1. Faculty Perceptions of Online Student Engagement:
California Community Colleges and
The California State University
STUDIES BY
Jory Hadsell, Sacramento City College
Tracy Kent, CSU Sacramento
December 1, 2011
DET/CHE Conference

2. Changing Times
Question:
Do we really understand how to actively
engage our students in a changing world?

3. Introduction
• Student engagement is commonly viewed as a key element in
predicting and ensuring the success of online learners.
• It can be difficult to separate effective engagement strategies
from ancillary course administration activities.
• Researchers have taken multiple approaches to defining
student engagement -- the universe of elements construed as
contributing to engagement of online students can seem very
broad.
• Is student engagement in the "eye of the beholder" -- in this
case, the faculty teaching online? If so -- how do faculty define
and perceive engagement?

4. Background
• Purpose:
o Exploring faculty attitudes and perceptions of student
engagement in online courses
 California Community Colleges (Hadsell)
 California State University system (Kent)
• Scope:
o Mini-qualitative research projects
o Comparative analysis:
 Sacramento City College
 CSU Sacramento
• Focus:
o Explore the faculty perspective of student engagement in the
online learning environment.

5. Online Engagement
• The instructor may use his or her role to evoke student motivation
and spur students to persist in online learning
environments. (Christian & John, 2010)
• Students who feel disconnected or physically isolated from their
classmates are more likely to drop out of online
programs. (Angelino, et. al, 2007)
• Maki and Maki (2007) found that students were often required to do
more in online courses than in traditional courses. They wrote that to
be effective, online instructors need a strong methodology and
opportunities for students to interact with each other and the
instructor.
• Synchronous tools can assist in humanizing the classroom with
interaction between student-student and instructor (Kolsaka, 2001).

6. Preliminary Research
Approach
• Preliminary Research
o Qualitative interviews
o Comparative analysis of interviews and artifacts
• Data collection
o Interviews with faculty who teach online (at least two years
experience); Los Rios CCD and CSU Sacramento
o Limited by a small sample size
o Conducted a review and analysis of artifacts (Syllabi,
assignments, related articles, etc.)
o Identification of emergent themes in each study

7. FIVE EMERGENT THEMES
BASED ON PRELIMINARY RESEARCH

8. Emergent Themes
• Background / Mental Models
o Who the faculty member is
o Background
 Training and certifications
 Relating to experiences as an online student
o Instructional Mental Models
 Interest in student learning & progress
 Interest and tendencies relating to technology
experimentation
• Structure and Content
o Organizational strategy
o Variety and clarity of assignments
o Construction of syllabus
o Multi-modal approach (videos, podcasts, textbook, etc.)

9. Emergent Themes
• Community/Interaction
o Frequency and depth of interaction
(faculty-student, student-student, whole class presence)
o Fostering of creativity and expression
o Encouraging participation
o Overall availability of faculty member
• Assessment
o Grading features
o Timeliness and frequency of feedback to students
o Use of statistical reports or analytics

10. Emergent Themes
• The Online Learning Experience
o Faculty awareness of their actions
o Assumptions on the part of all parties
o Clarity of expectations (both faculty and student)
o Faculty assumptions/perceptions of student patterns
of behavior
o Challenges and barriers for students
(e.g., deadlines, maintaining focus, motivation)

11. Questions Raised
• Questions raised by the preliminary research:
o How do personal experiences, traits, and the attitude of the
instructor impact the instructional approaches online?
o Do the personal values of faculty differ from what is
projected to students via course materials?
o How can faculty best create clarity in the organization of an
online course? (assignments, grading scheme, online
classroom, etc.) How is this impacted by experience as an
online student?
o How can faculty be more active in seeking engagement with
students, rather than passively expecting it to happen?
o How do learning analytics inform/impact engagement?

12. Contact Information
Jory Hadsell
Sacramento City College
jory.hadsell@scc.losrios.edu
@joryhadsell
Tracy Kent
CSU Sacramento
kentt@saclink.csus.edu

13. References
Angelino, L., Williams, F., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to
engage online students and reduce attrition rates. The Journal of
Educators Online, 4(2), 1-14.
Christian, G., & John, G. (2010). Interaction in Online Courses: More
is NOT Always Better. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 13(2).
Kosalka,K. (2001, August 10). Using synchronous tools to build
community in the asynchronous online classroom. Faculty
Focus. Retrieved from www.facultyfocus.com
Maki, R.H. & Maki, W.S. (2007). Online Courses. In F.T. Durso
(Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 527-552). New
York: Wiley & Sons, Ltd.