High-Impact Practices in Online Education

Research and Best Practices

Kathryn E. Linder, Chrysanthemum Mattison Hayes

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781620368497
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

This volume offers the first comprehensive guide to how high-impact practices (HIPs) are being implemented in online environments and how they can be adjusted to meet the needs of online learners. This multi-disciplinary approach will assist faculty and administrators to effectively implement HIPs in distance education courses and online programs.With a chapter devoted to each of the eleven HIPs, this collection offers guidance that takes into account the differences between e-learners and traditional on-campus students.A primary goal of High-Impact Practices Online is to share the ways in which HIPs may need to be amended to meet the needs of online learners. Through specific examples and practical suggestions in each chapter, readers are introduced to concrete strategies for transitioning HIPs to the online environment that can be utilized across a range of disciplines and institution types. Each chapter of High-Impact Practices Online also references the most recent and relevant literature on each HIP so that readers are brought up to date on what makes online HIPs successful.The book provides guidance on how best to implement HIPs to increase retention and completion for online learners.

1

FIRST-YEAR SEMINARS

Jennifer R. Keup

Far from a recent innovation in higher education, first-year seminars (FYS) can be traced back to the nineteenth century. Their persistence as an efficient and effective intervention for students transitioning to college has been, in large part, due to their flexibility as a pedagogical and student support tool. In the modern era of higher education, this flexibility among FYS must adapt and shift once again to incorporate technology, online components, and models for online education to accommodate traditional students who prefer or require this type of delivery method, as well as to allow for the growing population of online learners to access this high-impact practice (HIP) in their transition to college. This chapter will explore the history, current practices, and future directions of FYS with particular emphasis on the application of this HIP in an online and distance-learning environment.

Background on First-Year Seminars

The transition to the first year of college holds great potential for incredible success or profound disappointment for the millions of students who start their undergraduate journeys at colleges and universities across the United States. Although all students entering higher education will have a first-year experience (FYE) regardless of institutional effort or intervention, a high-quality FYE is composed of “an intentional combination of academic and cocurricular efforts within and across postsecondary institutions” (Koch & Gardner, 2006, p. 2). Further, hallmarks of institutional excellence in the first year of college have been well documented and codified (Barefoot et al., 2005; Greenfield, Keup, & Gardner, 2013; Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates, 2005; Young & Keup, in press). Specific criteria include (a) “evidence of an intentional, comprehensive approach to the first year that is appropriate to the institution’s type”; (b) “evidence of assessment of the various initiatives that constitute this approach”; (c) “evidence of a broad impact on significant numbers of first-year students, including, but not limited to, special student subpopulations”; (d) “strong administrative support for first-year initiatives, evidence of institutionalization, and durability over time”; and (e) “involvement of a wide range of faculty, student affairs professionals, academic administrators, and other constituent groups” (Barefoot et al., 2005, pp. 24–25). These characteristics are in service to a range of positive undergraduate experiences and outcomes, including: “a strong emphasis on critical inquiry, frequent writing, information literacy, collaborative learning, and other skills that develop students’ intellectual and practical competencies” (Kuh, 2008, p. 9); a sense of institutional connection, involvement, and belonging; and, ultimately, learning, persistence, and success (Greenfield et al., 2013; Hunter & Linder, 2005; Upcraft et al., 2005).

One of the most common components of an FYE is the FYS. An FYS is defined as

a course intended to enhance the academic and/or social integration of first-year students by introducing them (a) to a variety of specific topics, which may vary by seminar type, (b) to essential skills for college success, and (c) to selected processes, the most common of which is the creation of a peer support group. (Barefoot, 1992, p. 49)

Born out of campus orientation initiatives, early evidence of FYS can be identified in higher education history as of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Drake, 1966; Dwyer, 1989). The expedient growth in orientation programs and the rapid professionalization of student support and services from the 1920s through the 1960s make it difficult to document the specific rates of FYS use and growth, but “by 1966, 92% of US colleges and universities offered some sort of formalized experience aimed at assisting with first-year student transitions” (Kronovet, 1969, p. 5).

In the 1970s, the FYS began to distinguish itself from orientation programming, which was a watershed moment in the FYE movement in U.S. higher education. As seminars became more pervasive, assessment and research activities on both institutional and national levels began to document their structural and instructional characteristics as well as their outcomes. The most significant of these empirical efforts was the National Survey of First-Year Seminars administered by the National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, which was administered triennially from 1988 to 2012. Data from this survey helped create a lexicon for these courses to advance scholarly, practical, and policy-based discussions about FYS. For example, these data helped identify a typology of seminars that includes six categories: extended orientation, academic seminars with uniform content across sections, academic seminars with variable content across sections, preprofessional/discipline-linked courses, basic study skills, and FYS that represent a combination of two or more other types (Barefoot, 1992; Young & Hopp, 2014).¹ The most recent administration of the National Survey of First-Year Seminars indicated that approximately 90% of two- and four-year institutions across the country offer FYS and they with the most common type of seminars being extended orientation (40%) followed closely by academic seminars (both of uniform and variable content; 38%) (Young & Hopp, 2014). Further, national data show that institutions are generally pleased with the student learning outcomes of FYS and the value for their resource investment in these courses, and they have even begun to use academic/transition seminars as an intervention for sophomores, transfer students, juniors, and seniors (Barefoot, Griffin, & Koch, 2012).

Given the momentum and pervasiveness of FYS, it is perhaps not surprising that the Association of American Colleges & Universities identified them as 1 of 10 HIPs that facilitate twenty-first-century learning outcomes such as “knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, intellectual and practical skills, personal and social responsibility, [and] integrative and applied learning” (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Kuh, 2008, p. 4). The impact of HIPs, including FYE and FYS, on these outcomes is contingent on their inclusion of eight key elements: (a) high expectations; (b) significant investment of time and effort; (c) substantive interaction with faculty and peers; (d) experiences with diversity; (e) frequent, timely, and constructive feedback; (f) reflection and integrative learning practices; (g) real-world application; and (h) demonstration of learning and competence (Keup & Young, 2018; Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013). When these elements are present in FYS, they have the capacity to enhance engagement, learning, development, and retention among all students, with particular gains noted for historically underrepresented and at-risk student populations (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Finley & McNair, 2013; Keup & Young, 2018; Kuh, 2008). Because FYS are often the first HIP to which college students are exposed as well as a hub for other HIPs (e.g., learning communities, intensive writing, service-learning, diversity/global learning, collaborative assignments and projects, and undergraduate research), they have the potential for substantial educational and equity implications for higher education (Keup & Young, 2018; Young & Hopp, 2014).

First-Year Seminars in an Online Learning Space

Given the incredible pace of technological advancement over the past several decades, our newest cohorts of students have been exposed to online and computer technologies since birth. As digital natives, “today’s first-year students use the Internet and technology in ways that were unknown to previous generations of students” (Junco, 2005, p. 223) and are often learned habits and acquired competencies for the faculty and administrators at their colleges and universities. National trends on entering first-year students collected by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s annual survey indicate that using a personal computer and using the Internet for research or homework are nearly universal experiences for these students. Among students entering college in 2015, 83% reported that they at least “occasionally” used online instructional websites to learn something on their own, and 56% used them as assigned by a class in their last year of high school (Eagan et al., 2016). These same data show that social media use has grown in the past decade, such that 78% of students entering four-year colleges and universities in 2015 reported spending at least one hour per week engaged in online social networks, 13% spent more than 10 hours per week in these online spaces, and approximately 5% spent more than 20 hours per week engaged in social media activities (Eagan et al., 2016). Although evidence still indicates a persistent digital divide with respect to technological access and use for low-income, rural, African American, and Latino/a students, it is clear that online technologies are a pervasive force in the lives of a vast majority of first-year college students (Junco, 2005).

Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that the use of learning technologies and online learning has increased substantially in higher education over the past several decades. Recent national survey results show that 6.1 million students, just over 31% of those enrolled in higher education, took at least one course online, which is a substantial increase from the 1.6 million students who reported similar course-taking habits in 2002 and a rate that far outpaced the growth in overall student body for the same time period (Allen & Seaman, 2011). This momentum toward distance learning is motivated, in part, by institutional necessity to accommodate new populations of students who are unable to attend traditional classrooms or prefer online learning environments as well as to address limitations of classroom space on campus (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Junco, 2005; Mixson-Brookshire & Goldfine, 2011; Poirier & Feldman, 2005). These same sources also acknowledge that online education represents a more student-centered effort to allow for a diversity of learning styles, address students’ interest in new technologies and engagement with social media, and recognize the importance of lifelong learning and the demand for retraining in a modern economy.

Online courses provide several advantages, including accessibility, flexibility, the ability to accommodate self-paced learning, a more comfortable environment for students who are fearful of public speaking, customization of learning, just-in-time scenarios, and continuous assessment (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Junco, 2005; Kerka, 1996; Poirier & Feldman, 2005). Further, online learning tends to incorporate more writing assignments and may even allow for more interaction between faculty and students than in traditional classrooms. Both practices are hallmarks of high-quality, engaging, and student-centered pedagogies (e.g., Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Goodman, Baxter Magolda, Seifert, & King, 2011; Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013; Swing, 2002), despite the elimination of in-person contact between faculty and students (Poirier & Feldman, 2005). However, online courses also have limitations, including difficulty understanding and expressing tone in an online space, reliance on computer technologies that may be dated or unreliable, difficulty assessing student learning, and the need for students to have advanced time management, communication, and self-responsibility skills (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Kerka, 1996; Poirier & Feldman, 2005; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). Despite these limitations, research studies that examined student evaluations of the course, satisfaction, sense of community, and academic performance did not yield statistically or practically significant differences between online/hybrid courses and traditional, in-person instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Graham, 2001; Hiltz, 1993; Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1999; Lawson, 2000; Poirier & Feldman, 2004; Russell, 1999; Waschull, 2001; Wegner, Holloway, & Garton, 1999).

Prevalence and Effectiveness of Online First-Year Seminars

Despite the widespread use of technology among first-year students and the abundance of studies and reports on the prevalence and effectiveness of online and distance learning in higher education generally, there is a lack of scholarly and practical literature accounts the pervasiveness, experience, and outcomes of this educational medium for students in FYS. The majority of articles about online education and FYS are program case studies or research with a single-institutional sample, which are informative but difficult to generalize. The only source of national data specific to this topic comes from the National Survey of First-Year Seminars administered triennially by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. A question piloted on the 2003 survey asked institutions to report the percentage of sections of their most prominent FYS type that incorporated an online component as well as whether campuses offered at least one FYS section in an online-only format. Data collected in 2006, 2009, and 2012 to 2013 are reported in Figure 1.1.²

Figure 1.1. Percentage of first-year seminar sections with online components.

These data show that institutions have consistently reported greater use of online components in in-person FYS than online-only sections. These data also show that, consistent with national data on all higher education courses, institutional use of both online components and online-only sections for FYS has grown substantially from 2006 to 2013. However, the rate of growth for online-only sections of the FYS has outpaced the percentage point increase for sections that incorporate online components by a rate of almost two-to-one. Further, analyses of the data collected in 2012–2013 show that both online-only FYS and those that incorporate online components are more common at public institutions and two-year campuses. These data also show that academic FYS with variable content are far less likely to incorporate online components or be offered in an online-only fo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Tables and Figures
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 First-Year Seminars
• 2 Common Intellectual Experience
• 3 Learning Communities
• 4 Writing-Intensive Classes
• 5 Collaborative Assignments and Projects
• 6 Undergraduate Research in the Humanities
• 7 Undergraduate Research in the Sciences
• 8 Diversity and Global Learning
• 9 eService-Learning
• 10 Internships
• 11 Capstone Courses and Projects
• 12 ePortfolios
• 13 High-Impact Practices and Library and Information Resources
• Conclusion
• Editors and Contributors
• Index
• Also available from Stylus
• Backcover