Promoting Student Participation

Strategies to Promote Student Participation in Distance Education

Esther R. Garrison
Purdue University
EDCI 513

Promoting Student Participation

Abstract:
It is clear that the learning environment is expanding to cyberspace, with more and more students
opting to take online courses in place of the traditional classroom setting. With this shift come
many questions regarding the engagement and participation of students at a distance. There is
conjecture on if and how students actively participate in the online curriculum. This brings up
the question of how online programs are being designed to meet the needs of students regarding
the quality engagement and interaction. Firstly, a definition of student participation and
engagement will be established, allowing all discussion to point back to the true purpose of the
paper. Also discussed will be the importance of student participation on student achievement, and
why discussing this at the beginning will give more meaning to the interest in improving students
participation online. This paper will seek to demonstrate the factors effecting student
participation, allowing the understanding of these influences to better inspire instructional
strategies that would improve overall student involvement and, thus, achievement.

Promoting Student Participation

Defining participation and engagement
Student interaction with other students, with the teacher, and with the content in online education
is considered to be one of the major elements in performance and learning (Choi, Jung, Leem, &
Lim, 2002). This is the soul of participation and engagement in web-based instruction (WBI).
Participation does not merely refer to completing assignments, which holds true in both the
traditional classroom as well as distance education.
Furthermore, there are various forms of participation and engagement within WBI. As listed
above, the student interacts in three distinct ways: student-student, student-teacher, and studentcontent (Choi et al, 2002). Engagement can occur collaboratively with others through projects or
group assignments, as well as asynchronously and synchronously through discussion boards or
chatting, respectively.
Therefore, student participation and engagement should be understood as an interaction and
collaboration between learners, educators, and the content.

Effects of participation on student achievement

The next area that seems natural to explore is participation and its effects on student
achievement. The goal of instruction is to improve student performance, whether in an
educational environment or faculty training within industry and business. There is a natural
bridge between the quantity of student participation and the level of achievement attained by the
student.
A study sought out to determine whether participation in online education could produce tangible
benefits to student achievement (Davies & Graff, 2005). The co-authors found that there is a
direct proportional relationship between student participation (usage of Blackboard) and student

Promoting Student Participation

achievement (module grade). Below is a data table showing the various courses offered, the
grade group achieved by students, and the usage of Blackboard (showing participation).

Grade
group
High
Medium
Low
Failed

EB1S01

EB1S02

EB1S03

EB1S04

EB1S05

EB1S06

57.64
67.52
43.57
23.96
p < 0.001

61.78
62.96
40.93
25.05
p < 0.001

56.21
52.27
45.05
14.18
p < 0.001

62.1
60.19
43.15
22.31
p < 0.001

50.9
41.65
32.07
11.56
p < 0.001

50.29
49.47
42.82
29.65
p = 0.007

Table 2: Mean ranks for total "blackboard" usage per grade grouping
From Davies, J. & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in E-Learning: Online performance and grades.
British Journal of Educational Technology. 36(4), 657-663.

Research conducted by Davies and Graff (2005) helped to enlighten professionals in the
distance-learning field in a quantitative format. They were able to discover that failing online
modules could be directly linked to amount of interaction with the online LMS, such as
Blackboard. The research did, however, bring up more interesting questions regarding the
quality of interaction and student achievement. In their conclusion Davies and Graff (2005)
state:
Participation in online discussion forums serves a dual purpose: to improve learning and
to provide support. It may, therefore, be the case that factors such as the frequency of the
interactions are likely to be more important in providing support, whereas quality and
dynamics of the interactions may be the more important inuencing factors in learning
and performance. (p. 663)

It is clear that student thinking and learning is not established by the student simply being present
physically or, in WBI, being present online. There must be another level of interaction as

Promoting Student Participation

discussed in the introduction, defining what student participation truly means in the distance
learning format.
Now that it is conclusive that participation has an effect on student achievement, the next matter
to explore is what factors influence the quality of student engagement and participation, and
what strategies instructional designers as well as educators can use to improve this interaction.

Factors that influence student participation and engagement

In the classroom setting it is easier for an instructor to arouse student interaction than it can be in
the online classroom. Major concerns at the onset of online instruction was that students would
be simply fed information and knowledge without having any interaction with other students,
instructors, or even the content. Instructional designers have been challenged to weave discourse
and discussion into the online classroom in order to promote collaboration and higher-order
thinking (Bullen, 1998).
Bullen (1998), after conducting a case study with computer-conferencing technology (which is
now like any online learning management system such as Blackboard), was able to recognize
factors influencing student stimulation and participation. Another study was done with graduate
students by co-authors Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005) who also give insight into what
influences students quality of participation online. In the discussions below, factors picked up
through research by both case studies are presented and represented accordingly.
Information overload was a factor sensed in both case studies. Students would feel overwhelmed
by the constant posting on one, linear discussion thread and being responsible for reading every
other students posts as well as reflecting on chosen ones. This was seen as time consuming and
stressful (Vonderwell & Zachariah, 2005, p. 222).

Promoting Student Participation

Another factor seen to influence student participation in online instruction was, appropriately, the
use of technology and the interface features. Level of participation was seen to connect in
Vonderwell and Zachariahs (2005) study with the students previous experience with online
classes. Students in one group who have taken online courses before were able to post more
intriguing reflections on the discussion boards, allowing for more discourse and participation.
They also found that the students who did not have previous experience in online courses, or
maybe not as much as the other group, felt disoriented and confused (Vonderwell &
Zachariah, 2005, p. 218-19). However students in Bullens study (1998) felt the discussion
boards and discourse encouraged their participation. Strategies in best use of discussion boards
will be looked at further on, as it is a vital feature of online instruction.
Lastly, students felt more apt to participate online when given roles or specific tasks to complete.
As Bullen (1998) noted from critics in his work, online instruction would need to seek out ways
to lessen the structure and heighten the amount of discourse. However students in Vonderwell
and Zachariahs study (2005) felt that they would be able to discuss more fluidly and freely if
they were given a function and position within the topic. It looks as though given students
structure within dialogue settings can lead to more participation.
Having more knowledge regarding the influences on student participation can lead instructional
designers on the right path of developing online programs and interfaces that successfully
improves student participation online.

Strategies to promote participation

There seemed to be a theme regarding one aspect of online instruction that seemed to positively
and negatively affect student participation: discussion boards.

Promoting Student Participation

Discussion boards and discourse tend to be where students lack the energy and passion to
participate effectively. Its also the area where students can have the most remarkable moments
in learning. Students in the study conducted by Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005) favored a
discussion board strategy that involves multiple threads rather than the traditional single thread.
Here instructional designers are able to eliminate the overwhelming feeling many students felt
when trying to keep up with all of the posts on one thread. Vonderwell and Zacharias (2005)
quoted one student, Dawn, saying, It [opening multiple threads] seemed to make the discussion
more friendly and easier to contribute to. (p. 219).
In 2005 an in situ case study was conducted to find out how the development of asynchronous
discussion activities could improve the quality of student participation. Dennen (2005) was able
to discover that instructors that fully incorporated discussion boards into their online curricula
saw not only a high quantity in student participation but also a higher quality in the discourse.
Dennen (2005) also points out that without clarity in the objective of the discussion boards, or
simply an objective, there is a little progress and participation. This can help learners keep on
track and not stray from the topic at hand (Beaudin, 1999). Beaudin (1999) proposes that
students feel more connected to their content (interaction=participation) when discussion
questions are intentionally designed for the topic being discussed. It seems safe to assert that it
would be a poor instructional design to give students general discussion boards to reflect and
communicate through.
Outside of discussion boards there are other online activities that require quality student
participation. Another strategy to get students engaged intellectually is posed by Dimitrov
(2011), a professor in Bulgaria. He recommends the use of real-life or hypothetical scenarios to
get students to think critically about the information being presented. It allows students to

Promoting Student Participation

collaborate and have an opportunity to learn by doing rather than the typical hand-fed
learning done online. Dr. Salmon (2002) asserts in her book that students who are actively
involved in their learning will demonstrate higher performance. She came up with the term Etivities, which refers to educational online activities, and a five-step model that supplies wisdom
and concepts to both novice and expert online instructors.

Dr. Salmons 5-Step Model (2000)

http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/4/2/172/htm

To close this section it would be a mistake not to include an instructional design that has truly
risen to the need of online instruction. The Khan Academy is an online school of sorts, allowing
anyone at any level of intellect to search the academys videos that range from nuclear
engineering down to simple math and science concepts. One main element that draws students
from all over to the Khan Academy is the immense library of videos. As Taton (2011) elaborates
in his overview of Khan Academy, Khan attempts to provoke a participatory culture involving
knowledge-sharing among students (p. 13).

Promoting Student Participation

Closing remarks
Student participation and interaction in the distance learning setting is a key feature of distance
learning, if not an essential feature. In order for students to succeed in an online learning
environment, instructors must create an environment that will stimulate student interaction with
other students, with themselves as the instructors, and with the content being taught. Students are
also held more responsible for their efforts put into learning and communication throughout the
course (Ekhalm & Roblyer, 2000). Below is a compiled list of successful strategies to improve
student participation:

Multiple thread discussions to reduce information overload

Incorporating discussion boards throughout the entire course semester

Using intentionally designed questions and guidelines for students in discussion boards
allows for student responses to be focused and unique

Giving students an opportunity to discuss or take a part in a scenario involving their

content

Structuring a course to involve videos, self-practice, and a self-paced framework so that

the students are the leaders in their learning

Using resources that evaluate an instructors level of interactive online activities for
students

Promoting Student Participation

References
Beaudin, B. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41-53.
http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v3n2/keeping-online-asynchronous-discussion-topic
Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critically thinking in online university distance
education. International Journal of E-learning and Distance Education. 13(2), 1-32.
http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/140/394

Choi, S., Jung, I., Leem, J., & Lim, C. (2002). effects of different types of
interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based
instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Davies, J. & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: online performance and
grades. British Journal of Educational Technology. 36(4), 657-663.
http://www.elsinnet.org.uk/research/mgg_files/BJET2005.pdf

Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors

affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1),
127-148. DOI: 10.1080/01587910500081376

Dimitrov, Boris B. (2011). Scientific provocation as a method for stimulating the

participation of distance learning students. Marketing and Management of Innovations,

Promoting Student Participation

2(3), 15-20.
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/

Ekhaml, L. & Roblyer, M. D. (2000). How interactive are your distance courses? A rubric for
assessing interaction in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 3(2)
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/roblyer32.html

Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning, London: Kogan Page.

Taton, J. (2011). Its school organized like a giant video game: Participation structures
embedded within the mathematics content and curriculum of Khan Academy. Working
Papers in Educational Linguistics, 26(2), 7-42.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/wpel/sites/gse.upenn.edu.wpel/files/vol26no2Taton.pdf

Vonderwell, S. & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online

learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213-230.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ728902.pdf

Promoting Student Participation