Within higher education, students and institutions are increasingly moving towards blended components and fully online learning coursework. Best practice online pedagogy is understood to be student-centred with a strong emphasis on social learning through collaboration. The social aspect supports frequency of engagement while collaborative activity supports cognitive engagement. Research that guides online pedagogy draws substantially from studies identifying type and frequency of students’ cognitive engagement, usually along a continuum but without the nuance of social learning. To build on that and to identify profiles of cognitive-social engagement, this study examined the content of 3,855 student posts from one course within a chat-based platform. The findings suggested six student engagement types: lurk, superficial, task, respond, expand, create. These types were then further examined along two continuums of complexity and intensity of engagement. The results present a new typology of cognitive-social learning engagement defined by four profiles: bench sitter, hustler, striker, champion. The typology was purposely fashioned using team-play acronyms to build a useable language for educators to recognise student engagement profiles and to guide learning design in social spaces online.
AdekolaJDaleVHMGardinerK (2017) Development of an institutional framework to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. Research in Learning Technology25: 1–16.
2.
AkyolZGarrisonDR (2011) Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology42(2): 233–50.
3.
AnnandD (2011) Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning12(5): 40–56.
4.
BainK (2004) What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
5.
BaluIN (2018) Introducing Microsoft Teams: Understanding the New Chat-Based Workspace in Office 365. New York: Apress.
6.
BliucA-MEllisRGoodyearP, et al. (2010) Learning through face-to-face and online discussions: Associations between students' conceptions, approaches and academic performance in political science. British Journal of Educational Technology41(3): 512–24.
7.
ChenGLoCKHuL (2020) Sustaining online academic discussions: Identifying the characteristics of messages that receive responses. Computers & Education156: 1–14.
8.
ChiMTHMenekseM (2015) Dialogue patterns in peer collaboration that promote learning. In: ResnickLBAsterhanCSCClarkeSN (eds) Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA, pp. 263–4.
9.
ChiMTHWylieR (2014) The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist49(4): 219–43.
10.
de LaatMVrielingEvan den BeemtA (2017) Facilitation of social learning in teacher education: The ‘dimensions of social learning framework’. In: McDonaldJCater-SteelA (eds) Communities of Practice: Facilitating Social Learning in Higher Education. Springer, pp. 153–74.
11.
DonaldCBlakeAGiraultI, et al. (2009) Approaches to learning design: past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education30(2): 179–99.
12.
EllisRABliucA-M (2019) Exploring new elements of the student approaches to learning framework: The role of online learning technologies in student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education20(1): 11–24.
13.
FlickUvon KardorffESteinkeI (2004) A Companion to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications.
14.
FullanM (2003) Change Forces With A Vengeance, London: Routledge Falmer.
15.
GarberD (2004) Growing virtual communities. International Review of Open and Distance Learning5(2): 1–7.
16.
GarrisonDRAndersonTArcherW (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education2(2-3): 87–105.
17.
GarrisonDRAndersonTArcherW (2010) The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education13(1-2): 5–9.
18.
GunawardenaCNFlorNVGomezD, et al. (2016) Analyzing social construction of knowledge online by employing interaction analysis, learning analytics, and social network analysis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education17(3): 35–60.
19.
GunawardenaCNLoweCAAndersonT (1997) Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research17(4): 397–431.
20.
HungM-LChouC (2015) Students' perceptions of instructors' roles in blended and online learning environments: A comparative study. Computers & Education81: 315–325.
21.
IfenthalerD (2012) Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society15(1): 38–52.
22.
IvankovaNVCreswellJWStickSL (2006) Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods18(1): 3–20.
23.
JensenLPriceLRoxåT (2019) Seeing through the eyes of a teacher: Differences in perceptions of HE teaching in face-to-face and digital contexts. Studies in Higher Education(6): 1149–59.
24.
KovanovićVGaševićDJoksimovićS, et al. (2015) Analytics of communities of inquiry: Effects of learning technology use on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education27: 74–89.
LustGElenJClareboutG (2013) Students’ tool-use within a web enhanced course: Explanatory mechanisms of students’ tool-use pattern. Computers in Human Behavior29(5): 2013–21.
27.
LustGJuarez CollazoNAElenJ, et al. (2012) Content Management Systems: Enriched learning opportunities for all?Computers in Human Behavior28(3): 795–808.
28.
PalloffRMPrattK (2013) Lessons from the Virtual Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
PhilipsenBTondeurJPareja RoblinN, et al. (2019) Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review. Education Technology Research and Development67: 1145–74.
30.
RiehemannJHellmannJHJucksR (2018) “Your words matter!” Relevance of individual participation in xMOOCs. Active Learning in Higher Education22(1): 1–14.
31.
RodriguesHAlmeidaFFigueiredoV, et al. (2019) Tracking e-learning through published papers: A systematic review. Computers & Education136: 87–98.
32.
RourkeLKanukaH (2009) Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education (Online)23(1): 19–47.
33.
RubinBFernandesRAvgerinouMD (2013) The effects of technology on the Community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education17(1): 48–57.
34.
Saldana J. (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
35.
SharpeB (2006) The ambient web. In: BETCA (ed) Emerging Technologies for Learning. Coventry, UK: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, pp. 16–31.
36.
SheaPTemiB. (2010) Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education55(4): 1721–31.
37.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California: SAGE Publications.
38.
SunAChenX (2016) Online education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research15: 157–190.
39.
SvihlaVReeveRSagyO, et al. (2015) A fingerprint pattern of supports for teachers' designing of technology-enhanced learning. Instructional Science43(2): 283–307.
40.
ThanhNCThanhTTL (2015) The interconnection between interpretivist paradigm and qualitative methods in education. American Journal of Educational Science1(2): 24–27.
41.
TrinidadJE (2019) Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps. Journal of Further and Higher Education44(8): 1–11.
42.
Willis JW. (2007) Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. California: SAGE Publications.
43.
YenJ-CLeeC-Y (2011) Exploring problem solving patterns and their impact on learning achievement in a blended learning environment. Computers & Education56(1): 138–145.
44.
YenS-CLoYLeeA, et al. (2018) Learning online, offline, and in-between: Comparing student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face-to-face, online, and blended teaching modalities. Education and Information Technologies23(5): 2141–53.
