Given online instruction in university programs is now commonplace, it is more vital to understand how key aspects of online courses influence student engagement. To build on the literature in this area, this study investigates the extent to which technological tools utilized in online settings enhance student engagement in public administration courses. The particular emphasis in the study is to explore the role of technology in both student–instructor and student–student interaction in online classroom settings. The results indicate that students tend to engage in online classes more intensively when they frequently interact with peer students using technologies. In addition, the results reveal that the thoughtful application of a limited number of tools may be as or more effective than using a wide variety of technology in an online setting.
BryerT. A.SieglerD. (2012). Theoretical and instrumental rationales of student empowerment through social and web-based technologies. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 429–448.
3.
BrymanA. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
ChakrabortyM.NafukhoF. M. (2014). Strengthening student engagement: What do students want in online courses?European Journal of Training and Development, 38(9), 782–802. doi:10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0123
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
6.
DixsonM. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.
7.
EikenberryA. M. (2012). Social networking, learning, and civic engagement: New relationships between professors and students, public administrators and citizens. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(3), 449–456.
8.
FolzD. H. (1996). Survey research for public administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
9.
FrantzenD. (2014). Is technology a one-size-fits-all solution to improving student performance? A comparison of online, hybrid and face-to-face courses. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 565–578.
10.
FowlerF. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
11.
GigliottiR. A. (2016). Institutional identification and sense of community: Analysis of an new online graduate public administration program. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 399–414.
12.
HarrisR. A.NikitenkoG. O. (2014). Comparing online with brick and mortar course learning outcomes: An analysis of quantitative methods curriculum in public administration. Teaching Public Administration, 32(1), 95–107. doi:10.1177/0144739414523284
13.
HuQ.JohnstonE. (2012). Using a wiki-based course design to create a student-centered learning environment: Strategies and lessons. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 493–512.
14.
InfeldD. L.AdamsW. C. (2013). Wikipedia as a tool for teaching policy analysis and improving public policy content online. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(3), 445–459.
KuhG. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2),24–32.
17.
KuhG. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20. doi:10.1002/ir.v2009:141
18.
LairdT. F. N.KuhG. D. (2004). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Conference Paper, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, May 30 – June 3, 2004, Boston, MA.
19.
MoodyJ. (2004). Distance education: Why are the attrition rates so high?The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(3), 205–210.
20.
MooreM. G. (1990). Contemporary issues in American distance education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
21.
MooreM. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In KeeganD. (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). London, UK: Routledge.
22.
NaylorL. A.WilsonL. A. (2009). Staying connected: MPA student perceptions of transactional presence. Journal Of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 317–331.
23.
NaylorL. A.Wilson-GentryL. A.WooldridgeB. (2016). Rethinking connection: Master of public administration student perceptions of transactional presence. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(1), 35–48.
24.
Rabe-HempC.WoollenS.HumistonG. S. (2009). A comparative analysis of student engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning setting. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 10 Book 2009, 10(2), 207–218.
25.
RevereL.KovachJ. V. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113–124.
26.
RobinsonC. C.HullingerH. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109. doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
27.
SapsfordR. (2006). Survey research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
28.
ShinN. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of ‘transactional presence.’. Open Learning, 17(2), 121–137. doi:10.1080/02680510220146887
29.
ShinN. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69–86. doi:10.1080/01587910303048
30.
VardaD.RetrumJ. H.KuenziK. (2012). The influence of teaching methodology on student social interaction. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(4), 633–660.
31.
WallimanN. (2006). Social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
32.
Ya NiA. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal Of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199–215.
33.
YoungS.BruceM. A. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219.
