Topic 4 more so than any of the previous topics in ONL211 shifted my reflections out of the realm of the theoretical and the abstract and planted them firmly into reality. For, as fate would have it, during our first PBL meetings on the topic, I received the following email from the director of studies at my department: “For the autumn, we can plan for on-site teaching but be prepared for continued online teaching or a hybrid model, depending on restrictions.” It also just so happens that I will teach in two courses in the autumn semester. Given how long the pandemic has been raging, this will be the second year that we offer these courses online, the benefit of which being that I have the student evaluations from last year to guide my planning. But, since I am not the course convenor and also share time with other lecturers, I am not in a position to re-design courses from the ground up. So, in true ONL-style, I decided to apply the FISh model to my scenario.

Focussing on the problem at hand I identified difficulties surrounding communication and engagement as the most common source of frustration amongst my students. They sought additional instructions around their assignments and stressed a lack of clarity regarding what was expected of them. Moreover, they felt disconnected from their peers and missed tasks that called for smaller-group interactions. This seemed to resonate with what literature was suggesting, that the “key to successful learning at this point [during the pandemic] is the ongoing connectivity of students with the content of their courses, their peers, and their teaching teams. Being present in synchronous chats, asynchronous forums, on the phone, email, or carrier pigeon is key to keeping students engaged, and this will go a long way to reducing student attrition.” (Redmond & Brown, 2020). This made complete sense to me, having found a new appreciation for those minutes before and after class where students could approach me to informally ask clarifying questions, or allowing students to take a few minutes to talk amongst themselves during a lecture. So I set out to investigate more strategies to be present in my online teaching practice.

The Community of Inquiry theoretical framework for engagement in higher education was a useful point of departure as it encompassed three interconnected “presences”: (1) teaching presence – the role of the facilitator, (2) social presence – the interaction and collaboration between peers including community building and belonging, developing relationships, and establishing trust, and (3) cognitive presence – developing academic engagement through critical thinking and active metacognition: Here, I found many actionable suggestions of how to apply the community of inquiry framework, many of which I plan to implement /improve in my own practice going forward. Some of my favorites include:

1. Start with the end in mind. Clearly communicate to students what they will learn in class.
2. Provide clear expectations on how students can reach you both synchronously (office hours) and asynchronously (email, text, etc.)
3. Have students post profiles or introductory videos of themselves and their interests.
4. Model posting and responding on discussion forums and in-class activities.
5. Have students lead discussions, encouraging multiple perspectives.
6. Develop group work where students work as teams.
7. Use audio and video for feedback on student assignments (In topic 3 our PBL group used Flipgrid for this to great effect – username ONL211 to view).

Equally useful and somewhat overlapping with the CoI is the Redmond et al (2018) Online Engagement Framework (figure below) which adds the dimensions of emotional and collaborative engagement as critical for online learning environments. Respectively, this broadly encompasses managing expectations while reflecting on motivations and assumptions vis-à-vis learning; and learning with peers, and establishing networks and communities of support.

Source: Redmond et al 2008, p. 189.

With these practical tools in hand and solid frameworks for critical reflection, I feel better equipped to not only adopt engagement practices myself but also promote student engagement in my classroom – be it face-to-face, virtual, or hybrid.

Center for Teaching Excellence. ‘Applying the Community of Inquiry <https://cte.virginia.edu/resources/applying-community-inquiry-framework> [accessed 18 May 2021]

Community of Inquiry. ‘CoI Framework’ <https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/> [accessed 18 May 2021]

Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175

Redmond, P., & Brown, A. (2020). Online Learning and Teaching: Thinking beyond the technology to student engagement. ASCILITE TELall Blog’ <https://blog.ascilite.org/online-learning-and-teaching-thinking-beyond-the-technology-to-student-engagement/> [accessed 16 May 2021]