Modifying the Student Course Engagement Questionnaire for Use with Online Courses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MODIFYING THE STUDENT COURSE ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR USE WITH ONLINE COURSES Mohd Azrin Mohd Nasir, Northern University of Malaysia (UUM) Timothy Janikowski, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Wendy Guyker, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Chia Chiang Wang, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to modify the Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ) for use in varied teaching settings, including online graduate courses. The SCEQ-M was administered to 276 students enrolled in a variety of graduate-level education and counseling courses during the Spring 2016 semester. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using Maximum Likelihood identified four dimensions in the modified scale: Applied Engagement, Goal-Oriented Engagement, Self-Discipline Engagement, and Interactive Engagement. The SCEQ-M scores showed good internal consistency reliabilities ranging from .71 to .81. This study found that this instrument may be used to compare student engagement styles and suggests that instructors should seek to improve student engagement to better match engagement style to type of course. Other findings and implications for future research are also discussed. Keywords: student course engagement; factor analysis; online and on-campus instruction; graduate education INTRODUCTION percent increase in the number of online students Face-to-face instruction delivered in on-campus is evidence of the rise of online learning” (p. 4). classrooms has a long tradition in higher education, The reasons for the increase in online especially in graduate-level education where instruction include economic downturn, changes to immediate and direct interaction between students budget structures in higher education, and the cost- and faculty is considered to be the centerpiece of effectiveness of online education in comparison to student learning. With ubiquitous and affordable traditional courses (Cowen & Tabarrok, 2014). The access to the internet, however, college instruction pressure for more cost-effective and flexible modes is increasingly being delivered “at a distance” of course delivery creates an increased interest in in online courses that may or may not be live or determining how online education compares to synchronous. The growth of both synchronous traditional in-classroom education. and asynchronous online instruction continues at Comparing Online and On-Campus Courses an increasing rate (Rockinson-Szapkiw, Wendt, Dickinson (2017) argued that there is a need Wighting, & Nisbet, 2016). Online modules and for research examining the effectiveness of online full courses are now commonplace, with a growing courses. A review of the literature indicates that number of universities implementing fully online comparisons between online and traditional in- degree programs. From 2013 to 2014, Allen and classroom learning have not produced consistent Seaman (2016) stated “the number of distance results across studies. For example, a number of students at both undergraduate and graduate level studies found that student performance in on- increased steadily each year. A year-to-year 3.9 campus and online courses is similar. Cummings, JOURNAL OF EDUCATORS ONLINE Chaffin, and Cockerham (2015) compared Master campus students. Online students appeared to have of Social Work programs that offered both online a wider range of life and work experience, and they and in-classroom instruction and found that practiced better analytical skills than in-classroom students performed equally well on knowledge students. attainment, skills development, satisfaction, and Young and Duncan (2014) found that students self-efficacy, regardless of the type of delivery in an online course were less satisfied with the model. Mollenkopf, Vu, Crow, and Black (2017) instructor’s teaching effectiveness than those in also found that graduate students enrolled in traditional courses. Specifically, students in the either online or traditional courses in childhood online version expressed dissatisfaction with teacher education performed equally well on the communication, faculty-student interaction, learning outcomes. grading, instructional methods, and course Regarding practice-based courses, Kissau outcomes. Online students believed that they worked (2015) reported that both online and in-classroom harder, had a higher workload, and experienced graduate students of language education performed more difficulty due to working in an asynchronous equally well on their teaching performance in their learning environment. Kuo, Walker, Schroder, and internships. Regardless of how students learned Belland (2014) assessed course satisfaction among to teach (traditional vs online), teacher candidates students in online courses and found that it varied were able to demonstrate appropriate instruction depending upon the subject matter; learner-content strategies, class management skills, and rapport interaction was the strongest predictor of the with students. students’ course satisfaction. In a recent study, Page and Cherry (2018) Student Course Engagement found that graduate students in an organizational Focusing on student engagement may provide leadership program performed equally well in useful information regarding the effectiveness of online and in classroom settings. In addition, the instruction, whether it takes place in the traditional results reported that both groups were identical in classroom or online. Research on college students’ terms of student performance, consistency of course engagement with their educational experiences structure and instructions, and faculty-student has found that educational outcomes are strongly engagement. Stack (2015) found that graduate influenced by the level and type of student students in online and in-classroom criminological engagement. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), theory courses demonstrated similar results in in an early summative report of college student student perceptions of instruction and learning engagement, concluded that greater college student outcomes (i.e., final grades). involvement, or engagement in academic work, Other researchers, however, have found produced concomitant increases in knowledge differences between on-campus and online acquisition and cognitive development. The courses. Soffer and Nachmias (2018) found that National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) students enrolled in online courses reported a reached a similar and more recent conclusion, better understanding of the course structure, stating that “ . the voluminous research on communication, lessons watched, engagement, college student development shows that the time satisfaction, and learning outcomes (final grades and energy students devote to educationally and completion rate) than did those in comparable purposeful activities is the single best predictor of on-campus courses. their learning and personal development” (Kuh, Ortega-Maldonado, Llorens, Acosta, and 2009, p. 1). Coo (2017) examined differences and similarities Handlesman, Briggs, Sullivan, and Towler between on-campus and online students in (2005) believed that research into student graduate programs. They found that online engagement at the college level tended to be at the students possessed higher levels of knowledge, “macro-level” that examined collegewide programs competence, and work self-efficacy beliefs than and practices and characterized engagement those in on-campus courses. Also, the results noted more globally (e.g., overall campus environment that the majority of online students were older and or climate) rather than examining the students’ were more likely to have full-time jobs than the on- engagement with their individual coursework JOURNAL OF EDUCATORS ONLINE experience. Therefore, Handlesman et al. (2005) The graduate students were enrolled in courses developed the Student Course Engagement offered by four departments offering majors in Questionnaire (SCEQ) for use at the “micro-level,” counseling, educational leadership, learning and which they described as “ . what happens in instruction, and library and information sciences. and immediately surrounding class” (p. 186). The Initially 1,244 graduate students were contacted rationale for examining student engagement at the via an email sent through the GSE student listserv. course level is that faculty have the most influence An email explaining the study was sent to on student learning in the context of their courses. all GSE students via the student listserv for the Further, student engagement with classes may vary purpose of recruitment, and reminder emails were from class to class and within each class over time sent three times following the initial recruitment in any given course. email. The recruitment emails contained a link to a The SCEQ is a 23-item instrument designed for Survey Monkey web page that was used to obtain use in traditional, on-campus courses measuring consent, administer the SCEQ-M, and obtain four dimensions of college student engagement: participant demographic information. Students a) skills engagement, b) participation/interaction were told to self-select one GSE course that they engagement, c) emotional engagement, and d) completed during the Spring 2016 semester performance engagement (Handelsman et al., and to use that course in reference to all of their 2005). The SCEQ demonstrated good internal responses. Participation was anonymous, and those consistency across the four engagement