Abstract:

Engagement is an effective method to increase student learning. The more engaged the students are in the course, the deeper their learning will be (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2017). Keeping students engaged is challenging under the best circumstances--when there is time to plan and design activities that generate interaction to stimulate learning. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid switch to remote learning for institutions of higher education. This pivot introduced a whole new level of complexity to the challenge of engagement.

In a survey of faculty members near the start of the pandemic, instructors across the university indicated that learning how to use online teaching technologies, figuring out ways to keep their students engaged, and assessing students online were among their top concerns for switching to remote instruction (Serpi, 2021). All three of these concerns are intertwined with the notion of student success. In Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (EMS), the purpose of learning designers has traditionally been to ensure strong online pedagogy; the pivot to remote instruction allowed the learning design team to take skills normally used to partner with instructors in developing fully online courses and use them to help residential instructors pivot to remote instruction with only two days’ notice.

This paper recounts how the Dutton Institute learning design team partnered with learning designers and instructors throughout the university to meet these unprecedented challenges. Specifically, we outline methods that were used to keep students engaged using the technologies available. We will explore how the learning design team introduced instructors to Moore's three types of interactions to create an engaging, student-centered active learning experience in remote courses during the pandemic. Practical instructional strategies will be shared for creating and maintaining engagement by utilizing tools available to all at the institution.

References:
[1] National Survey of Student Engagement (2017), Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education – Annual Results 2017, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington, IN.
[2] Moore, M. (1989), “Three types of interaction”, in Moore, M.G. and Clark, G.C. (Eds), Readings in Principles of Distance Education, American Center for the Study of Distance Education, University Park, PA, pp. 100-105.
[3] Serpi, A., Robert, J. (2021). The remote teaching experience: One year later, How are instructors holding up? Retrieved 2021, March 29, from https://doi.org/10.26207/fdjk-jr25

Keywords:

Engagement, interactions, Pandemic, learning design, student-centered, active learning, remote instruction, instructional strategies, online pedagogy.