Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Studies for the Learning Society

The Journal of Tallinn University, Department of Adult Education and Baltic Region Association for Research in Adult Education (BARAE)

1 Issue per year

Open Access

Open Access

Online community environment promoting engagement in higher education

Johanna Annala1 / Marita Mákinen1 / Páivi Svárd1 / Kirsi Silius1 / Thumas Miilumáki1

University of Tampere, Finland1

Tampere University of Technology, Finland2

This content is open access.
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Citation Information: Studies for the Learning Society. Volume 2, Issue 2-3, Pages 75–86, ISSN (Online) 1736-7107, ISSN (Print) 1736-7085, DOI: 10.2478/v10240-012-0007-0, May 2012

Publication History:
Published Online:
2012-05-11

Online community environment promoting engagement in higher education

This paper illustrates how university students describe the benefits and challenges of online community environment (OCE) in promoting engagement in university studies. The sociocultural framework allows gaining understanding of the engagement in learning processes as well as the collaborative dimensions of OCE in developing higher education in the 21th century. The study was conducted by using the method of empathy-based stories. The data were collected from two student groups representing samples of presumed forerunners of online and offline environments. The results revealed the importance of multidimensionality of engagement, with interaction among and between students and staff. OCE was seen beneficial in strengthening the sense of belonging to the university, in networking and in enhancing active citizenship. The students saw the academic and social world overlapping. OCE was not seen as an alternative but supplementary to offline community, being beneficial for learning and extracurricular activities. The results represent four overlapping spheres that reflect the potentials of OCE in enhancing engagement in studies: supportive reciprocity, collegial contribution, growth of expertise and shared direction. In order to enhance engagement in university studies via OCE, the results suggest that the focus should be on the sociocultural practices and pedagogical processes.

Keywords: engagement; higher education; online community environment; social software

  • Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affects and cognition in interest processes. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 5-20.

  • Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: four critical years revisited. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Barnett, R. & Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the curriculum in higher education, Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education.

  • Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved September 30, 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu./vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html http://jcmc.indiana.edu./vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

  • Bradshaw, P., Powell, S. & Terrell, I. (2005). Developing engagement in Ultralab's online communities of enquiry. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 42(3), 205-215.

  • Brown, C., Murphy, T. J. & Nanny, M. (2003). Turning techno-savvy into info-savvy: Authentically integrating information literacy into the college curriculum. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(6), 386-398.

  • Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. 6th edition. London: Routledge.

  • Costa, A. (1991). The search for intelligent life. In A. Costa (Ed.) Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Vol. 1, 100-106. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

  • Cranefield, J. & Yoong, P. (2009) Crossings. Embedding personal professional knowledge in a complex online community environment. Online Infromation Review, 33(2), 257-275.[Web of Science]

  • Donath, J. & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71.

  • Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook "friends": Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html

  • Eskola, A. (1988). Non-active role-playing: some experiences. In A. Eskola in collaboration with A. Khilström, D. Kivinen, K. Weckroth & O. Ylijoki (Eds.) Blind alleys in social psychology: a search for ways out. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 239-308.

  • Eskola, J. (1998). Eläytymismenetelmä sosiaalitutkimuksen tiedonhankintamenetelmänä. [The method of empathy-based stories as a method of acquiring data in social research]. Tampere: TAJU.

  • Ginsburg, G. P. (1978). Role-playing and role performance in social psychological research. In M. Brenner, P. Marsh & M. Brenner (eds.) The social contexts of method. London: Groomhelm, 91-121.

  • Haworth, J. & Conrad, C. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education: developing and sustaining high-quality programs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

  • Healey, M., Mason O'Connor, K. & Broadfoot, P. (2010). Reflections on engaging students in the process and product of strategy development for learning, teaching, and assessment: an institutional case study. International Journal of Academic Development, 15(1), 19-32.

  • Hu, S. & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555-575.

  • Kahn, P. (2009). On establishing a modus vivendi: the exercise of agency in decisions to participate or not to participate in higher education. London Review of Education, 7(3), 261-270.

  • Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Zin, T. T., & Reese, D. D. (2005). Community networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article 3. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/kavanaugh.html http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/kavanaugh.html

  • Kondracki, N., Wellman, N. & Amundson, D. (2002). Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 34(4), 224-230.

  • Krause, K-L. (2005). Engaged, inert or otherwise occupied? Deconstructing the twenty-first-century undergraduate student. Keynote paper at the Sharing Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students Symposium, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland.

  • Krause, K-L. (2007). Social involvement and commuter students: The first-year student voice. Journal of the First Year Experience and Students in Transition, 19(1), 27-45.

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004) Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National survey of student engagement: conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5-20.

  • Lea, M. R. & Jones, S. (2010). Digital literacies in higher education: exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education 36 (4), 377-393.[Web of Science]

  • McKavanagh, M., & Purnell, K. N. (2007). Student learning journey: Supporting student success through the student readiness questionnaire. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 4, 27-38.

  • Minocha, S. (2009). A case study-based investigation of students' experiences with social software tools. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15(3), 245-265.[Web of Science]

  • Mäkinen, M. & Annala, J. (2010). Meanings behind curriculum development in higher education. Prime, 4(2), 9-24.

  • Mäkinen, M. & Annala, J. (2011). Korkeakouluopintoihin kiinnittyminen asiantuntijaksi kasvun perustana. [Engagement in university studies] In M. Mäkinen, V. Korhonen, J. Annala, P. Svärd & V-M Värri (Eds.) Korkeajännityksiä. Kohti osallisuutta luovaa korkeakoulutusta. [Towards participatory higher education] Tampere: TUP, 59-80.

  • Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Preece, J. (2001). Online communities. Designing usability, supporting sociability. Originally publ. 2000. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Price, R., Becker, K., Clark, L. & Collins, S. (2011). Enbedding information literacy in a first-year business undergraduate course. Studies in Higher Education 36(6), 705-718.[Web of Science]

  • Purnell, K., McCarthy, R. & McLeod, M. (2010). Student success at university: using early profiling and interventions to support learning. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development 7(3), 77-86.

  • Rosson, M. B. & Carrol, J. M. (2002). Scenario-based design. Retreived March, 11, 2011 from http://www.lucas.lth.se/sepm/session1/SBD-handbook.pdf. Also in J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.). 2002. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Mahwah (NJ.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1032-1050. http://www.lucas.lth.se/sepm/session1/SBD-handbook.pdf

  • Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, P., Fitznor, L., Stensaker, B. & Steen, M. (2008). OECD reviews of tertiary education: New Zealand. OECD. Retriewed May, 15, 2011 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/52/38012419.pdf

  • Schroeder, S., Richter, T., McElvany, N., Hachfeld, A., Baumert, J., Schnotz, W., Horz, H. & Ullrich M. (2011). Teachers' beliefs, instructional behaviors, and students' engagement in learning from texts with instructional pictures. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 403-415.

  • Scott, G. (2005). Accessing the student voice: Final report. Sydney, NSW: University of Western Sydney.

  • Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making difference: A table of learning. Change, 23(6), 36-45.

  • Silius, K., Miilumäki, T., Huhtamäki, J., Tebest, T., Meriläinen, J. & Pohjolainen, P. (2010). Students' Motivations for Social Media Enhanced Studying and Learning. In Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), the Special Issue on "Technology Enhanced Learning".

  • Spiller. P. (2005). Teaching as a focussed conversation: The use of incentive-based preparation exercises, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(4), 305-312.

  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd Ed.). Chincago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Umbach, P. D. & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter. The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184.

  • van den Beemt, A., Akkerman, S. & Simons, R-J. (2011). Considering young people's motives for interactive media use. Educational Research Review, 6, 55-66.[Web of Science]

  • Wellman, B. (2002). Designing the Internet for a networked society: Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. Communications of the ACM, 45(5), 91-96.[CrossRef]

  • Yorke, P. & Knight, P. (2004). Self-theories: Some implications for teaching and learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 29(1), 25-37.

  • Zhao, C. & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.