Beyond the Screen: Fostering an Inclusive and Connected Environment for Online Students

Introduction

The advancement of technology in today’s modern world has not only significantly expanded societies and made the world more connected; it has also exposed numerous opportunity areas that require further development to improve the way in which groups communicate and function. Leadership is a crucial component in responding to the need for improvements in any context, as it is associated with movement into the future, finding opportunities that are often unexpected, and successfully repurposing those opportunities in a beneficial way. Leadership involves vision, buy-in, empowerment and producing useful change. Contrary to popular belief, leadership has less to do with attributes, and more to do with behavior (Kotter, 2013).

Leadership in higher education is currently in an interesting period, with the advent of the aforementioned technological advances affecting the landscape of post-secondary education. The issue of online learning is perhaps the most important facing higher education as individual institutions and as an industry in the past 100 years. Through a restructuring of the way media is delivered, institutions are able to become much more aligned with the corporate world, delivering courses ‘anytime, anywhere,’ and start to fundamentally alter the sense of community for which institutions have been famous in past years (Miller and Lu, 2003).

This paper will explore the ways in which existing literature frames the current state and issues of community engagement among online students. This literature review will seek to add to the discussion around the various ways in which leadership at institutions of higher education can foster a more inclusive environment for online students that makes them feel connected and engaged. It will also conclude with recommendations for future research and implications for those in positions of leadership using the context of various leadership theories and approaches.

Literature Review Themes

When viewed as an equation, this topic can be presented as: “technology plus pedagogy equals student experience.” Thus, in order to analyze the various literature on this topic, three themes will be used as a framework: (1) pedagogical; (2) technological; and (3) socioemotional. The pedagogical lens relates to the ways in which the method and practice of instruction affects community development among online students. The technological approach addresses the various online tools that can be utilized to foster a more connected virtual community (both among themselves and with the onsite campus community). Finally, the socioemotional view explores how online students’ emotions and relationships with society influence their state of connectedness within their respective institutions.

Theme: Pedagogical Lens

Online learning has disrupted the standardized norm of education. While there are still many physically enclosed campuses throughout the United States, there is certainly a shift towards academic connectivity and access to education regardless of a student’s physical location. This has altered the method and practice of instruction among faculty.

One of the biggest obstacles that instructors face upon designing and implementing online courses is to “provide a sense of community with constructive feedback and provide open forthcoming communications as well as recognizing membership and feelings of friendship, cohesion, and satisfaction among learners” (Boling et al, 2012). Online programs where instructors and students are “socially present” (Wallace, 2003) are key to developing a sense of learning community among students. Some of the existing challenges to building this community are an unstable state of motivation, difficulties accessing support services, a perception of insufficient feedback from and contact with faculty, isolation from classmates and a perpetual feeling of being left alone to navigate the learning journey (Galusha, 2001). In order to promote engagement, Helen Farley (2014) argues that it is necessary to generate immersion, which is “the subjective impression that one is present and participating in a comprehensive, realistic experience.” Online students feel like most courses are too teacher-driven and inauthentic (Boling et al, 2012).

Furthermore, because student affairs professionals primarily receive their graduate-level in onsite delivery methods, those who will professionally be responsible for integrating online students into their respective campus communities are not familiar enough with how to leverage technology efficiently as a tool to do this (Kretovics, 2003). Miller and Lu (2003) posit that the approach to online learning must be intentional, well-informed, respectful of intellectual knowledge, and must find a way to incorporate a different sense of knowledge capacity and management. With this in mind, faculty and distance program managers (with the help of student affairs professionals positioned as "community building experts") should approach the design of virtual communities in a way that makes them conducive and adaptable to all learning styles (Kretovics, 2003). A “one-size-fits-all” approach is unrealistic and unsustainable, as online students possess varying levels of strengths and capabilities, along with varied impairments affecting the way they interact with web-based services (Hollins, 2012).

The enthusiasm of leaders also greatly impacts the online students’ perception of their community as being activated and engaging. The leader’s enthusiasm is essential, regardless of whether the leader is formally designated as such. Leaders’ enthusiasm towards the online classroom experience is expected to help virtual community members feel a greater sense of belonging among themselves (Koh et al, 2003).

When considering ways to engage nontraditional students (or adult learners), there needs to be a substantial institutional commitment to their inclusion that goes beyond connecting them with instructors and peer learners, but also with the academic environment and professional community at large. Adult learners are likely to feel overwhelmed by online learning environments (specifically the expectations and associated lifestyle changes) and need to be provided with robust and comprehensive instructional support systems to scaffold their learning through the first year of their degree programs, at the very least. Online programs should integrate workplace-related considerations and career development opportunities so adult learners are fully engaged throughout their studies (Yoo and Huang, 2013).

Theme: Technological Lens

Because the common denominator that exists on this topic is technology and how it characterizes the student population in question, technology itself is an important lens to consider in developing leadership around building community among and with online students.

Texting (Boling et al, 2012) and utilizing Twitter as a means of communicating with fellow students have the potential to increase overall academic and social integration for networking and relationship building. While some may argue that cellular phones and social media are inappropriate technological tools to be used in an academic setting, Cabellon and Junco (2015) advocate for a “youth-normative perspective,” a viewpoint wherein the youth is in the center and approaches and beliefs are structured based on information from youth themselves. For example, by the time college students arrive at college, they have already received adult-normative messages reinforcing the notion that a normal part of their existence -- their use of social media -- is wrong.

Robust college websites enable student affairs divisions to customize the student's virtual experience of the campus by providing opportunities for students to access services, receive updates on current events, chat with peers, and access their virtual classes from a single point of entry. Kretovics (2003) refers to this "one stop" technology as the overarching difference between a distance program and a virtual community. However, Kretovics also argues that simply putting services on the web does not create a community, and that the next step is to actually use technology in a way that develops a campus community on the campus, both physically and virtually.

Theme: Socioemotional Lens

The third and final lens used to examine the existing literature on online student communities is the socioemotional lens, because it specifically relates to the student piece of the equation (with technology and pedagogy being the other two factors).

Koh, Kim, and Kim (2003) reference McMillan and Chavis’s Sense of Community Theory (1986), which frames a sense of community as having four elements: (1) Members experience feelings of belonging; (2) People feel they can make a difference; (3) Members believe that the resources available in their community will meet their needs; and (4) Members establish emotional connection to share history, time, places, and experiences. Using this theory as a framework is important because it provides insight to what students require in order to feel like part of a community.

In order to mediate sentiments of alienation that may arise among online students, Workman and Stenard (1996) suggest providing services that “clarify regulations, build self-esteem, improve campus identity, create opportunities for interpersonal contacts, and provide easy access to learning support services.” Alienation in online communities requires attention because it can potentially lead to low student achievement and student attrition (Rovai and Wighting, 2005).

It is also crucial to acknowledge and discuss the concept of “emotion” as an integral part of learning, and in online environments where voice and facial expressions in asynchronous learning formats are absent, it is challenging to build a sense of community (Cleveland-Innes and Campbell, 2012). To address this, instructors are encouraged to establish learning situations that arouse the learner’s feelings of security, well-being, and self-confidence. Of equal importance is the need to challenge students without threats, intimidation, or pressure (Weiss, 2000).

Another layer within this theme is how the literature positions online learning community- building alongside the topic of race. African Americans reported having experienced more online racial discrimination and online stress, and had a significantly more negative view of campus racial climate. Regardless of ethnicity, online victimization resulted in negative perceptions of the racial climate, with this relationship being more pronounced for African Americans (Tynes et al, 2013). It is important for institutional leadership to increase the sense of community among minority students in a predominately White online learning environment to form strong classroom communities that can lessen feelings of alienation and can promote high achievement and persistence among all students (Rovai and Wighting, 2005).

Links and Limitations

There are several overlaps among the literature included in this review. All of them certainly are grounded in the uniformed desire to advance the effectiveness and efficiency of online learning communities to meet academic learning outcomes, but not all the articles take on an approach that is student development-focused. There are instances when an individual article contains valuable insight to the discussion that can be examined through more than one of the three themes presented as a framework for the literature review.

The overlap between the pedagogical and the technological lenses are very evident in Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences (Boling et al., 2012). This article directly relates the two fundamental pieces of online education (technology and teaching) through a qualitative research study that examined course content, tasks, and pedagogical approaches, which either contributed to or hindered positive online learning experiences. Technological tools and activities that promoted social exchanges among students were cited by students as their most favorite aspect of their online course, while learning through rote memorization and participating in group activities that had the potential to negatively impact their individual grades based on their group mates’ lack of involvement were identified as being their least favorite aspect. This article in particular best conveys the connection between pedagogy and technology, as it relates to fostering an engaged online community.

The digital age of student affairs (Cabellon and Junco, 2015) explores the overlaps between the technological and socioemotional lenses. In the article, the student is referred to as “the contemporary student” who requires an intentional level of digital and social technology education and training in order to be adequately prepared for citizenship in the digital age. The authors suggest that online identity development “expands and complements traditional student development theory,” and that this online identity development must be incorporated into the student experience through programs and services such as digital identity conversations at leadership programs and new student orientation, student employment training, and career development programming. This article challenges the traditional model of student affairs (face-to-face interaction) and introduces a concept known as “Student Affairs 2.0” (screen-to-screen interaction), and the implications for practitioners. It also specifically highlights technological tools like Twitter, which displayed evidence of supporting students’ academic engagement and psychosocial development.

The article that displayed significant overlaps that spanned all three lenses (pedagogical, technological, and socioemotional) is The role of student affairs in distance education: Cyber-services or virtual communities (Kretovics, 2003). A comprehensive exploration of all three lenses framed this literature and presented four key areas for student affairs professionals to address: (1) the provision of services; (2) the creation of community; (3) the oversight of campus-wide distance education; and (4) graduate preparation program involvement. Much focus is given to the effort around ensuring that student services provided are not merely accessible to online students, but that they are also integrated with one another. Kretovics identified the four basic competencies needed by student affairs professionals: (1) systems thinking, (2) facilitation, (3) technology, and (4) assessment. In tandem, these four skill sets provide a deeper understanding of who online students are, what their expectations and developmental needs are, and the benefits afforded to them by participating in online education.

Despite the presence of links within the literature pieces reviewed, there are also some existing gaps.

While the purpose of this literature review is to explore strategies for building a connected online community, most of the articles discuss the issue from the perspective of improving engagement primarily from an academic perspective: How are online students performing academically in the classroom? There is a gap in research and literature that goes beyond student success strategies beyond the virtual classroom and into the virtual campus.

Moreover, much of the literature focuses on the tools and strategies that faculty can use to teach online students more effectively. The current state of the literature on this topic mostly frames faculty as the leaders charged with making these changes, when, in fact, there needs to be a more formally recognized and accepted institution-wide commitment to addressing online community-building. Further research should explore what other leadership positions (beyond the faculty) have a stake in integrating online students into the fabric of the whole institution.

Another limitation in the literature is the lack of perspective from on-campus students. The goal of building a more engaged community is to build one wherein all students, whether they are on-campus or off-campus, feel included. Collecting feedback from on-campus students and integrating them in the conversation about what strengthens their sense of belonging may provide insights on what can be leveraged and repurposed to meet the needs of making online students feel that same sense of belonging. There is an opportunity to explore current interaction trends between on-campus and off-campus students, and the former’s perceptions of the latter.

Recommendations in the Context of Leadership Theories and Approaches

Conduct an assessment of online education, focusing on levels of student engagement both in and out of the class“room.” Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership approach operates under the notion that different situations require different kinds of leadership, and in order to determine what is needed in a particular situation, leaders must first evaluate their followers and assess how competent and committed the followers are to perform a given goal. This approach will enable leaders to diagnose the level of support needed, and provide either directive behaviors or supportive behaviors (Northouse, 2016).

Pilot opportunities for institutional leadership to build relationships with online students through live Twitter or Skype chats, live-streamed speeches, etc. This recommendation is guided by Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), which positions leadership as a process that is centered on interactions between leaders and followers, making the relationship between the two sides the focal point. LMX theory recognizes the existence of in-groups and out-groups within a group or an organization. In this case, it is a useful instrument in acknowledging on-campus students as the in-group and off-campus/online students as the out-group. High-quality LMX produces “less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater organizational commitment, more desirable work assignments, better job attitudes, more attention and support from the leader, greater participation” (Northouse, 2016).

Invest in more faculty and staff training and create collaborative taskforces that address how technology and social media can be used to better serve online students both academically and socially. Technology and social media are often seen as unwelcome guests in the academic environment, given the adult-normative view on their usage in daily life. Adaptive leadership mobilizes, motivates, organizes, orients, and focuses the attention of others (Heifetz, 1994) to help others explore and change their values so they may do well and grow. By utilizing this practice, institutional leaders are not the ones necessarily solving the inefficiencies of faculty and staff in using technology and social media, but rather empowering them to understand how they can be using these tools to their advantage and ultimately benefit the student (Northouse, 2016).

Articulate an institution-wide commitment to elevating online student engagement initiatives by including it as a strategic priority area of the institution. Online student engagement should move away from a philosophy of intervention, and move towards one of integration. The culture of institutions needs to be transformed to meet the inevitability of an online student population that outnumbers on-campus students. A transformational leadership approach recognizes leaders as “change agents” who are good role models with an ability to develop and articulate a clear vision, empower followers to meet higher standards, act in ways that make others want to trust them, and give meaning to organizational life (Northouse, 2016). This leadership approach is necessary for leaders at higher education institutions to be able to drastically affect a culture shift.

Conclusion

While college students certainly pursue higher education to gain academic knowledge, they are significantly shaped by their social experiences at college. The contemporary student is ever-evolving, and in today’s modern world where technology has advanced the way the world works, institutions of higher education must respond to the need to equip online students with a community that transcends their academic experience and ensures their inclusion in the campus-wide narrative. Institutional leadership has an obligation to respond to the changing education market, assess the needs of all students, and facilitate strategies that foster inclusive and connected environments for online students that allow them to experience a college education that goes “beyond the screen.”

References

Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in

distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126.

Cabellon, E. T., & Junco, R. (2015). The digital age of student affairs. New directions for student

services, 2015(151), 49-61.

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online

learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 269-292.

Farley, H. (2014). Virtual worlds in higher education: The challenges, expectations and delivery.

In Curriculum Models for the 21st Century (pp. 325-349). Springer New York.

Galusha, J. J. (2001). Barriers to learning in distance education. University of Southern

Mississippi.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Hollins, N. L. (2012). Learning disabilities and the virtual college campus: A grounded theory of accessibility (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University).

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969a). Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and

Development Journal, 23, 26–34.

Koh, J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework

and empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-94.

Kotter, J. P. (2013). Management is (still) not leadership. Harvard Business Review, 9.

Kretovics, M. (2003). The role of student affairs in distance education: Cyber-services or virtual

communities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of community psychology, 14(1), 6-23.

Miller, M., & Lu, M. Y. (2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments:

Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 163-169.

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th Edition). Washington, D.C.: Sage.

Rovai, A. P., & Wighting, M. J. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher

education students in a virtual classroom. The Internet and higher education, 8(2), 97-110.

Tynes, B. M., Rose, C. A., & Markoe, S. L. (2013). Extending campus life to the Internet: Social

media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(2), 102.

Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions

among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241-280.

Weiss, R. P. (2000). Emotion and learning. Training & Development, 54(11), 45-45.

Workman, J., & Stenard, R. (1996). Student services for distance learners. In DEOSNEWS - The

Distance Education Online Symposium (Vol. 6, No. 3).

Yoo, S. J., & Huang, W. D. (2013). Engaging online adult learners in higher education:

Motivational factors impacted by gender, age, and prior experiences. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(3), 151-164.