Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
* Corresponding author

Article Main Content

New Zealand university students in the online learning environment may have feelings of disconnectedness, isolation, and suffer a lack of personal attention. Perhaps these universities are at a junction, where they can choose to offer students immersion into a virtual learning environment devoid of a physical presence, or a pathway which nurtures students’ learning in a hands-on, face-to-face, physical space.  Understanding student online connectedness, or their sense of belonging with the online virtual learning environment, may help navigate a path through this junction as the emergence of online remote learning becomes commonplace in New Zealand. This article suggests that universities should foster a virtual place of learning by developing an online social presence and promote open communication between faculty and students, and between students and their peers. Students are more likely to value online courses that foster a high degree of connectedness, and they are more likely to complete these courses. In this article, online student connectedness is defined and tools to measure it are described. Strategies to promote student connectedness in the online learning environment are suggested, for example, comprising social media and social networking sites which facilitate communication and increase social presence.

References

  1. Adedoyin, O.B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
     Google Scholar
  2. Allen, M., Omori, K., Cole, A. W., & Burrell, N. (2019). Distance learning and student satisfaction. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 122–132). New York: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  3. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student Interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27, 139–153. doi:10.1080/01587910600789498.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bolliger, D., & Inan, F. (2012). Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1171.
     Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S., Murphy, L., & Hammond, K. (2021). Learning management system adoption by academics: A perspective following the forced lockdown of NZ universities due to COVID-19 in 2020. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 25(2), 55–65.
     Google Scholar
  6. Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Carison, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004). Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the connected classroom climate inventory. Communication Research Reports, 21(3), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824 0904093599 88.
     Google Scholar
  7. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
     Google Scholar
  8. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001.
     Google Scholar
  9. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.
     Google Scholar
  10. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer- mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8–26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970.
     Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, D.I. (2009). Connected classroom climate: a validity study, Communication Research Reports, 26(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090902861622.
     Google Scholar
  12. Jorgenson, D.A., Farrell, L.C, Fudge, J.L., & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: the student perspective, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75–95. doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22371.
     Google Scholar
  13. Joshi, O., Chapagain, B., Kharel, G., Poudyal, N. C., Murray, B. D., & Mehmood, S. R. (2020). Benefits and challenges of online instruction in agriculture and natural resource education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1725896.
     Google Scholar
  14. Kaufmann, R., Sellnow, D.D., & Frisby, B.N. (2016). The development and validation of the online learning climate scale (OLCS), Communication Education, 65(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1101778.
     Google Scholar
  15. Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education, British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 763–777.
     Google Scholar
  16. MacLeod, J., Yang, H.A., & Shi, Y. (2019). Student‑to‑student connectedness in higher education: a systematic literature review. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09214-1.
     Google Scholar
  17. Ministry of Education (2022). https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/tertiary-participation#:~:text=Total%20participation,in%202021%20than%20in%202020.
     Google Scholar
  18. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68–88.
     Google Scholar
  19. Rovai, A. (2002). Sense of community perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332.
     Google Scholar
  20. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: a review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23 (1), 19–48.
     Google Scholar
  21. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster ‘‘epistemic engagement” and ‘‘cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52, 543–553.
     Google Scholar
  22. Shea, P., Li, C.S., & Pickett, A. (2006). Alexandra Pickett A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 175–190. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005.
     Google Scholar
  23. Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: An examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college classroom. Communication Education, 59, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903390867.
     Google Scholar
  24. Swan, K.P., Richardson,J.C., Ice, P., Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-mentor, 2(24), 1–12.
     Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2005). Community building, emergent design and expecting the unexpected: Creating a quality e-learning experience. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 233−249.
     Google Scholar
  26. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 220–232. doi:10.1111/jcal.12042.
     Google Scholar
  27. Zimmerman, T. & Nimon, K. (2017). The online student connectedness survey: evidence of initial construct validity. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2484.
     Google Scholar