Recognizing the significance of student-student relationships in the online learning environment
will enable educators to design activities and initiatives that foster a sense of community and
collaboration among students.
The participants were asked to describe their relationships with other students. None
described having developed relationships with other students. Participant 4 shared that they
enrolled in the course with friends but were sometimes the only member of that group to log on:
I enrolled in this class with around six of my friends, and I don’t think I know anyone
else in this class. Even my friends don’t show up, so oftentimes, when I log on to the
lecture, I don’t have a connection with anyone in the class.
Participant 10 described their relationship with other students similarly: “I really have zero
interaction with any other students at all outside of discussion posts.”
Even using breakout rooms to foster relationships is not always successful. Participant 3
described this scenario:
66

When we have breakout rooms, often people are there with their cameras and
microphones off. If I try to speak to them, I don’t hear back. I can tell they probably just
left their laptop nearby and are just logged on but not participating.
Participant 11 compared student-student relationships in online courses with in-person classes: “I
think interacting with other students is probably one of the most important things that you lose in
an online setting.” Participant 12 echoed this sentiment: “When you’re in person, you start to
develop connections, whereas being online, you don’t really talk to anybody.” These findings
highlight the lack of social presence the participants experienced.
When asked about positive examples of interactions with classmates, Participant 5 shared
this, referring to an in-person class:
It’s also easier to go up after class, maybe follow up with a peer that you know. None of
that after-class connection is ever happening on Zoom because that’s the end of the class
once the Zoom meeting ends. There is not as much collaboration or opportunity to
engage with peers outside of the designated class time.
Participant 4 shared similar sentiments:
There are people who I speak to sitting beside me during lectures. Oh, I don’t always go
out of my way to meet up with them after class, but we’d have a connection in class and
during labs. It makes me more likely to attend and stay focused.
This lack of social presence the participants experienced is a concern. These data shed
light on the student-student relationships in online classes and the significant lack of social
presence the participants experienced. The absence of meaningful connections with peers can
adversely affect student engagement and success. The findings highlight the need for educators
to recognize the significance of fostering productive relationships between students and
67

designing activities that promote a sense of community and collaboration. Furthermore, this
study underscores the limitations of breakout rooms in facilitating interactions and the challenges
of replicating the connections formed in traditional in-person classes. Addressing these
challenges and promoting social presence in online classes can help enhance the overall learning
experience and student outcomes.
Factors Influencing Student Participation
The success of online learning largely depends on students’ participation and engagement
in the course. To better understand student participation in online classes, it is important to
consider various factors that can impact their engagement, including course format, distractions,
and accountability for participation. The course format, whether synchronous or asynchronous,
helps to determine student engagement. In asynchronous courses, distractions such as
multitasking or other responsibilities can affect student participation during class. Additionally,
accountability to participate is essential, as students may not feel compelled to engage if there are
no consequences for not doing so. The following section explores the findings related to student
participation in online classes, considering these important factors.
Course Format
This section explores the levels of participation in online classes compared to in-person
classes, focusing on class format and tools professors use to enhance participation. Three key
findings emerged from the analysis. Firstly, participation in online classes varied, with some
participants reporting lower levels than in in-person classes. Secondly, professors used several
tools, such as breakout rooms, opening prompts, warm-up activities, and flipped classroom
models, to facilitate participation. Thirdly, the class format (synchronous or asynchronous)
contributed to varied participation levels, with some participants finding it difficult to participate
68

in fully asynchronous classes and others struggling to stay engaged in fully synchronous classes.
Recent studies emphasized social, teaching, and cognitive presence in promoting effective online
learning environments. Martin et al. (2022) found that incorporating social and teaching presence
increased student participation and collaboration, while cognitive presence facilitated meaningful
discussions, critical thinking, and reflection. Therefore, online instructors must understand the
relationship between social, teaching, and cognitive presence in their courses to ensure a positive
learning experience and encourage students’ active participation.
Participants described varying levels of participation in online classes. The interviewees
were asked to compare their participation levels in an online course with their participation in a
similar in-person class. Five of the participants definitively said that they participate less in
online classes. Six interviewees shared that they participate about the same amount in online
classes as in-person classes. One participant said they participated more in their online class
because it was a small class of only 10 students.
Several of the participants were enrolled in courses that were partially or fully
asynchronous. These courses required students to view the lectures and complete the
requirements. Participation in these settings is not possible in the same way as in an in-person
class or synchronous online class. Participant 2 described their experience with a partially
asynchronous course in this way, “It kind of just felt like the class was super easy. I just went to
class, did the work, and then got out.” Even in a synchronous online class, participants described
their participation as lacking. Participant 11 shared this about a fully synchronous online class,
“In online classes, I find myself dozing off and not really keeping myself accountable or
participating.”
69

Participants did describe techniques and tools that professors employed in online courses
to support and encourage participation. Breakout rooms, opening prompts, warm-up activities,
and flipped classroom models to allow for more discussion in class were mentioned as positive
factors influencing participation. Participant 7 shared this use of breakout rooms as a positive
way the instructor supported participation: “The professor will usually give us either a task or a
series of questions to do with a partner, and then we’ll come back and report to the class.”
Participant 8 talked about the flipped classroom model, which allowed them to watch the lecture
on their own and then use class time to workshop and discuss the topic. They said, “Using the
flipped classroom model allowed me to get more out of class time because it was active and not
just listening to the professor.” Opinions on warm-up activities and opening prompts were
mixed. Though some participants said it supported discourse and participation, it is not always
successful. Participant 6 described their experience in this way: “I think if you’re paired with the
right person, you can get a lot out of it. But if the person isn’t really interested, then you both
don’t get anything out of it.”
This participant feedback sheds light on the varied levels of participation in online classes
compared to in-person classes. The course format, the techniques, and the tools employed by
professors to support and encourage participation were highlighted as key elements impacting
participation. The incorporation of social, teaching, and cognitive presence was found to
positively impact student participation and collaboration in online courses. The findings suggest
that developing these elements should be a priority for online instructors to create a positive
learning experience and encourage students’ active participation. While breakout rooms, opening
prompts, warm-up activities, and flipped classroom models were mentioned as positive factors
influencing participation, distractions and accountability hindered participation. This study’s
70

mixed results emphasize the need for further research to fully understand the factors that
influence student participation in online classes.
Distractions in Online Classes
In this study, participants shared both positive and negative aspects of online learning.
Some participants appreciated the ability to multitask and engage in self-regulated learning,
while others reported being more distracted during online classes than in-person classes.
Participant 2 shared that they spent about half the class clicking on something else, and
Participant 3 said they would do their own work, check their email, or talk to their friends during
class. Participant 8 looked at notifications that popped up throughout the class, while Participant
5 admitted to doing other tasks like laundry or cleaning during lectures.
The key findings in this area were, first, that while some participants reported positive
aspects of multitasking and self-regulated learning, most participants reported being more
distracted during online classes. Second, despite being able to manipulate playback speed and
engage in other activities, participants consistently reported being less productive and more
likely to engage in off-task activities during online courses. These findings are consistent with
previous research that shows multitasking and distractions can negatively impact student
learning outcomes. Therefore, educators and institutions should consider these factors and
develop strategies to minimize distractions and promote active engagement in online learning
environments.
Sana et al. (2013) found that multitasking, such as using electronic devices while
learning, can negatively impact student learning outcomes. This is particularly important in
online learning, which can be more distracting than in-person learning. However, a more recent
literature review by Leitner et al. (2017) found that the relationship between online learning and
71

distraction is not straightforward and depends on multiple factors, including motivation, prior
knowledge, and the type of task. While online learning may increase the likelihood of
distractions, like social media use, it can also provide more opportunities for active engagement
and self-regulated learning.
Participants in this study were asked if they were more likely to be distracted in online
classes than in in-person classes. All 12 participants responded that they feel more distracted or
do other things while taking online classes. However, their personal feelings regarding this were
not entirely negative. Many of the participants described multitasking as a positive aspect of
online classes. Participant 6 described their experience this way:
I’ll check my emails. I’ll clear my to-do list. I’ll be a little bit distracted, but I’ll try and
do that at the very beginning of class. Because the professor lectures a lot and provides
recordings, I can always go back and check if I missed anything.
Similarly, Participant 7 shared, “I am very likely to be engaged in other things like email, text, or
other work during class.” Overall, eight participants said they were “very likely” to do other
things during class, while four said they were “likely” to engage in other things not related to the
class. No participants stated that they were less distracted online or felt that they were more
productive in online courses.
Along with engaging in other activities during online courses, participants also shared
that they will often watch course recordings, required videos, and asynchronous lectures at
higher playback speeds. Participant 11 said, “I watch the videos at two times the playback
speed.” Participant 5 shared a similar strategy, which they viewed as a positive aspect of online
courses, stating, “I can watch them fast, and I can take my notes and then be done with my work
quickly.” Though this strategy does not work for synchronous online courses, for hybrid or
72

asynchronous courses manipulating the playback speed of recorded coursework seems to be a
popular and valuable strategy for some participants.
These data show that while some participants appreciated multitasking and engaging in
self-regulated learning in online classes, most reported being more distracted than in in-person
classes. These findings align with previous research indicating that multitasking and distractions
can negatively impact student learning outcomes. However, the relationship between online
learning and distraction is complex and depends on multiple factors. Educators and institutions
should develop strategies to reduce distractions and promote active engagement in online
learning. Overall, this investigation highlights the need for further research and effective
strategies to promote engagement and minimize distractions in online learning.
Factors Contributing to Student Learning
As the popularity of online learning continues to grow, it is important to understand the
factors that contribute to student learning in this context. This study examined participants’
perspectives on the factors that impact their learning experience in online classes. Through their
responses, key findings emerged. Primarily, understanding the factors that affect student learning
in this context is important as online learning is increasingly popular. In this study, participants
provided valuable insights into the factors that impact their learning experience. Two key
findings emerged.
Firstly, participants emphasized having access to resources such as recorded lectures and
online discussion forums. Participants also appreciated the flexibility of online learning,
including reviewing and revisiting course materials, as significant contributors to their learning.
73

Secondly, instructors and subject matter were identified as important to participants’
learning. Participants valued having knowledgeable and engaging instructors as well as
interesting and relevant course content.
Overall, these findings call for considering both resource availability and social factors
when designing online learning environments that promote active engagement and facilitate
student learning.
Access to Resources
The participants identified access to resources as key to their individual learning.
Specifically, they noted the availability of recorded lectures and online discussion forums. Also,
the flexibility of online learning and reviewing and revisiting course materials were mentioned as
important. These findings are consistent with a previous study by Arghode et al. (2018), which
found that college students reported resource availability, including recorded lectures, online
discussion forums, and instructors’ feedback, as enhancing their learning in online classes. These
results suggest that online learning environments should provide students with easy access to
resources to support their individual learning needs.
Students noted that reviewing and revisiting course materials, as well as the flexibility
and convenience of online learning, were important. Seven participants used the word
“flexibility” in their interviews. Half of the participants also mentioned that the flexibility to
rewatch lectures contributes to their learning. Participant 5 shared this anecdote:
Some of those more general classes that are covering a lot of broad content. For instance,
basic physics classes and basic math classes that are preparing you for more specialized
stuff later, I would rather just watch the recorded lectures or take those online because I
74

can shape my schedule a little better that way. However, I don’t think I get as much out
of being there in person.
A few participants also noted online discussion forums as supportive of their learning.
Discussion forums also assisted in collaborative group work. Participant 8, taking a course while
abroad, shared, “Because of the discussion forum, I was able to stay connected. I pretty
effectively and efficiently worked on our group projects, despite the time zone differences.”
Similarly, participant 10 shared, “I like to work late at night, and the discussion board let me see
what other students were sharing and asking. I could also post questions, and they would usually
be answered by a classmate really quickly.”
Participants shared that lectures, homework activities, discussion forums and chats, and
classroom discussions all contributed to their learning. They also shared that timely feedback
from instructors and the availability of recorded lectures were positive factors in their learning.
Participants described these elements as being built into the coursework and influenced by
instructors. However, two participants noted similar student-led resources as contributing to their
learning. Participant 10 shared that students in the class set up an outside Discord group to
communicate and ask questions of each other. Similarly, Participant 6 shared that students
created a collaborative Google Doc to share their notes and ask and answer questions for each
other.
This information from participants highlights access to resources. Participants identified
recorded lectures and online discussion forums as fundamental elements of their learning
experience, alongside the flexibility of online learning and reviewing and revisiting course
materials. Online courses’ flexibility was particularly important to participants, with many citing
the convenience of watching recorded lectures and working on assignments at their own pace.
75

Online discussion forums also facilitated collaborative group work and connecting with
classmates, particularly for those studying abroad or working late at night. Overall, these
findings highlight the need for institutions to prioritize access to resources and flexible and
collaborative online learning environments to support student success.
Instructor and Subject Matter
This section investigates the impact of the instructor and the subject matter on student
learning in online environments from the participants’ perspective. It aims to recognize the role
of these two factors in shaping students’ academic experiences. The findings reveal that inspiring
instructors and interesting subject matter can significantly contribute to learning in online
environments.
Though not widely encountered by participants, those who experienced inspiring
instructors noted this as important for engagement and motivation. These participants felt more
connected to the course and reported higher levels of engagement with their online learning
experience. Participant 9 shared, “I really like the professor. He’s a really good professor just all
around. I really like his lectures. He’s very engaging.” For those who did not experience positive
interactions with instructors or classmates, many highlighted this as something they preferred in
in-person classes. Participant 8 shared this experience from an in-person class: “I really enjoyed
my professor because he was very passionate about teaching students. You could really see his
enthusiasm and passion for sharing more about business. I have not experienced this same
feeling from an online class.”
Three participants specifically said that the professor was the largest contributor to their
learning. They used the words “inspiring, knowledgeable, and engaging” to describe their
professors. Participant 5 had this to say about their professor:
76

I think it’s even less the material and more the professor because the professor will often
go on tangents that will not come in the exams, but things that he thinks are interesting,
like a research paper from 2013 and the significance of that on natural language
processing. That part is not relevant to us in terms of an examination, but the fact that the
professor can speak intelligently about that and convey that knowledge to us, and I can
get the feeling that I learned something.
Another three participants said that the course material was the biggest factor
contributing to their learning. They cited genuine interest as a factor that motivated them to take
a course and then work to learn the material. Participant 6 shared a personal connection with the
material that contributed in a positive way to her learning in the class. She said this:
I think a lot of the material is very applicable and interesting to me. My family has faced
a lot of turmoil, so to see it contextualized fully within this course, to understand the
history, and then how it all connects together, is really fascinating for me.
Participant 7 highlighted that both the professor and the material contributed to their learning,
sharing this, “I really like the teacher. He keeps us engaged the entire class and makes
connections with the material. I also really like the content of the class.”
The findings of this section emphasize the importance of the instructor and subject matter
in shaping students’ experiences and outcomes in online learning environments. Inspiring
instructors and interesting subject matter improve student engagement, motivation, and learning
outcomes. The experiences shared by the participants highlight the need to foster supportive and
engaging learning environments that prioritize effective instruction and relevant course material.
These findings underscore the need for continued exploration and development of strategies to
77

enhance the role of instructors and subject matter in online learning environments, ultimately
leading to improved student outcomes.
Tools Used by Professors
In the present study, participants provided insights into the digital tools and technologies
that professors employ to improve student engagement and learning in online college courses.
Two key findings emerged. Firstly, the LMS was the most used tool in online courses, serving as
a central platform for course materials, assignments, and communication between students and
instructors. Additionally, Zoom was used for all virtual lectures and meetings. Secondly,
participants reported using collaborative tools, such as breakout rooms and shared slide decks, to
facilitate group work and discussion. These results, in conjunction with the limited
implementation of online tools the participants reported, call attention to a need for employing a
diverse range of digital tools and technologies to enhance student learning and engagement in
online college courses. Educators and institutions should consider integrating innovative tools
that promote collaborative and active learning in their online course design.
Learning Management Systems and Zoom
In this study, all 12 participants reported utilizing an LMS as the primary platform for
delivering their online courses. For synchronous classes, all utilized Zoom as the video
conferencing software. Students accessed asynchronous videos and lectures through the LMS,
which were available through a university database or a link to YouTube.
The utilization of an LMS and Zoom gave participants a seamless and flexible experience
in accessing their courses. Participants described that the LMS provided a centralized platform to
access all their course materials, including lectures, assignments, and resources. Additionally, the
LMS enabled them to engage in online discussions, submit assignments, and easily receive
78

instructor feedback. Asynchronous videos and lectures through the LMS provided participants
with the flexibility to access course content at their convenience, allowing them to work at their
own pace and on their own schedule. No participants had anything negative to say about their
institution’s LMS.
Zoom, as the primary video conferencing software for synchronous classes, enabled
participants in this study to participate in live classes from any location with internet access. This
flexibility allowed them to attend class without the need to be physically present,
accommodating busy schedules and remote learners. Moreover, the use of Zoom facilitated the
implementation of some interactive teaching techniques, such as breakout rooms, which
enhanced participation for a few interviewees. Recording live classes on Zoom also provided
students with the opportunity to revisit the lectures and discussions at their convenience,
promoting deeper understanding and retention of course material. Similar to the experience of
their institution’s LMS, no participants said anything negative about Zoom as the platform for
classes.
Overall, an LMS and Zoom supported interviewees’ access and participation in their
courses, providing flexibility and accessibility. The combination of these two technologies
allowed for a seamless and efficient learning experience for all participants, enabling them to
engage with course content and instructors, irrespective of their location or time constraints.
Collaborative Tools
Six participants mentioned that their professors utilized breakout rooms during class. In
addition, seven participants reported that professors provided a slide deck for the class. Only two
noted Google Docs as a collaborative tool during class. One participant reported that their
professor shared an app for practicing problems related to the course. Finally, one student
79

indicated that their professor shared an external discussion board for students to engage in
collaborative discussions.
Breakout rooms are popular tools professors use to facilitate small group discussions and
collaboration during synchronous online classes. Participants reported that breakout rooms
helped them connect with their classmates and encouraged them to participate more actively in
discussions. One participant shared that breakout rooms allowed them to collaborate with
classmates they may not have interacted with otherwise.
Professors also frequently used shared slide decks to supplement their lectures and
provide students with additional visual aids to support their learning. Participants noted that they
appreciated having access to the slide decks, as they could refer to them when studying for
exams or completing assignments. One participant noted that the slide decks were helpful in
organizing their notes and keeping track of important information. Two participants noted that
shared slide decks served as a valuable resource when they missed a class or needed to review
content.
Although only two participants reported using collaborative Google Docs, it is worth
noting the potential benefits of this tool for online collaboration. Google Docs allows multiple
users to edit and share documents in real time, making it a useful tool for group projects or
assignments. It also provides an opportunity for students to actively engage with course materials
and collaborate with their classmates. As more online courses incorporate group projects and
collaborative assignments, Google Docs may become increasingly valuable for students in online
learning environments.
80

What Students Want in Online Classes
In a recent study, participants were asked to provide feedback on their experiences in
online learning environments. Key areas of concern emerged, with three main actions and tools
identified as particularly important. These included the need for clear communication and
expectations from instructors, interactive and collaborative class activities, and accountability
measures to ensure students remain engaged and focused. These findings align with a similar
study by Sari and Alfaruqy (2022), noting that addressing student concerns and adapting
teaching strategies to suit the unique needs of online learning. As such, it is vital that instructors
prioritize incorporating these key actions and tools to create a successful and engaging online
learning experience for all students.
Clear Expectations
Three participants shared that they would like clearer expectations from the professor.
Participant 9 stated, “I wish they would update the syllabus and be clearer with the
requirements.” This points to ensuring that course materials, such as syllabi, are up-to-date and
that professors provide clear instructions and expectations for assignments and assessments.
While online courses offer flexibility and convenience, they can also present challenges related
to understanding course expectations and requirements.
Several participants in this study reported relying more on written materials, such as the
syllabus and course website, for course expectations than on explicit comments from the
instructor. This further shows that clear and concise written materials can be an important tool
for facilitating student understanding and success in online courses. Participant 10 shared this
regarding knowing what to expect in each class, “I wish he had a list of the key points we are
expected to know for each class or at least clearer objectives.”
81

Overall, the participants expressed a desire for clearer expectations from their professors.
Three participants explicitly mentioned the need for clearer instructions and expectations for
assignments and assessments. Participant 9 said, “I wish they would update the syllabus to reflect
the most current information.” Though not solely an issue in online classes, participants shared
several ways in which expectations and information about their online classes could be
improved.
Interactive and Collaborative Activities
In addition to the need for clearer expectations, study participants emphasized class
activities in online learning environments. Specifically, half of the participants expressed a desire
for more interactive lessons and opportunities for collaboration. For instance, Participant 5
succinctly stated, “I wish there were more interactive activities.” Similarly, Participant 4 said, “I
wish there were more example-based activities that we could work on collaboratively.”
Participant 11 went even further to describe this preference, “I wish it were a flipped class where
we watched the videos asynchronously and then had collaborative discussions in class.” Lastly,
Participant 12 said they would like to use more multimedia sources “and then [ask] questions and
talk in groups.” This aligns with the factors participants previously described as contributing to
their learning in online classes. Effective collaboration and discourse, whether facilitated by the
instructor or through student-led discussion groups, were identified earlier as contributors to
student learning.
Breakout rooms, previously discussed as a tool to improve student learning, were also
highlighted by participants as something they wanted to use more and more effectively.
Participant 3 said, “I wish breakout rooms were used more so I could discuss concepts with
classmates. This helps me solidify my understanding.” Participant 7 shared, “I wish there was a
82

more effective use of breakout rooms so that people actually talk to each other.” Participant 10
shared a positive use of breakout rooms in this description:
In another class, as part of the assignment, you went into a breakout room to have a
discussion and then had to comment on what other people had to say. Even though it
wasn’t my favorite thing to do, it definitely helped me stay engaged with what everyone
else was talking about and thinking about, which probably, in the end, helped with my
learning.
Overall, the findings suggest that in online learning environments, students value clear
and concise communication of expectations from their instructors. They also place high
importance on interactive and collaborative activities, such as effectively used breakout rooms,
that can foster engagement and facilitate learning. Additionally, providing updated and clear
course materials, such as syllabi and course websites, helped students better understand
expectations and requirements. Instructors can enhance student engagement and success in
online learning environments by prioritizing these factors.
Accountability
Accountability was a term that came up in several of the interviews. Many participants
talked about the lack of accountability in their online classes. A few mentioned measures to
increase accountability and how these contributed to their course engagement. Participants also
highlighted various ways in which accountability could be improved, such as more structured
assignments and instructor feedback. Additionally, participants shared their experiences with
accountability measures that increased their engagement and motivation to learn, including
participation points and required synchronous sessions.
83

Participant 6 spoke about the desire for clarification of expectations regarding
accountability for participation: “I would like some guardrails to make it so that you have to be
present and be engaged. Even though they might be a little bit more confining as far as flexibility
is concerned.” Participant 8 echoed this sentiment: “I like the requirement of cameras on. It
forces everyone to at least be present.” Another participant shared that their professor did not
make recordings of online classes available without requesting them. This forced people to either
be in the class or ask the professor for the recording. In their words, “[This] made me think twice
about skipping class because I would have to out myself to the professor.”
As stated earlier, only five participants reported being aware of any participation
requirements in their online class, two of which were solely for attendance. However, when
asked how they thought having clear expectations regarding participation would impact them, all
participants said that it would influence them to be in class regularly. Four participants also
volunteered that they thought there should be a requirement to have cameras on during class.
One of them described it in this way:
I know there are issues with equity and accessibility, but it feels like if you are offering a
class online, there should be a basic participation requirement, and people should at least
have their cameras on. I know that sometimes you need to turn your camera off, so
maybe there could be some flexibility, but cameras should be on most of the time, in my
opinion.
Participant 12 simply said, “I like the requirement of having cameras on. It is a college class, and
you should be present.”
Accountability was a recurring theme among the participants. Many of them identified
the lack of accountability in their online classes as a barrier to their engagement and motivation
84

to learn. However, some participants also shared their positive experiences with accountability
measures that increased their participation and engagement in the course. The interviewees
identified clear expectations regarding participation and the use of cameras during synchronous
sessions as ways to increase accountability and promote student engagement. Overall, these
findings highlight designing online courses that incorporate accountability measures to facilitate
student learning and success.
Why Students Take Online Classes
Participants cited convenience and flexibility, as well as decisions by the professor or
university, as the main reasons for taking a course online. Several participants expressed
appreciation for online classes providing greater flexibility, enabling individuals to balance their
coursework with other responsibilities such as work or family obligations. These findings
emphasize online education in expanding access to higher education and providing opportunities
for individuals to pursue their academic and professional goals. Additionally, several participants
shared that either the professor or the university chose to offer a specific class online. In most of
these cases, there was no in-person option for the specified class.
Professor or University Decision
Four participants said that the course was being offered online because of professor
choice and that they did not have the option to take the course in person. Participant 12 shared,
“The professor moved it online part way through the term because nobody was showing up to
class.” Along with professor choice, another three participants shared that the course they were
taking was only offered online, and they were not sure of the reason. In total, over half of the
participants took a course online because of a choice by the university or the professor.
85

This data suggest that professor and university decisions play a role in the availability of
online courses and the subsequent enrollment of students. It is noteworthy that over half of the
participants took an online course because of decisions their professor or university made. This
indicates that online education has become more prevalent in response to the changing needs and
demands of students, professors, and universities.
Convenience and Flexibility
The theme of convenience and flexibility was common among the participants’
interviews regarding their decision to enroll in online courses. Participants appreciated the
flexibility that online classes offered, allowing them to balance their coursework with other
responsibilities such as work, family obligations, and personal commitments. The convenience of
online courses was also mentioned frequently, as participants did not have to commute to
campus or adhere to a fixed schedule. Accessing course materials and completing coursework
from anywhere and at any time was also valued by participants.
One female participant shared that she did not want to be on campus late at night and that
the online option allowed her to avoid this. Another participant shared that they do not like to
take classes before ten in the morning and that the online option allowed them to avoid this.
Participant 8 was studying abroad, and the online option for a particular course allowed them to
keep from falling behind on graduation requirements. Another aspect of convenience was
represented by two participants who shared that time and efficiency influenced their decision to
take the class online. Participant 4 shared,
It is a 3-hour class with one meeting a week that is recorded. It is much easier to do it
online at my pace. This professor speaks extremely slowly. I can just speed up the lecture
86

and watch it at two times the speed. It allows me to be much more efficient with my time
and complete the work when I want.
Participant 7 shared a similar opinion about convenience and efficiency: “I took this class online
to fit my schedule because it is an easy way to get the course done, and I am trying to graduate
early.”
The reasons students take courses online are mixed, as the participants highlighted. While
over half of them took an online course due to a professor or university choice, the other main
reason was convenience. Participants appreciated being able to balance their studies with other
responsibilities, avoid scheduling conflicts, and complete coursework efficiently. The
convenience of watching lectures at their own pace, speeding up lectures, and avoiding being on
campus late at night were also reasons for taking an online course. However, none of the
participants mentioned the quality of online courses or a preference for online learning.
No participant cited the quality of online classes, increased engagement, or a preference
for online learning as reasons for taking a class online. Though several participants appreciated
the convenience and flexibility of taking a class online, this does not mean they also felt online
classes were more effective overall. Further research in this area would be valuable for
universities to better understand student motivation to take online classes.
Student Preference, Online Versus In-Person
Although online classes provide flexibility and convenience, current literature indicates
that students typically prefer in-person classes. This section describes the participants’
preferences regarding online and in-person classes. Exploring their preferences and experiences
can provide insight into how universities can best design and implement courses that meet all
students’ needs.
87

Nine participants said they preferred in-person classes over online classes, which is
similar to recent research. When asked if they would take the same course online or in person,
Participant 6 shared, “I would take the in-person definitely, because I think that the interaction
between students and the professor would be more interactive, and the content would be more
accessible.” Participant 6 was also taking their class online because it was the only option. In this
case, the choice of the university to offer this course online only went against the desire of the
participant to take the course in their preferred format.
The remaining three participants, when asked whether they prefer online or in-person
classes, said, “It depends.” Participant 3 said, “It depends on the class.” While Participant 2
elaborated, saying, “I prefer a balance of both within my schedule. It’s just easier to manage that
way. As far as the classes that I end up finding more interesting, I would say most of them are in
person.” Finally, Participant 5 shared this perspective:
I’ve had some kind of hybrid classes where you can go to the lecture in person, but they
also offer it online, and sometimes that makes me lazy, but sometimes it’s a really good
way for me to shape my schedule week to week in a way that works better for me. It can
actually make me more likely to engage with the content because I see it more as
something I can do when I want or when it’s convenient instead of something that’s
getting in the way of the rest of my schedule.
The participants preferred in-person classes overall, except for some preference for the
convenience of online classes.
This study’s findings suggest that while in-person classes remain the preferred mode of
instruction for participants, online classes offer valuable flexibility. The COVID-19 pandemic
called for options for flexible, online learning, especially for students facing challenges such as
88

illness or scheduling conflicts. However, the preference for in-person classes is still strong, with
students valuing the engagement and structure that in-person classes offer. As universities
continue to navigate the challenges of the pandemic and adapt to changing student preferences, it
will be important to consider ways to provide both in-person and online options that meet the
needs of all students.
Course Outcomes
The goal of any academic course is to provide students with the knowledge, skills, and
competencies to achieve specific learning outcomes. To assess a course’s effectiveness, it is
important to consider the course design and instruction and students’ expectations and
perceptions. This section examines the course outcomes that participants reported expecting in
an online course and how these compare to those for in-person courses. Understanding these
expectations can provide valuable insights into how students perceive and evaluate their learning
experiences, as well as identify areas for improvement in course design and instruction.
Grades
The participants had similar expectations for their grades in online courses compared to
in-person courses. However, some reported feeling that online courses were easier and that they
did not learn as much as they would have in person. These findings suggest that there may be a
need for further exploration and development of effective online learning strategies to ensure that
students are achieving the intended learning outcomes.
Regarding their learning experiences, participants provided insights into their perceptions
of taking online courses. Participant 11 stated, “I feel like I am just not learning as much.”
Notably, this participant had high expectations of receiving an A in the course, which was
consistent with their expectations for in-person courses. Similarly, two other participants
89

reported that their online courses felt easier compared to the in-person classes they had taken.
One participant took the online class specifically because it was an “easy way to fulfill a
requirement,” while the other stated that the online course felt “easier than if it was in-person.”
Overall, the findings indicate that some participants perceived that they were not learning as
much in online courses and that online courses felt easier than in-person classes.
Although previous studies, and this study’s results, suggest that academic outcomes in
online and in-person courses are comparable, it is important to question whether the grades
earned in online courses accurately reflect the knowledge acquired by students. This is
particularly pertinent as differences in student engagement and participation between online and
in-person courses could affect overall learning outcomes. Therefore, further research is necessary
to investigate this issue and identify other potential factors that may impact the effectiveness of
online courses.
Conclusion
This chapter has established that engagement in online learning is a multi-dimensional
phenomenon subject to a range of influences. The factors identified as contributing to student
engagement include relationships, active participation, use of tools and technology, and
flexibility and collaboration. This study examined these factors, revealing some of the
mechanisms that stimulate engagement in online learning. As a result, the research offers
insights that can guide the design and delivery of online courses to enhance student engagement.
According to a recent study, online student engagement depends on several factors,
including the instructor’s ability to build relationships with students, promote active participation
in class discussions, mitigate distractions, and foster collaboration using relevant technology and
flexible learning approaches (Li, 2021). In addition, the study revealed that students are more
90

engaged when they have a clear understanding of the course objectives and feel motivated to
learn. These findings highlight incorporating various factors into the design of online courses to
improve student engagement.
This study has provided valuable data regarding the factors that drive engagement in
online learning, revealing that it is a complex process that requires a multi-faceted approach. As
such, educators and course designers should consider the varied factors that promote student
engagement when designing online courses to ensure that they are effective and engaging. As
suggested by Li (2021), instructors should prioritize building meaningful relationships with their
students, promoting participation, and mitigating distractions. Incorporating technology and
flexible learning approaches can further enhance engagement in online learning environments.
Furthermore, this study’s findings suggest three emerging themes that are particularly
important for promoting engagement in online learning: inspiration, connection, and
accountability. Participants reported that they were most engaged when they felt inspired by the
course content, a sense of connection to their peers and instructors, and a sense of accountability
for their learning. These themes are closely interrelated and suggest that engagement in online
learning is not just a matter of technical proficiency or access to resources but also depends on a
range of social, emotional, and motivational factors.
Overall, this study’s findings have important implications for online course design and
delivery and provide the foundation to adapt prior frameworks for understanding how to promote
engagement and enhance the learning outcomes of online learners. Educators and course
designers can create more effective and engaging online learning environments to meet the needs
of a diverse range of learners by focusing on the key factors that drive engagement and by
promoting inspiration, connection, and accountability.
91

Chapter Five: Recommendations
“Student engagement is the heart of any successful online course, driving learning,
motivation, and achievement” (Jaggars et al., 2013, p. 11).
In exploring the research question of what instructor behaviors and teaching strategies
lead to high levels of engagement as perceived by students in online learning environments, it is
important to recognize the role of student engagement. As this quote emphasizes, engaged
students are more likely to actively participate in their learning, retain new knowledge and skills,
and ultimately achieve success. In contrast, absent strong levels of engagement, online learning
can become a passive experience, with learners simply going through the motions. Thus, any
online learning program or course must foster student engagement.
In this chapter, I will present a comprehensive discussion of the key findings of my study
and their relation to the literature. Starting with both expected and unexpected findings, I will
explain their significance in the context of my research. Following this, I will provide practical
recommendations based on the study’s findings, supported by relevant theories and literature,
which can be used to improve practice in the field. Additionally, I will discuss the limitations and
delimitations of my study, which aid in assessing the findings’ validity and reliability and
understanding the study’s scope and generalizability. I will also suggest future research
recommendations to build on the gaps identified in my study, providing opportunities for further
expansion of the findings. Finally, I will conclude the chapter with a summary of the key points
discussed, an overall conclusion, and the contributions of this research to the field.
Discussion of Findings
At the time of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact higher education
and accelerate the adoption of online learning, and universities faced the challenge of providing
92

quality online education and ensuring positive course outcomes. This study aimed to address this
challenge by exploring ways to improve student engagement in online learning at the college
level. The growing body of research in online education and student engagement underscores
understanding how to optimize student engagement in online learning environments. According
to Aucejo et al. (2021), the pandemic triggered a massive experiment in online education,
underscoring the need to identify effective strategies for engaging students in online learning.
Drawing from the voices of the study participants, this section provides valuable insights
into the factors that contributed to their engagement in online courses. Participants emphasized
the significance of inspiration, connection, and accountability as critical drivers for engagement
in online learning. These findings align with Garrison and Arbaugh’s CoI framework, which
highlights the role of social, cognitive, and teaching presences in promoting engagement and
learning in online environments (2007). The study participants shared largely similar views
regarding the challenges they faced in online learning environments, including the lack of
student-teacher and student-student relationships, a lack of variety in teaching techniques, and
increased distractions in online classes. Despite these commonalities, there was some variation in
participants’ reasons for taking classes online and their level of participation. Drawing from the
participants’ feedback and the CoI framework, this section proposes several recommendations
for instructors and instructional leaders to foster social presence, build rapport among students,
enhance teaching presence, and promote cognitive engagement and critical thinking. These
recommendations address the challenges participants identified and enhance student engagement
in online learning environments.
93

Student-Teacher and Student-Student Relationships
This study’s findings indicate that the relationship with the professor impacted
participants’ engagement in online courses. The participants noted that a lack of interaction and
communication with the professor resulted in feelings of isolation and disengagement. These
findings are consistent with the literature on online learning, which suggests that social presence
promotes engagement and learning in online environments (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2013).
The CoI framework, which emphasizes the role of social, cognitive, and teaching presences in
online learning environments, further supports these findings (Fiock, 2020). This highlights
creating opportunities for interaction and communication between students and instructors to
foster social presence and promote engagement.
Participants also reported that their relationship with their peers also impacted their
engagement. Participants expressed a desire for more opportunities to collaborate and connect
with their classmates. This finding is consistent with the literature on online learning, which
highlights creating a sense of community and promoting collaborative learning in online
environments (Palloff & Pratt, 2013). The CoI framework also supports this finding, as it
emphasizes the role of social presence in facilitating collaboration and promoting engagement in
online learning environments. Therefore, instructors and designers should consider incorporating
collaborative activities and opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction to promote engagement and
foster a sense of community.
Teaching Techniques and Distractions
The study participants reported that the lack of variety in teaching techniques negatively
affected their engagement in online courses. This finding is consistent with recent literature on
incorporating diverse teaching strategies to promote student engagement and motivation. For
94

instance, interactive multimedia and collaborative activities have been found to increase student
engagement and promote active learning in online courses (Qureshi et al., 2021). The CoI
framework highlights the teaching presence in online learning and emphasizes the need for
instructors to design and facilitate learning activities that promote student engagement and
understanding (Marshall & Kostka, 2020).
Participants also perceived increased distractions as a factor that negatively impacted
their engagement in online courses. These findings align with previous research that identified
distractions as a challenge for online learners (Dontre, 2021). For instance, Feng and colleagues
(2019) found that the availability of social media and other digital distractions can limit students’
ability to focus on their coursework. According to the CoI framework, distractions can hinder
students’ ability to engage in learning and can weaken the social and teaching presence necessary
for online learning success (Suharno et al., 2022).
Satisfaction and Preference
Participants expressed that flexibility and access to materials positively impacted their
engagement in online courses. These findings are consistent with previous research regarding
providing students with access to course materials and offering flexibility in the online learning
environment (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018). For example, Bolliger and Halupa (2018) found that
providing flexibility in course delivery and access to resources can increase student satisfaction
and engagement in online courses. The CoI framework also highlights providing access to
resources and offering flexibility in the online learning environment to promote student
engagement and learning (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Participants shared mixed views on whether they preferred in-person or online classes,
but the majority expressed a preference for in-person classes. This finding is consistent with
95

recent research that found that students tend to prefer face-to-face instruction over online
instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2018). In a national survey of online learning in the United States,
Allen and Seaman (2018) found that most students who had taken both in-person and online
courses preferred the in-person format.
Motivation for Taking Courses Online
This study revealed unexpected findings related to the reasons certain courses were
offered online. Participants reported that some courses were offered online because the
professors chose to offer them in that format, while others were offered because the university
had decided to offer them online. No participants reported that they had any knowledge that the
quality of the online version of the course was a significant factor in determining whether a
course was offered online. Though this finding was surprising to me, it is consistent with recent
literature that highlights institutional factors such as cost and accessibility in determining online
course offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2018). This study offers additional evidence of the significant
influence that individual professors and universities have in the decision to offer courses online,
regardless of the quality of the online course.
Accountability and Engagement
Another unexpected finding was regarding the factors participants reported as
contributing to increased engagement. Specifically, participants reported that being held
accountable for their participation and completion of course requirements was central to their
overall engagement. This included references to required attendance, timely completion of
assignments, and having cameras on during class. This finding is consistent with recent literature
that highlights accountability and monitoring in online learning environments (Martin et al.,
2019) and with the literature on accountability and monitoring in online learning environments.
96

This study provided insights into the reasons certain courses are offered online and the
factors that contribute to increased engagement in these classes. The unexpected findings
regarding the influence of individual professors and universities in the decision to offer online
courses and the role of accountability and monitoring in increasing student engagement highlight
the complexity of online learning environments.
Recommendations
The recommendations are divided into three categories: policy, practice, and research.
The policy recommendations provide guidelines for universities on using data, along with the
CoI and TPACK frameworks, for making informed decisions about when to offer classes online
and how to train instructors in online pedagogy. These recommendations are based on the
study’s findings, which highlight these frameworks’ utility in enhancing student engagement and
learning outcomes. The policy recommendations will help ensure that universities offer high-
quality online courses and provide instructors with adequate training to create engaging and
effective learning experiences.
The practice recommendations focus on specific behaviors and strategies that instructors
can utilize to foster connections with students, employ a variety of online teaching tools
effectively, and use data to hold students accountable and increase engagement. These
recommendations are based on the study’s results and provide practical guidance for instructors
who seek to improve their online teaching and increase student engagement.
Finally, the research recommendations will focus on the areas that need further
investigation regarding student engagement in online learning. These recommendations are
based on the limitations of the current study and the ongoing growth of research in engagement
in online learning. The research recommendations will highlight the need for more research on
97

the evolution of the CoI and TPACK frameworks in promoting student engagement in online
courses, as well as the changing landscape of higher education and the evolving perspectives of
students.
The recommendations presented in this section are based on the current literature on
online learning and this study’s findings, which explored instructor behaviors and teaching
strategies that lead to high levels of engagement as perceived by students in online learning
environments. The study examined student engagement in online courses through the lenses of
the CoI framework and the TPACK conceptual framework. These two frameworks were used to
guide the data analysis and develop recommendations. It is important to note that the research on
engagement in online learning is constantly expanding. Therefore, the recommendations
presented in this section are a starting point for further exploration and refinement.
Recommendations for Policy
This section will present three policy recommendations based on this study’s findings and
current relevant literature. The first recommendation is that universities use data on student
engagement and course outcomes to determine which courses should be offered online. Data-
driven approaches to determine which courses to offer online will help universities ensure that
these course offerings align with student needs and interests and optimize resource allocation.
The second policy recommendation is that universities utilize the CoI and TPACK
frameworks to guide instructor training and support effective online pedagogy. These
frameworks emphasize social, cognitive, and teaching presence in online courses and the
integration of technology, pedagogy, and CK in teaching. Using these frameworks, universities
can ensure that instructors have the knowledge and tools to design and deliver effective online
courses, which can result in positive course outcomes and high student engagement.
98

The third recommendation is that universities adopt platforms for delivering online
courses that are dynamic and allow instructors to have access to metrics around engagement and
accountability that can be tracked in real time. Basic video platforms, although useful, are not
enough to provide the interaction and feedback that students need to succeed in online learning
environments. Universities should consider adopting online learning platforms that offer
advanced features and real-time engagement and accountability tracking to ensure their students
have access to the highest quality education possible.
Recommendation 1: Use Data to Determine What Is Taught Online
The first policy recommendation is to utilize data to determine which courses are more
suitable for online delivery. Universities should establish clear guidelines, based on data, to
determine when specific courses or programs should be offered online. According to a recent
study by Ansyari and colleagues (2022), universities often make decisions about which courses
to offer online based on cost, faculty preferences, or overall institutional strategy rather than
data-driven analysis. However, research indicates that certain courses are more suitable for
online delivery than others, such as courses that rely heavily on written communication,
individual learning, and flexible pacing (Allen & Seaman, 2020; Means et al., 2009).
Universities can make informed decisions about which courses to offer online and which ones to
keep in person by examining enrollment patterns, student preferences, and learning outcomes.
This approach can help universities optimize course offerings and allocate resources more
efficiently, leading to better outcomes for both students and institutions.
This study’s participants cited flexibility and convenience as reasons for enrolling in
online courses, which aligns with Castro and Tumibay’s (2021) literature analysis. While these
factors are certainly attractive for both students and professors, it is important for universities to
99

prioritize the effectiveness of the course and the overall student outcomes when determining if a
course should be taught online. This conflict between convenience and effectiveness can result in
courses that are not optimized for online delivery. As universities expand their online offerings,
it is essential to use data to determine which courses are best suited for online delivery and which
ones should remain in person.
It is worth noting that access and equity are often significant factors discussed when
determining online course offerings, particularly for students who may not have the resources to
attend traditional in-person classes. However, this study focused on courses where access was
not a major obstacle for students when deciding whether to take a course online or in person.
While universities should strive to make education as accessible as possible, it is equally
important to ensure that courses offered online are designed to maximize learning outcomes and
student success. In some instances, accessibility might be a major factor in deciding to offer a
course or program online. However, for universities offering an in-person experience for
students, more weight should be given to course outcomes. Universities can balance accessibility
and effectiveness by using data to inform course delivery decisions, ultimately leading to better
outcomes for all students.
Recommendation 2: Develop Instructor Training and Support
Recommendation Two is that universities should develop specific instructor training and
support in effective online pedagogy. This should be guided by the CoI and TPACK frameworks.
Recent research has shown that using these frameworks can improve student engagement,
satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online courses (Castellanos-Reyes, 2020). The CoI
framework emphasizes social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence in creating a
successful online learning experience, while the TPACK framework focuses on the integration of
100

technology, pedagogy, and CK in effective teaching. Universities can help ensure that their
online courses are designed and taught in a way that promotes student learning and success by
providing instructor training and support based on these frameworks.
Participants shared that their professors used limited teaching strategies and online tools
in their courses, and some expressed a desire for more interactive and varied teaching methods.
This underscores the need for universities to provide both training and encouragement for
instructors to utilize a range of strategies and tools to enhance student engagement and learning
outcomes. Recent research has pointed to a lack of effective online teaching training for
professors, which can hinder the success of online courses (Bollinger, 2022). One study found
that while faculty members reported confidence in their online teaching ability, they often lacked
the support and training to be effective. Additionally, another study found that faculty members
who received online pedagogy training had a greater impact on student learning outcomes
(Archambault et al., 2022). These findings emphasize instructor training and support in effective
online pedagogy guided by frameworks like CoI and TPACK.
The success of online courses depends on both effective teaching strategies and online
tools to engage and support students. To achieve this, universities should provide specific
instructor training and support. Recent research has demonstrated that using these strategies and
tools improves student engagement, satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online courses (Mosia
& Goosen, 2022). Therefore, it is essential that universities prioritize instructor training and
support in effective online pedagogy to ensure that their online courses are designed and taught
in a way that promotes student learning and success.
101

Recommendation 3: Utilize Dynamic Platforms and Data
The growth of online education at the university level underscores that universities must
adopt dynamic platforms for delivering online courses that support real-time tracking of
engagement and accountability. This shift to online learning has been significant. However, basic
video platforms for online courses are not enough to meet the needs of students and instructors,
who require more interactive and collaborative tools to facilitate engagement and ensure
accountability.
Platforms such as Moodle and Canvas offer a range of features beyond basic video
platforms, enabling instructors to create more interactive and engaging learning experiences. For
instance, Moodle offers interactive quizzes, discussion forums, and collaborative document
editing, while Canvas offers features such as real-time feedback from instructors and data and
analytics tools. According to Greenland and Moore (2020), course and assessment design were
determinant factors in whether students completed online courses. Online courses delivered
through dynamic platforms can be designed to support learners in ways that increase completion
rates, lower dropout rates, and enhance student success.
Furthermore, platforms with real-time engagement and accountability tracking can
provide instructors with insights into student performance, enabling them to identify areas where
students may need additional support. For example, Blackboard’s learning analytics dashboard
enables instructors to track and analyze student performance data in real time, allowing them to
provide targeted support and interventions to improve student outcomes. Such platforms have
become increasingly important in the wake of the pandemic as universities seek to ensure that
students receive the support they need to succeed in online learning environments. As such,
universities should consider adopting online learning platforms that offer advanced features and
102

real-time engagement and accountability tracking to ensure that their students have access to the
highest quality education possible.
Recommendations for Practice
After establishing guidelines for determining when courses should be offered online and
providing adequate training for instructors, universities can focus on implementing effective
online teaching practices to promote student learning and success. As online education expands,
universities must ensure that their online courses are designed and taught using best practices.
This section outlines three major recommendations for online teaching practices, which will be
guided by the CoI and TPACK frameworks. These frameworks emphasize teaching presence,
cognitive presence, and social presence in creating a successful online learning experience, while
TPACK highlights the integration of technology, pedagogy, and CK in effective teaching.
Instructors can engage and support students to enhance their learning and success by
incorporating these frameworks into their teaching.
Recommendation 1: Focus on Student-Teacher Relationships
Recommendation 1 is for instructors to focus on developing meaningful student-teacher
relationships in their online courses. This recommendation is grounded in the “teaching
presence” aspect of the CoI framework and the technology and pedagogy aspects of the
“technology and pedagogy” elements of the TPACK framework. Teaching presence refers to the
design, facilitation, and direction of a learning experience, while technology and pedagogy
emphasize the integration of technology and instructional techniques in effective teaching.
Research has shown that teaching presence is foundational to the success of online learning
(Turk et al., 2022). Therefore, instructors should prioritize developing a connection with their
students by using tools such as video introductions, personalized feedback, and regular
103

communication to foster a sense of community and engagement. Additionally, instructors should
be intentional in their use of technology to support and enhance their pedagogical goals. This can
include using online discussion forums to facilitate student interactions and critical thinking
(Harvey & Caro, 2017). Instructors can create a more engaging and successful online learning
experience for students by prioritizing connection and utilizing technology effectively.
Developing a connection between instructors and students is highlighted by the fact that
participants overwhelmingly shared that they had little to no connection with their online
professors. This lack of connection can lead to feelings of isolation and disengagement,
ultimately hindering student success in online courses. Current research supports the idea that
teacher-student relationships are key to the success of online learning (Xie et al., 2022). One
study found that students who perceived a strong social presence in their online courses had a
greater sense of community and higher levels of satisfaction (Miao et al., 2022). Instructors can
use various strategies to establish a strong connection with their students, such as providing
timely and personalized feedback, engaging in regular check-ins as part of class routines, and
holding and requiring students to attend virtual office hours to provide additional support. These
practices can help to create a sense of community and support, ultimately enhancing student
engagement and success in online courses.
Recommendation 2: Foster a Sense of Community
Recommendation 2 is for instructors to actively foster a sense of community in their
online classes. This recommendation is grounded in the social presence aspect of the CoI
framework and again draws on the technology and pedagogy elements of the TPACK
framework. Social presence refers to the ability of learners to project their personal
characteristics into the community and engage in effective communication with others in a
104

meaningful way. Research has shown that the success of online learning requires social presence
(Turk et al., 2022). Therefore, instructors should use strategies to create a sense of community
among their students by using tools like regular opening discussions, discussion forums, and
group projects to encourage collaboration and interaction. Additionally, instructors should be
intentional in their use of technology to support and enhance their pedagogical goals.
The participants reported little to no connection with their classmates, highlighting the
lack of social presence and community in their online learning experience. They also reported
that peer connections could have contributed positively to their engagement in the class. This
finding underscores that a lack of connection with peers can hinder student engagement and
success in online courses. To enhance student engagement, Wong (2023) emphasizes peer
relationships and collaboration in online learning. In fact, Wrigley et al. (2021) found that
students who participated in collaborative activities and discussions with peers reported higher
levels of engagement and motivation. Therefore, instructors should actively facilitate
opportunities for collaboration and community building among their students. One aspect of this
is to set clear guidelines regarding when cameras need to be on during class to facilitate
relationship development in the class. Prioritizing social presence and creating a sense of
community can help increase student engagement and promote better outcomes.
Professors can employ various strategies and activities to increase the sense of
community in online courses. One effective strategy is to provide opportunities for synchronous
interactions, group discussions, and collaborative assignments. These activities can foster
collaboration, promote engagement, and enhance student learning (Archambault et al., 2022).
Another effective strategy is to use collaborative discussion forums outside of class, which
provide a platform for students to share their ideas, perspectives, and insights. This can help to
105

build a sense of community and promote social interaction among students (Turk et al., 2021).
With these strategies and activities, instructors can create a more engaging and supportive
learning environment that fosters social presence and enhances student success.
Recommendation 3: Provide Clear Expectations and Accountability
Recommendation 3 for online course instructors is to provide clear expectations and hold
students accountable. This recommendation is grounded in the cognitive presence aspect of the
CoI framework, which focuses on developing critical thinking skills and the construction of
knowledge through reflective discourse. Additionally, it draws on the pedagogy CK aspects of
the TPACK framework, which emphasizes the need for instructors to understand how
technology can support and enhance their pedagogical goals. Providing clear expectations and
holding students accountable for meeting those expectations can help to create a sense of
structure and purpose in the course, which can enhance cognitive presence and promote student
learning. Research has shown that clear expectations and accountability can improve student
performance and reduce dropout rates in online courses (Lu et al., 2022). Therefore, instructors
should use technology tools, such as online syllabi, rubrics, and progress trackers, to clearly
communicate course expectations and track student progress. By doing so, instructors can help to
promote cognitive presence and enhance student learning.
Several participants emphasized clear expectations and accountability. They expressed a
desire for their professors to provide clear course expectations. They also expressed that being
held accountable for participation and having their cameras on would have changed how much
they engaged in class. Although being held accountable could be inconvenient, many participants
felt that it would have had a positive impact on their overall course engagement. These findings
align with previously cited research on the benefits of clear expectations and accountability for
106

student success in online courses (Lu et al., 2022). Instructors should take these perspectives into
account and use technology tools to provide clear expectations and hold students accountable for
meeting those expectations. This can help to create a more structured and purposeful learning
environment that promotes cognitive presence and enhances student learning in online courses.
This recommendation highlights another example where there is a tension between access
and flexibility and positive course outcomes. On the one hand, allowing students to keep their
cameras off and watch recorded sessions can provide flexibility and accommodate diverse
learning styles. On the other hand, having cameras on during live sessions can promote student
engagement, build a sense of community, and facilitate communication between students and
instructors, which can enhance their understanding of the course material. While limiting access
to class recordings can promote accountability. According to a recent study by Händel et al.
(2022), students who participated in live online sessions with their cameras on had higher levels
of engagement and better academic performance than those who participated with their cameras
off. Therefore, course design must balance flexibility and engagement.
Appendix C is a resource that can aid instructors in designing and implementing effective
online courses. It presents detailed strategies that instructors can use to enhance teaching, social
presence, and cognitive presence in online environments. Additionally, the resource emphasizes
the TPACK framework in shaping instructor planning and content delivery in online teaching.
The TPACK framework emphasizes the integration of technology, pedagogy, and CK to promote
effective teaching in online environments. Utilizing Appendix C and incorporating the TPACK
framework will allow instructors to design and deliver high-quality online courses that promote
student engagement and success.
107

In conclusion, universities must ensure that their online courses are designed and taught
using best practices. This can be achieved by following the CoI and TPACK frameworks, which
emphasize teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence in creating a successful
online learning experience. Instructors should prioritize connecting with their students, fostering
a sense of community, and providing clear expectations and accountability. These strategies will
enable instructors to engage and support students to enhance their learning and success. Online
education is here to stay, and universities must continue to develop and refine online teaching
practices to meet students’ evolving needs.
Recommendations for Research
The increasing prevalence of online learning in higher education has led to a need for
ongoing research on effective strategies for engaging students. This study aims to contribute to
this area by providing two key recommendations for future research. First, ongoing studies
should explore how educational leaders can navigate the tension between accessibility and
course outcomes when determining whether a course is suited for online instruction. Secondly,
further investigation should be conducted on how the CoI and TPACK frameworks can be
refined to offer educators a clear model to increase student engagement in online learning
environments. These recommendations will improve our understanding of how to engage
students effectively and improve the quality of higher education in the digital age.
Recommendation 1: Balancing Accessibility With Positive Course Outcomes
As universities continue to navigate the complexities of teaching courses online versus in
person, further research is needed to determine the best practices for decision-making. Areas that
require attention are the tension between accessibility and flexibility and student engagement and
positive course outcomes. On the one hand, online courses provide greater accessibility and
108

flexibility for students, enabling them to learn at their own pace and on their own schedule. On
the other hand, in-person courses facilitate greater student engagement and collaboration, leading
to more positive course outcomes. Future research should explore the most effective ways to
balance these competing priorities, considering factors such as student learning styles, course
content, and instructional design. This research will enable universities to make informed
decisions about which courses should be taught online versus in person and how best to support
student learning in both formats.
In addition to the tension between accessibility, flexibility, engagement, and positive
course outcomes, universities must also consider the financial concerns of offering online
courses. With the rise of online learning and competition from other institutions, universities
must often offer a variety of online courses to remain competitive. Online courses can also be
less expensive to produce and maintain than in-person courses, potentially saving universities
money. However, offering too many online courses could potentially result in a decline in
enrollment for in-person courses, leading to decreased revenue for the institution. Further
research should explore the most effective balance of online and in-person courses to ensure
financial sustainability for universities while meeting the needs of students for accessibility,
flexibility, engagement, and positive course outcomes.
Recommendation 2: Further Refine the CoI and TPACK Frameworks
Further research is needed to refine the CoI and TPACK frameworks to offer educators a
clear model to increase student engagement in online learning environments. While both
frameworks have been established as effective tools for understanding online learning, additional
research can refine and expand upon these frameworks to better guide instructor training and
course development. One area for exploration is how the frameworks can be applied to specific
109

disciplines and instructional contexts. This research can help educators develop more targeted
interventions to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes. Another area of interest is
how the frameworks can be integrated into course development processes. Using the frameworks
to guide instructional design and pedagogical decision-making will allow instructors to create
courses that align with best practices for online learning and engage students more effectively.
This research will help educators support student success and improve the quality of online
instruction.
Prior research has extended the CoI framework, and this work should be continued and
expanded upon to help evolve the framework (Şen-Akbulut et al., 2022). Some researchers have
proposed a CoI-TPACK model that integrates both frameworks to create a more comprehensive
understanding of online learning (Papanikolaou et al., 2017). A combined model would explore
how effective online teaching and learning can be achieved through the alignment of these six
components:
1. Social presence: the extent to which students and instructors feel a sense of
community and connectedness in the online learning environment.
2. Teaching presence: the design, facilitation, and direction of the online learning
experience by the instructor.
3. Cognitive presence: the extent to which students engage in critical thinking and
inquiry-based learning in the online environment.
4. Technological knowledge: the understanding of how to effectively use technology
tools to support learning.
5. Pedagogical knowledge: the understanding of how to design and facilitate effective
learning experiences in the online environment.
110

6. Content knowledge: the understanding of the subject matter being taught.
As technology continues to play an increasingly important role in education, the
intersection of the CoI and TPACK frameworks is particularly relevant when developing online
courses. CoI emphasizes three interdependent elements: social presence, cognitive presence, and
teaching presence. Together, these elements promote a meaningful and effective learning
experience. Similarly, TPACK highlights the need for teachers to have knowledge and skills in
content, pedagogy, and technology. The context of online courses where technology is not only a
tool but also the vehicle for delivery requires integrating CoI and TPACK. Teachers need the
knowledge and skills to effectively use technology to create social and cognitive presence while
delivering course content. They must also be able to choose and use appropriate technological
tools that align with the course content and pedagogy while considering the learners’ needs and
characteristics. Teachers can create a supportive, interactive, and engaging learning environment
that leverages technology to enhance learning outcomes by merging CoI and TPACK. Figure 4
presents an example of what a CoI-TPACK framework could look like.

111

Figure 4
CoI-TPACK Framework

This figure depicts TK and PK as intersecting with all three areas of the CoI framework,
teaching, cognitive, and social presence. Content knowledge (CK) interfaces primarily with
teaching and cognitive presence. In planning for and implementing online learning experiences,
instructors can utilize the TPACK framework to positively influence teaching, cognitive, and
social presence. When done effectively, this can increase student engagement in online learning.
The integration of the TPACK framework into online course design can help instructors
effectively utilize technology and pedagogy to create a learning environment that fosters
112

engagement and student success. The TPACK framework emphasizes the intersection between
TK, PK, and CK. The TPACK framework can help instructors make informed decisions about
the best technological tools to use and how to integrate them with pedagogical approaches to
enhance content delivery. The CoI framework can help instructors create a supportive learning
community that promotes social, cognitive, and teaching presence. The effective integration of
the TPACK and CoI frameworks can maximize student engagement and learning outcomes.
As online learning evolves, research should explore the integration of the CoI and
TPACK frameworks to ensure effective online instruction. Future studies should investigate how
these frameworks can incorporate emerging technologies and evolving instructional practices.
Additionally, future research in this area should also examine how to incorporate real-time data
on engagement into this framework to help instructors adjust throughout the course. These
studies will advance our understanding of online learning and guide the development of training
programs for educators. Further research on the intersection of these frameworks can ensure
high-quality online learning experiences that engage students and promote effective learning
outcomes.
Study Limitations and Delimitations
Creswell (2012) explained that in qualitative research, limitations refer to factors beyond
the researcher’s control that affect the study. In this study, the limitations related to the sample
size and possible researcher bias. The sample size consisted of only 12 undergraduate students,
which was appropriate for a qualitative study, but its generalizability to all students may be
limited. The study aimed to explore the lived experience of a small population of participants,
which aligns with qualitative research goals. However, as with all qualitative research, this
research depended on my research skills, and the analysis might have been influenced by
113

researcher bias. Even my presence and behaviors during interviews could have influenced
participant behavior and feedback, known as the interviewer effect. To mitigate possible bias, I
used reflexivity by critically reflecting on assumptions, beliefs, and values throughout the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
According to Creswell (2012), delimitations are the boundaries the researcher sets that
define the study’s scope. In this study, delimitations were established in several areas. Firstly, the
sample was limited to undergraduate students from a small sample of public and private
universities in the United States who were enrolled in person at their universities. Secondly, the
study was focused solely on students’ perceptions and experiences of online learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic and did not examine the experience of instructors. Additionally, the study
did not investigate other factors that may have affected the students’ experiences, such as their
socioeconomic status, access to technology, or previous experience with online education. These
delimitations were necessary to provide a clear understanding of the study’s scope and ensure the
findings’ coherence.
This study’s limitations and delimitations were carefully considered and addressed to the
best of my abilities. The study’s results may not be generalizable to all students or fully capture
the complexity of online learning experiences, but they provide insights into the lived
experiences of a small sample of undergraduate students coming out of the COVID-19
pandemic. Moving forward, it is essential to continue to reflect on the limitations and
delimitations of research to ensure that the findings are accurate, relevant, and useful in
informing practice and policy in online education.
114

Conclusion
When I began this research, I had several goals in mind. First and foremost, I wanted to
gain a deeper understanding of online education and the theories and frameworks that have
shaped its evolution. Additionally, I was eager to explore the lived experiences of current
undergraduate students who are engaged in online education to better understand the factors that
influence their levels of engagement. Specifically, I sought to investigate instructors’ teaching
strategies and actions that improved student engagement. Finally, I hoped to provide practical
recommendations that online instructors could implement immediately to improve course
outcomes.
My inspiration for this research was twofold. As an educational leader, I was part of the
team that transitioned my K–8 school to fully online when the pandemic hit. Reflecting on that
experience, I recognized that mistakes were made, and I was motivated to explore what could be
done to improve the online learning experience for current and future students. Additionally, as a
student in USC’s Organizational Change and Leadership Program, I had the opportunity to
experience online education firsthand. As I engaged in online classes, I found myself questioning
and contemplating ways to improve activities and classes as well as the larger organizational
structures behind online course delivery. These experiences combined to fuel my curiosity and
drive to complete this study.
As an educational leader and researcher, I had a preconceived idea that students’ sense of
community and connectedness would play a significant role in their engagement levels in online
education. The literature review supported this idea, highlighting social presence and interaction
in creating a positive learning environment. Therefore, I designed this study to delve deeper into
students’ perceptions of their relationships with their peers and instructors. During data
115

collection, most students described relationships with their peers and instructors as essential to
their engagement. They emphasized forming connections with classmates, especially when it
came to group projects and discussions. Furthermore, students expressed a desire for instructors
to be approachable and communicative, which helped them feel more comfortable participating
in class.
I was surprised to discover that students also described their expectations and
accountability as key factors influencing their engagement. They explained that they were more
likely to engage in the course material when they felt a sense of responsibility to their instructors
and classmates. This unexpected finding led me to consider the impact of instructor expectations
and accountability on student engagement and how instructors can set clear expectations for their
students while holding themselves accountable for creating a positive and engaging learning
environment. Ultimately, this finding broadened my understanding of the factors that contribute
to student engagement in online education and opened new avenues for further research.
The CoI and TPACK frameworks proved to be useful lenses through which to view the
problem of increasing student engagement in online learning. The CoI framework emphasizes
creating a community of learners through the development of social, cognitive, and teaching
presences, while TPACK highlights the integration of technology, pedagogy, and CK in effective
teaching. These frameworks aligned with this study’s goals, which focused on exploring the
impact of teaching strategies and actions on student engagement in online education. Using these
frameworks enabled me to analyze the data from the student perspective and identify the key
factors that influence student engagement.
Though this study was small in scale with a limited sample size, it provides valuable
insights into the factors that influence student engagement in online education. The impact of
116

this research is relevant and immediately applicable in the current environment, with online
education becoming an increasingly important part of the academic landscape. The practical
recommendations provided by this study can be implemented by online instructors to improve
course outcomes and enhance the learning experience for students. Furthermore, this study points
to new avenues for further research. Overall, this study contributes to the growing body of
literature on online education and underscores the need for continued research in this field.
As online education continues to evolve, there is a need to understand the factors that
drive engagement and enhance learning outcomes. This study underscores the significance of
building relationships, encouraging active participation, utilizing technology, offering flexibility,
and promoting collaboration to increase engagement in online learning. The emerging themes of
inspiration, connection, and accountability further emphasize the social, emotional, and
motivational components that contribute to student engagement. As we look to the future,
educators and course designers should consider these findings when designing online courses
that are effective, engaging, and meet the needs of diverse learners. Education serves a greater
purpose than simply imparting knowledge; it aims to ignite genuine curiosity within individuals,
inspiring them to explore, question, and develop throughout their education journey. This study
has shown possible ways to move toward this goal in online education.

117

References
Agostinelli, M. D., Jr. (2019). From distance education to online education: A review of the
literature [Unpublished professional paper]. The University of Montana. Missoula,
Montana.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Making the grade: Online education in the United States,
2006. Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2020). Digital learning in higher education, Part III: Instructional
modes and blended learning. Babson Survey Research Group.
Alqahtani, A. Y., & Rajkhan, A. A. (2020). E-learning critical success factors during the covid-
19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives.
Education Sciences, 10(9), 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090216
Anderson, T., Rivera-Vargas P. A critical look at educational technology from a distance
education perspective. Digital Education Review, 2020(37), 208–229.
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.208-229
Ansyari, M. F., Groot, W., & De Witte, K. (2022). Teachers’ preferences for online professional
development: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 119, Article 103870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103870
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., &
Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of
the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and
Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
118

Archambault, L., Leary, H., & Rice, K. (2022). Pillars of online pedagogy: A framework for
teaching in online learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 178–191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2051513
Arghode, V., Brieger, E., & Wang, J. (2018). Engaging instructional design and instructor role in
online learning environment. European Journal of Training and Development, 42(7/8),
366–380.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, 40, 518–529.
Aucejo, E. M., French, J. F., & Zafar, B. (2021). Estimating students' valuation for college
experiences (No. w28511). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change, 43(1), 38–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
Barbour, M. K. (2021). The shift to distance learning: Tracing the roots of 100+ years of practice
and opportunity. TechTrends, 65(6), 919–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-
00670-0
Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content
knowledge in science education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735665
Berry, R., Hintz, L., & Scenario, P. (2015). Pedagogical content knowledge as a mediating factor
between teacher technology use and student outcomes. Journal of Educational
Technology Development and Exchange, 8(1), 1–22.
Bettinger, E., & Loeb, S. (2017). Promises and pitfalls of online education. Evidence Speaks
Reports, 2(15), 1–4.
119

Bevins, F., Bryant, J., Krishnan, C., & Law, J. (2020). Coronavirus: How should US higher
education plan for an uncertain future (M. Sheikhan, trans). Institute for Social and
Cultural Studies.
Blankenberger, B., & Williams, A. M. (2020). COVID and the impact on higher education: The
essential role of integrity and accountability. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3),
404–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1771907
Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional
distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299–316.
Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in
higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, Article 50.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x
Bouchrika, I. (2020). 50 online education statistics: 2020 data on higher learning and corporate
training. Guide2Research.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal:
Observations from the past, insights from the present and projections for the future. Asian
Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), i–x.
Bradley, V. M. (2021). Learning management system (LMS) use with online instruction.
International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(1), 68–92.
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.36
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
120

Casey, D. M. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education
through technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-
0135-z
Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 years of the community of inquiry framework. TechTrends,
64(4), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
Castro, M. D. B., & Tumibay, G. M. (2021). A literature review: Efficacy of online learning
courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis. Education and Information
Technologies, 26, 1367–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z
Coman, C., Țîru, L. G., Meseșan-Schmitz, L., Stanciu, C., & Bularca, M. C. (2020). Online
teaching and learning in higher education during the coronavirus pandemic: Students’
perspective. Sustainability, 12(24), Article 10367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410367
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
Davidson, C. (2013). What was the first MOOC?
https://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathydavidson/2013/09/27/what-was-first-mooc
Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J. Dewey (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 19–32).
Teachers College. (Original work published 1897)
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do
students find engaging? The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–
13.
Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student
engagement scale (OSE). Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 19(4).
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
121

Dontre, A. J. (2021). The influence of technology on academic distraction: A review. Human
Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3), 379–390.
Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring
advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 30(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z
Dziuban, C., & Picciano, A. (2015). The evolution continues. ECAR Research, 6(15), 1–19.
Edel-Malizia, S., & Brautigam, K. (2014, October 30–31). Gauging the quality of online learning
by measuring 21st century engagement [Paper presentation]. European Conference on e-
Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Evens, T., & Depaepe, F. (2015). Understanding teachers’ professional knowledge and its impact
on teaching: An international review of the literature. The Journal of Educational
Research, 108(4), 357–376.
Feng, S., Wong, Y. K., Wong, L. Y., & Hossain, L. (2019). The internet and Facebook usage on
academic distraction of college students. Computers & Education, 134, 41–49.
Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135–153.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4383
Finkle, T. A., & Masters, E. (2014). Do MOOCs pose a threat to higher education? Research in
Higher Education, 26.
Finol, M. (2020). Asynchronous vs. synchronous learning: A quick overview. Bryn Mawr
College.
122

Fox, K., Bryant, G., Lin, N., Khedkar, N., & Nguyen, A., (2021). Time for class – COVID-19
edition part 3: The impact of 2020 on postsecondary teaching and learning of
introductory faculty. Tyton Partners.
Fredricks, 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
Gallagher-Lepak, S., Reilly, J., & Killion, C. (2009). Nursing student perceptions of community
in online learning. Contemporary Nurse, 32(1-2), 133–146.
https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.32.1-2.133
Gaskell, A., & Mills, R. (2014). The quality and reputation of open, distance and e-learning:
what are the challenges? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,
29(3), 190–205.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J.
Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning
(2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships
among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of
inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31–36.
123

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Gierdowski, D., Brooks, C., & Galanek, J. (2020). Student technology report: Supporting the
whole student. Educause. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2020/10/2020-student-
technology-report-supporting-the-whole-student
Greenland, S. J., & Moore, C. (2022). Large qualitative sample and thematic analysis to redefine
student dropout and retention strategy in open online education. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 53(3), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13173
Grenier, R. S., & Merriam, S. B. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for
discussion and analysis. Wiley.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
Teachers College Press.
Gunawan, J. (2015). Ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research. Belitung Nursing Journal,
1(1), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.4
Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2013). Distance education. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. Ellen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (pp. 361-401). Routledge.
Händel, M., Bedenlier, S., Kopp, B., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Kammerl, R., & Ziegler, A. (2022). The
webcam and student engagement in synchronous online learning: visually or verbally?
Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10405–10428.
124

Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college
student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
Harvey, D. M., & Caro, R. A. (2017). Review of Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J., and Mishra, P.
(Eds.) (2016). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
for Educators. (2nd edition). New York: Routledge. TechTrends, 61(4), 404–405.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0176-2
Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2001). Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research. Nursing
Standard, 15(42), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2001.07.15.42.39.c3052
Higher Education Strategy Associates. (2021). The future of learning: A report from the front
line.
Hodges, C. B., & Fowler, D. J. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and faculty members in higher
education: From emergency remote teaching to better teaching through reflection.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 5(1), 118–
122. https://doi.org/10.32674/jimphe.v5i1.2507
Hu, P. J. H., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-
mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision
Support Systems, 53(4), 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.014
Jaggars, S. S., Edgecombe, N., & Stacey, G. W. (2013). What we know about online course
outcomes. research overview. Community College Research Center.
Johnson, N., Seaman, J., & Veletsianos, G. (2021). Teaching during a pandemic: Spring
transition, fall continuation, winter evaluation. Bay View Analytics.
https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/teachingduringapandemic.pdf
125

Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). US faculty and administrators’ experiences
and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning: The
Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 24(2), 6–21.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2285
Jones, B. F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and
using educational technology. Council for Educational Development and Research.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface:
Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research &
Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
Karabulut-Ilgu, A., & Jahren, C. T. (2015, June 14–17). Faculty perspectives on benefits and
challenges of hybrid learning [Paper presentation]. ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
Karabulut-Ilgu, J. N., & Jahren, C. (2017). A systematic review of research on the flipped
learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology,
49(3), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12548
Kentnor, H. E. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United
States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1), 21–34.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29544/
126

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational
technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-
01WB-BKHL-QDYV
Krishnamoorthy, R., & Keating, K. (2021). Education crisis, workforce preparedness, and
COVID-19: Reflections and recommendations. American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 80(1), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12376
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical
foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141. Wiley Periodicals.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects
of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of
Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772116
Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2011). Engaging students in learning: A review of a conceptual
organizer. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 193–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.509761
Lee, J., Song, H. D., & Hong, A. J. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring
students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability, 11(4), 985.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040985
Leitner, P., Khalil, M., & Ebner, M. (2017). Learning analytics in higher education—a literature
review. In A. Pena-Ayala (Ed.), Learning analytics: Fundaments, applications, and
trends: A view of the current state of the art to enhance e-learning (Vol 94, pp. 1–23).
Springer International.
127

Li, Y. (2021). Factors Affecting Student Engagement in Online Learning. Journal of Educational
Technology Development and Exchange, 14(1), 1–12.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1984). Philosophical inquiry an instructional
manual to accompany Harry Stottlemeier’s discovery. University Press of America.
Lu, Y., Hong, X., & Xiao, L. (2022). Toward high-quality adult online learning: A systematic
review of empirical studies. Sustainability, 14(4), 2257.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042257
Magda, A. J., Capranos, D., & Aslanian, C. B. (2020). Online college students 2020:
Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Wiley Education Services.
Marinoni, G., Van’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on higher education
around the world: IAU global survey report. International Association of Universities.
Marshall, H. W., & Kostka, I. (2020). Fostering teaching presence through the synchronous
online flipped learning approach. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second
Language, 24(2), n2.
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online
teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The
Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34-43.
Martin, F., Sun, T., Westine, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2022). Examining research on the impact of
distance and online learning: A second-order meta-analysis study. Educational Research
Review, 36, Article 100438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100438
Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the community of inquiry
presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online
128

Learning: The Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 26(1), 325–359.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591
McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. U.S. Department of Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed). Jossey-Bass.
Miao, J., Chang, J., & Ma, L. (2022). Teacher-student interaction, student-student interaction and
social presence: Their impacts on learning engagement in online learning environments.
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 183(6), 514–526.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2022.2094211
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance
learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2),
129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
129

Mosia, N., & Goosen, L. (2022). A case of innovative and successful use of digital resources for
online learning: Quality evaluation tools for learning objects. In P. Sulllivan, B. Sullivan,
& J. Lantz (Eds.), Cases on innovative and successful uses of digital resources for online
learning (pp. 241–261). IGI Global.
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3:
Sampling, data collection and analysis. The European Journal of General Practice,
24(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Home page. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student
engagement: 2005 annual survey results. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/23483
Nayir, F. (2017). The relationship between student motivation and class engagement levels.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(71), 59–78.
https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.71.4
Ong, S. G. T., & Quek, G. C. L. (2023). Enhancing teacher–student interactions and student
online engagement in an online learning environment. Learning Environments Research,
1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09447-5
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2013). Lessons from the virtual classroom. International Journal of
Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(2), 93–96.
Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018).
Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of
130

Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
Papanikolaou, Makri, K., & Roussos, P. (2017). Learning design as a vehicle for developing
TPACK in blended teacher training on technology enhanced learning. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0072-z
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Sage Publications.
Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014).
Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online
courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421–432.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14562423
Picciano, A. G. (2021). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated
model. In L. Cifuentes (Ed.), A guide to administering distance learning (pp. 79–103).
Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004471382_005
Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., McCormick, A. C., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (2011). If and when
money matters: The relationships among educational expenditures, student engagement
and students’ learning outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 81–106.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9183-2
Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133–141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481
131

Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of
blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4),
748–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12269
Protopsaltis, S., & Baum, S. (2019). Does online education live up to its promise? A look at the
evidence and implications for federal policy. Center for Educational Policy Evaluation.
Quimet, J. A., & Smallwood, R. A. (2005). Assessment Measures: CLASSE—The Class-Level
Survey of Student Engagement. Assessment Update, 17(6), 13–15.
Qureshi, M. I., Khan, N., Raza, H., Imran, A., & Ismail, F. (2021). Digital technologies in
Education 4.0. Does it enhance the effectiveness of learning? A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(4), 31–47.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i04.20291
Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online
engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning: the Official Journal of the
Online Learning Consortium, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student
engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
Sadera, W., Robertson, J., Song, L., & Midon, M. (2009). The role of community in online
learning success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2).
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for
both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.
132

Sari, I. A., & Alfaruqy, M. Z. (2022, June 3). College students’ perspective on online learning
during COVID-19: A systematic literature review [Paper presentation]. The 2nd
International Conference on Psychological Studies, Oxford, UK.
Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. John Wiley
& Sons.
Schutt, M. (2007). The effects of instructor immediacy in online learning environments.
University of San Diego and San Diego State University
Schutt, M., Allen, B. S., & Laumakis, M. A. (2009). The effects of instructor immediacy
behaviors in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
10(2), 135.
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: tracking distance education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Seaman, J. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education state almanac
2017. Babson Survey Research Group.
Şen-Akbulut, M. Umutlu, D., & Arıkan, S. (2022). Extending The Community of Inquiry
Framework: Development and Validation of Technology Sub-Dimensions. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 23(3), 61–81.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v23i2.6022
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster
“epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers &
Education, 52(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007
133

Shea, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2022). Building bridges to advance the community of
inquiry framework for online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 148–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2089989
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Sikora, A. C. (2002). A profile of participation in distance education: 1999–2000 (Postsecondary
Education Descriptive Analysis Reports). U.S. Department of Education.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping,
and everyday resilience. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie. (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-
7_2
Steele, J., Holbeck, R., & Mandernach, J. (2019). Defining effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Institutional Research, 8(2), 5–8.
Stephenson, S. (2019). Creating a sense of community in distance education. International
Journal of Academic Research in Education, 5(1-2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.524225
Stracke, C. M., Downes, S., Conole, G., Burgos, D., & Nascimbeni, F. (2019). Are MOOCs
open educational resources? A literature review on history, definitions and typologies of
OER and MOOCs. Open Praxis, 11(4), 331–341.
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1010
Su, J., & Waugh, M. L. (2018). Online student persistence or attrition: Observations related to
expectations, preferences, and outcomes. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 16(1),
63–79.
134

Suharno, S., Suherdi, D., & Gunawan, W. (2022, August 3). Dissecting students’ distance
learning experiences with community of inquiry (COI) framework. [Paper presentation].
Sixth International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
(ICOLLITE 2022).
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Editors’ remarks: Breaking news: TPCK becomes
TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64.
Thurmond, V., & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A
review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, 1(1). http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_04/article02.htm
Turk, M., Heddy, B. C., & Danielson, R. W. (2022). Teaching and social presences supporting
basic needs satisfaction in online learning environments: How can presences and basic
needs happily meet online? Computers & Education, 180, 104432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104432
Turk, M., Müftüoglu, A. C., & Toraman, S. (2021). Teaching presence in online courses: Similar
perceptions but different experiences from multiple instructor perspectives. Online
Learning, 25(4), 156–177.
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty
development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001
Wang, Q., Chen, W., & Liang, Y. (2011). The effects of social media on college students
[Unpublished paper]. Johnson & Wales University, Providence, Rhode Island
135

Wong, R. (2023). When no one can go to school: Does online learning meet students’ basic
learning needs? Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 434–450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1789672
Wrigley Kelly, N. E., Murray, K. E., McCarthy, C., & O’Shea, D. B. (2021). An objective
analysis of quality and readability of online information on COVID-19. Health and
Technology, 11(5), 1093–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-021-00574-2
Xie, Y., Huang, Y., Luo, W., Bai, Y., Qiu, Y., & Ouyang, Z. (2022). Design and effects of the
teacher-student interaction model in the online learning spaces. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 35, 1–22.
Young, S., & Duncan, H. E. (2014). Online and face-to-face teaching: How do students’ ratings
differ? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 70–79.

136

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
This study addressed the following research question: What instructor behaviors and
teaching strategies lead to high levels of engagement as perceived by students in online learning
environments?

137

Table A1
CoI Framework and Elements of Engagement Indicators
CoI framework:
aspects of the
educational experience
Elements of engagement and indicators
Supporting discourse Collaborative (Col)
Learning with peers
Relating to faculty members
Connecting to institutional opportunities
Developing professional networks
Setting climate Social (S)
Building community
Creating a sense of belonging
Developing relationships
Establishing trust
Behavioral (B)
Developing academic skills
Identifying opportunities and challenges
Developing multidisciplinary skills
Developing agency
Upholding online learning norms
Supporting and encouraging peers
Emotional (E)
Managing expectations
Articulating assumptions
Recognizing motivations
Committing to learning
Selecting content Cognitive (C)
Thinking critically
Activating metacognition
Integrating ideas
Justifying decisions
Developing discipline understandings
Distributing expertise

138

Background
1. Think about a face-to-face class that you really enjoyed. Probing question: What was
it about the class that made you enjoy it? How did you interact with the professor and
your classmates?
2. Now, think of an online class that you have taken or are taking. What are some of the
differences or similarities between them? Probing question: Do they feel more
different or similar?
3. How would you compare your experiences as far as your enjoyment of these classes?
Probing question: Has this influenced your thinking about taking future classes in-
person versus online?
4. What is your experience in taking online classes? Probing question: How many
classes have you taken online?
5. Why are you taking this course? Probing question: Is it a requirement for your major?
6. Why did you take this class online? Probing question: Was it offered in person?
Setting Climate
7. Describe your relationship with your professor. Probing question: Would you like it
to be different? If so, how?
8. How have you connected with your professor outside of class? Probing question: In
what form?
9. How connected do you feel to your classmates? Probing question: What contributes
to this?
10. How have you connected with classmates outside of class? Probing question: In what
form?
139

11. “How likely/often are you to do things in class that are not related to class (check
email, do other work, private chat classmates, browse the internet)? Probing question:
Would you do this if it was in person?
Supporting Discourse
12. What opportunities are available for you to engage in the class? Probing questions:
What does the professor do to promote this? What opportunities would you like to
have been offered?
13. How often do you participate in class (asking a question, volunteering an answer,
using the chat)? Probing question: Why do you participate?
Selecting Content
14. What part of the class (lecture, readings, breakout rooms) has contributed most to
your learning? Probing question: What contributes to this?
15. What kind of digital tools does your teacher use? Probing questions: How do you feel
about these tools? Do they make the class more interesting?
16. What do you wish your teacher did differently? Probing question: How would this
change your view of the class?
Engagement and Outcomes
17. Do you prefer online classes or face-to-face classes? Probing question: Why?
18. What are your general feelings about this class? Probing question: How does it
compare to other online or in-person classes?
19. How likely are you to complete this class? Probing question: Why?
20. What grade do you think you will earn? Probing question: How do you feel about
this?
140

21. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about this class?
141

Appendix B: Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument
The community of inquiry questionnaire is developed and validated by a collaborative
research team. The members of the team, in alphabetical order, are Ben Arbaugh, Marti
Cleveland-Innes, Sebastian Diaz, D. Randy Garrison, Phil Ice, Jennifer Richardson, Peter Shea
and Karen Swan.
The CoI survey is an open resource under Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA).
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the CoI survey to
use, share, copy, adapt, merge, publish or distribute the document in any medium or format for
any purpose, provided that appropriate credit is given, and any modified material is distributed
under the same Creative Commons license.
Teaching Presence
Design and Organization
1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topics.
2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals.
3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning
activities.
4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning
activities.
Facilitation
5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on
course topics that helped me to learn.
6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class toward understanding course topics in
a way that helped me clarify my thinking.
142

7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in
productive dialogue.
8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to
learn.
9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.
10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course
participants.
Direct Instruction
11. The instructor helped to focus discussions on relevant issues in a way that helped me
to learn.
12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and
weaknesses relative to the course’s goals and objectives.
13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.
Social Presence
Affective Expression
14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.
16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.
Open Communication
17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.
18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions.
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.

143

Group Cohesion
20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a
sense of trust.
21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants.
22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.
Cognitive Presence
Triggering Event
23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues.
24. Course activities piqued my curiosity.
25. I felt motivated to explore content-related questions.
Exploration
26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course.
27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content-related
questions.
28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives.
Integration
29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities.
30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.
31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental
concepts in this class.
Resolution
32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course.
33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.
144

34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class-
related activities.
5-Point Likert-type scale
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

145

Appendix C: Strategies for Increasing Engagement in Online Classes
Community of inquiry TPACK
Here are strategies from CoI and TPACK that instructors can use to increase engagement and
improve outcomes in online classes:
Teaching Presence: Teaching presence is the design, facilitation,
and direction of online learning experiences by instructors.

In online learning,
technology is the primary
platform for instruction,
and the use of technology
in teaching requires a
different approach to
TPACK. Here are some
ways TPACK is utilized
in online learning:

Technological knowledge
(TK): Instructors need to
have a deep understanding
of the technology
platforms they are using to
teach online, including
how to troubleshoot
technical issues and use
the technology to create
effective learning
experiences.

Pedagogical knowledge
(PK): Instructors need to
understand how to use the
technology to deliver
course content, facilitate
discussions, provide
feedback, and assess
student learning.

Content knowledge (CK):
Instructors must have a
strong understanding of
the subject matter they are
teaching, but they also
need to understand how to
present that content
Establish clear expectations: Ensure that the syllabus is
up-to-date and clearly communicates course
objectives, learning outcomes, and grading policies.
Review these expectations regularly and share
specific learning objectives at the beginning of each
class meeting.
PK
Promote student-instructor interaction: Create
opportunities each class to interact with students and
get to know them. Hold virtual office hours and ask
students to attend at some point during the course.
Maintain a discussion board for students to post
questions and respond regularly. Respond to emails
from students in a timely manner.
TK
Provide Timely and personalized feedback: Provide
feedback to students in a timely manner. This can
include constructive comments on written work, as
well as more general feedback on class participation.
PK
Use a variety of teaching strategies and technology:
These might include video lectures, interactive
quizzes, group projects, and case studies. Seek
regular feedback from students regarding what is
working well, share the results, and use the
information to adapt instructional techniques.
TPK
Social presence: Social presence is how connected learners feel to
one another and to the instructor.
Build community: Start the course by having students
introduce themselves and share their backgrounds,
interests, and goals. Make time each class for
students to share out and connect with each other
using a specific question or topic.
PK
Use breakout rooms effectively: Rotate groups
regularly and keep group sizes small to work on
projects, discuss material, and provide peer
TPK
146

Community of inquiry TPACK
feedback. Give clear expectations for breakout room
discussions and ask for a deliverable when
appropriate.
effectively using the
technology available to
them.

Technological pedagogical
knowledge (TPK):
Instructors need to
understand how to use
technology effectively to
teach and facilitate
learning. This includes
understanding how to use
technology to deliver
instruction, assess
learning, and provide
feedback.

Pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK):
Instructors need to use
technology and content
knowledge to facilitate
discussions, provide
feedback, assess learning.

Technological content
knowledge (TCK):
Instructors need to
understand how to use
technology to deliver
content effectively. This
includes understanding
how to use multimedia
tools, interactive
activities, and other
technology-based
resources to engage
students and enhance their
learning experience.

*When utilizing CoI and
TPACK, it is important
that instructors teaching
online Continuously
Require cameras: Require that students keep cameras
on throughout the majority of the class. Set clear
expectations regarding when students can turn their
cameras off.
TPK
Assign support groups: Create small support groups
and give them time to meet occasionally in class.
These groups can be supports for each other, check
with each other if they miss a class, and help keep
each other motivated and engaged.
PCK
Cognitive presence: Cognitive presence is how much learners are
able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained
reflection and discourse.
Establish specific participation requirements: Clearly
communicate expectations regarding attendance and
class participation. Require make-up assignments for
absences. Establish parameters for participation in
class and hold students accountable. Check in with
students throughout the course to assess how it is
going.
PK
Assign relevant readings, videos, and assignments:
Ensure that readings and assignments are related
directly to the learning objectives. Only assign
readings that will be discussed or used directly in
class or course assignments. Provide opportunities
for students to provide feedback regarding the
effectiveness of readings and assignments in
contributing to their learning and adapt the materials
accordingly.
PCK
Employ inquiry-based learning: Use inquiry-based
learning strategies, such as case studies, simulations,
or collaborative assignments or discussions, to
encourage students to actively engage with course
material and apply it in real-world contexts.
PCK
Provide scaffolding: Break down assignments into
smaller components and providing step-by-step
guidance and relevant examples. Provide rubrics or
PCK
147

Community of inquiry TPACK
checklists for assignments. Utilize self-assessments
and peer review as steps in the process of
completing projects.
improve: Evaluate the
course and make
adjustments as needed to
improve student
engagement and learning
outcomes. Solicit
feedback from students to
help inform your teaching
and course design in real
time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Online learning is prevalent in higher education, especially given the rapid expansion of remote education prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, ensuring student engagement remains a challenge. This dissertation explored the factors that influence student engagement in online learning to provide recommendations for improving student engagement in higher education. The findings highlight student-teacher relationships, student-student relationships, course format, and distractions. The impact of instructors, subject matter, and tools on student learning was also examined. Furthermore, students preferred clear expectations, interactive and collaborative activities, and accountability in online classes. The study also discusses motivations for taking online classes and the influence of course outcomes, particularly grades. Policy recommendations include using data to determine when courses should be taught online, developing instructor training and support, and utilizing dynamic platforms and data. Practice recommendations emphasize student-teacher relationships, fostering a sense of community, and providing clear expectations and accountability. Additionally, research recommendations suggest further exploration of balancing accessibility with positive course outcomes and refining the community of inquiry and technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge frameworks. Institutions can enhance the quality of online education and create a more engaging learning environment for students by implementing the recommendations provided.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education

PDF

Examining the impact of LETRS professional learning on student literacy outcomes: a quantitative analysis

PDF

Student engagement: a quantitative analysis on aspects that are predictive of engagement

PDF

Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies

PDF

An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis

PDF

Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

Completion in online learning: graduate students' perspectives

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Examining presence as an influence on learning engagement

PDF

Reducing statistics anxiety among learners in online graduate research methods courses

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

Examining student beliefs and behaviors in online and on-campus courses: measuring openness to diversity, voluntary peer collaboration, and help seeking

Asset Metadata

Creator Reichley, Thaddeus Brian (author)

Core Title Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 06/21/2023

Defense Date 04/25/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community of inquiry,history of online education,improving online education,OAI-PMH Harvest,online education,student engagement,technology pedagogy and content knowledge

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Filback, Robert (committee chair), Banuelos, Sheila (committee member), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email reichley@usc.edu,thaddeusreichley@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113190007

Unique identifier UC113190007

Identifier etd-ReichleyTh-11981.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ReichleyTh-11981

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Reichley, Thaddeus Brian

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230627-usctheses-batch-1058 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu