CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 233Online and Blended LearningHigher Education Research StudiesEducation during COVID-19 pandemic

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A balancing act: a window into online student engagement experiences

Open access
Farrell, Orna, Brunton, James·2020·International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
DOI 10.1186/s41239-020-00199-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article reports on a qualitative study which explored online student engagement experiences in a higher education institution. There are very few studies providing in-depth perspectives on the engagement experiences of online students. The project adopted a case study approach, following 24 online students over one academic year. The setting for the study was an undergraduate online Humanities programme at Dublin City University. The research question for the study was:What themes are central to online student engagement experiences?Data was collected from participant-generated learning portfolios and semi-structured interviews and analysed following a data-led thematic approach. The five central themes that make up the study’s findings highlight key issues of students’ sense of community, their support networks, balancing study with life, confidence, and their learning approaches. The findings of this study indicate that successful online student engagement was influenced by a number of psychosocial factors such as peer community, an engaging online teacher, and confidence and by structural factors such as lifeload and course design. One limitation of the study is that it is a relatively small, qualitative study, its findings provide insights into how online degrees can support online students to achieve successful and engaging learning experiences.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41239-020-00199-x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Frey, J. (2015). The importance of learning experience design for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.gettingsmart.com/2015/04/the-importance-of-learning-experience-design-for-higher-education/
  2. HEA (2012). Part-time and flexible higher education in Ireland. Dublin: HEA Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.dkit.ie/system/files/HEA%20Report%20on%20Lifelong%20Learning%202013.pdf.
  3. Higher Education Authority. (2016). Developing Talent,Changing Lives. An Evaluation of Springboard+, 2011–16. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://hea.ie/resource-year/2019/publications/https://hea.ie/resource-year/2019/publications/
  4. Higher Education Authority. (2018). Key Facts & Figures: Higher Education 2017/18. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://hea.ie/resource-year/2019/publications/https://hea.ie/resource-year/2019/publications/
  5. Nichols, M. (2011). Intervention for retention through distance education: A comparison study, Project output ed (). New Zealand: Aotearoa: National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.
  6. Quality matters (2019) Higher Ed. Standards. Accessed from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric.
  7. Young, C., & Perović, N. (2018). ABC Learning Design.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 233

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Farrell, O., & Brunton, J.
Affiliations
Dublin City University (IE)
Corresponding author
Farrell, Orna
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-04-29
Volume
17
Issue
1
ISSN
2365-9440 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s41239-020-00199-x
OpenAlex
W3029595525
Cited by
233
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 5
FWCI
53.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dublin City University Open Access Institutional Repository (Dublin City University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
Keywords
online student engagement, online learning, higher education, sense of community, peer support networks, student self-confidence, learning methods, course design, psychosocial factors, student portfolios

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review