Catering for ‘very different kids’: distance education teachers’ understandings of and strategies for student engagement

ABSTRACT

Compulsory distance education has always sought to be inclusive, providing educational opportunities for K-12 students unable to attend mainstream, face-to-face schools for medical, geographical, or personal reasons. However, how to effectively engage these diverse learners has remained a perpetual challenge, with a need for further investigation into the nature of student engagement with compulsory school distance contexts and how teachers can best support it. This qualitative study used focus groups (n = 2 groups, n = 16 participants) to examine teacher definitions and student engagement strategies within eKindy-12 distance education in Queensland, Australia. Categorical analysis was conducted using a priori codes for definitions, focusing on four previously established engagement types (i.e. behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement), and in vivo codes for strategies. Teacher definitions focused strongly on behavioural engagement, but most also contained elements of emotional and cognitive engagement; agentic engagement was only occasionally evidenced via practice descriptions. Teachers described engaging students by: building relationships, creating a safe classroom environment through differentiation, using inclusive technological tools to facilitate interaction and monitor progress, making learning fun and relevant, drawing on school-wide pedagogical frameworks and teaching strategies, and encourage self-regulation. Findings suggest distance education teachers face unique challenges around evidencing engagement and supporting student agency.

KEYWORDS:

• Student engagement
• distance education
• online learning
• teacher strategies
• educational technology

Introduction

Borup and Kennedy (2017) report that this century ‘online learning has experienced tremendous growth’ (403) with primary and secondary distance education expanding in many countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Turkey (Barbour 2017). Globally, distance education is promoted as a way of increasing educational equity (Buckingham 2017; Lopes, O'Donoghue, and O’Neill 2014), particularly within primary and secondary school contexts.

Increasingly diverse groups of school students access distance education, making many schools of distance education very inclusive educational sites. While originally implemented for students living in rural and remote locations (Buckingham 2017), such schools now also support those whose parental/carer responsibilities or on-going physical and/or mental health challenges may preclude normal school attendance (Bloomfield, Harreveld, and Fisher 2020; Borup and Kennedy 2017). Students with disabilities (e.g. Autism Spectrum Disorder) are also increasingly turning to distance education to gain more individualised education (McDonald and Lopes 2014). School students may also choose distance education to avoid bullying or to access more diverse subjects or self-paced learning options (Borup and Kennedy 2017).

Mirroring overseas growth (Borup and Kennedy 2017; Barbour 2017), enrolments at government-run distance education schools in the state of Queensland, Australia have increased significantly in the last five years, from 7,095 students in 2013, to 8983 students in 2017 (Department of Education and Training 2017a), with regional numbers more than doubling. However, distance student outcomes lag behind Queensland averages. For example, in 2016, only 77% of distance education students achieved the senior school qualification [i.e. the Queensland Certificate of Education (QCE)], compared to the state school average of 95.1% (Department of Education and Training 2017b). While the 2016 Next Step Survey found that 86.8% of all Queensland students moved from school into study or paid employment after secondary school, the four schools of distance education recorded poorer outcomes: Brisbane 78%, Capricornia 61%, Charters Towers 76%, and Cairns 83% (Department of Education 2016). Hence, for a percentage of students, access to distance modes of study has not translated into the desired educational and employment outcomes.

To address these disparate outcomes, the ways diverse students engage in distance education must be considered, based on the understanding that ‘engagement is a key contributor of learning and academic success’ (Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016, 1). Limited work has examined how school students effectively learn via distance education, with Barbour and Reeves (2009) identifying that:

theory in the field [of distance learning] has largely been based upon adult learners engaged in independent study courses … rather than on K-12 students. (410)

It is unclear if strategies developed in mainstream educational contexts apply equally to distance education settings given differing student and teacher roles and responsibilities. For example, Curtis and Werth (2015) argue that while the increased autonomy available via distance education motivates and reengages some students, for others, ‘that freedom increased failure’ (186).

This paper reports the results of an exploratory, qualitative study which sought to better understand how teachers at one regional distance education school in Queensland, Australia conceptualised and supported distance student engagement, addressing the following research questions:

• How do compulsory distance education teachers define engagement?

• What strategies do they describe using to support their students to engage?

Understanding and supporting student engagement within mainstream and distance education contexts

The term student engagement has complex and often contested meanings (Reschly and Christenson 2012). It is appealing because of its potential explanatory power as ‘ … a ‘meta-construct’ that includes observable behaviours, internal cognitions, and emotions’ (Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016, 1), although research seldom investigates all aspects simultaneously. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris' (2004) three-dimensional model is most frequently cited and consists of behavioural, emotional, and cognitive aspects. Within this model, behavioural engagement is defined as ‘ … participation, effort, attention, persistence, positive conduct, and the absence of disruptive behaviour’ (Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016, 2), and this aspect is frequently the focus of educational research (Zyngier 2008). Emotional engagement ‘ … focuses on the extent of positive (and negative) reactions to teachers, classmates, academics, or school; individuals’ sense of belonging; and identification with school or subject domains’ (Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016, 2). Cognitive engagement can be defined as ‘ … self-regulated learning, using deep learning strategies, and exerting the necessary effort for comprehension of complex ideas’ (Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016, 2).

While cognitive engagement implies significantly more student learning ownership and investment than the other two dimensions, Reeve and Tseng (2011) note that work on student engagement, including that by Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004), generally portrays it as a teacher prompted or facilitated behaviour. Reeve and Tseng (2011) identify an additional dimension, agentic engagement, which they define as:

students’ constructive contribution into the flow of the instruction they receive … the process in which students intentionally and somewhat proactively try to personalize and otherwise enrich both what is to be learned and the conditions and circumstances under which it is to be learned. (258)

While clearly linked to notions of self-regulation described within cognitive engagement, this dimension more explicitly foregrounds student agency. The importance of student agency within engagement was also noted in Harris' (2010, 2011) study of Central Queensland secondary teachers’ engagement definitions and strategies. Here, teachers’ most complex engagement strategy was entitled Collaborating, where they described working jointly with students to create curriculum suited to student purposes. This notion contrasted with the other two described strategies, which were overtly teacher-directed (i.e. Delivering – where students were expected to participate in activities teachers set; and Modifying – where minor curriculum adjustments were made to suit student interest or needs).

While robust models and definitions of student engagement have been developed, they draw almost exclusively on work conducted in mainstream environments, making applications to distance study modes unclear. For example, how might behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement be supported and evidenced in contexts where traditional attendance may not be mandatory, students are seldom observable, progress is more self-paced, and the nature and structure of teacher-student and student-student interactions is highly varied?

Almost all work on engagement in distance education is set in higher education (e.g. Bolliger and Martin 2018; Quaye and Harper 2014; Trowler 2010). However, Borup, West, Graham, and Davies (2014) have developed a model designed specifically for primary and secondary distance education. They contend that student engagement (comprising of behavioural, affective, and cognitive elements) is only one aspect, arguing:

the degree to which students engage in learning activities will be influenced by parent, instructor, and peer engagement and interactions. (122)

Borup and colleagues further define and explore these constructs (parent, teacher, and peer engagement) in a range of empirical studies. Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2014) posit teacher engagement is evidenced via a range of actions, from designing activities and facilitating discourse, to monitoring student behaviour and learning. Parent engagement in distance education includes sharing responsibility with teachers for facilitating interaction and instruction, as well as assisting in organising students’ physical learning environments (Borup, Stevens, and Waters 2015). Peer engagement acknowledges how classmates support engagement by collaborating, instructing, and motivating each other (Borup 2016).

While Borup, West, et al.'s (2014) model acknowledges the unique roles distance educators, peers, and parents play in the engagement process, it largely ignores student agency; strategies teachers, parents, students, and peers may draw on to increase engagement remain largely implicit. Hence, stakeholder thinking about student engagement within distance contexts needs further exploration so more robust models and strategies can be developed to support the engagement of the diverse students now studying via this mode.

Study context

Study participants were recruited from a regional, dual-campus distance education school in Queensland. Campus 1 offered Prep (first compulsory year of schooling) to Year 6, while Campus 2 provided eKindy (non-compulsory year prior to Prep) to Year 12. Enrolments grew from n = 263 students in 2013 to n = 775 students in 2017 (Department of Education and Training 2017a). To enrol, students must have a Queensland postal address, with fees waived for some student classifications (e.g. geographic isolation, medical reasons, carer responsibilities). While historically accessed by students in remote locations in this large state (over 1.7 m square kilometres), there has been a rise in students seeking distance education because of disability or physical/mental health concerns, particularly in secondary education.

Unlike many compulsory distance education providers, the school ran frequent interactive, online lessons using the video-conferencing software programme Blackboard Collaborate. While students received an online lesson timetable, participation was technically optional, with attendance formally evaluated via the return of student work to the school. Study data suggested many staff may draw on a largely shared vocabulary when discussing teaching and learning.

Methodology and methods

This qualitative study investigated participant understandings of and strategies for eliciting student engagement in their own words. After ethical clearance was obtained, all teachers at the school were informed about the study. Invitations to participate in focus groups were extended at a staff meeting and via email; all volunteers were accepted into the study. Focus groups were selected as the data collection method as they ‘are relatively inexpensive to conduct and often produce rich data that are cumulative and elaborative’ (Fontana and Frey 2000, 652). Sixteen teachers participated in two focus groups (Focus Group #1, n = 9, Focus Group #2, n = 7), with thirteen providing demographic data. Participants were known to one another, and to one of the co-facilitators. Teachers with additional supervisory roles (e.g. Heads of Department) were excluded to minimise power relationships within the groups. All participants were female. While there were four secondary teachers in Focus Group #2, all other participants were primary teachers. Teaching experience varied (i.e. from 1 to 30 years of general teaching experience and 1–7 years of distance education teaching experience) and only one had experienced training in distance education outside of the school’s professional development activities.

Focus Group #1 was facilitated via Blackboard Collaborate video-conferencing software; some participants were online individually, with others co-located in the second campus’ staff room. Focus Group #2 occurred face-to-face at the school’s main campus. All participants returned signed consent forms before focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Examples of questions included:

• Share the story of a time when a student or group of students were ‘engaged’ in one of your courses.

• What strategies or approaches do you use to engage your students?

• Do you use different strategies to engage distance education students than you might use in traditional school or in-class environments? If so, what are these?

• How would you define student engagement in a distance environment?

Given the semi-structured nature of the focus group, researchers probed responses with follow-up questions like ‘Can you give me an example of that?’, ‘Can you explain why you think that was effective?’, and ‘Does anyone else have something to add?’ To encourage involvement, participants were invited to complete a written brainstorm activity during the focus group, compiling their personal strategies for engaging their students on a mind map (n = 14 completed) and constructing a personal definition of distance student engagement (n = 10, 5 written on paper, 5 on a whiteboard).

Individual teachers and their year levels are not identified in data reporting to mask participant identity. Data are identified as being from Focus Group #1 (FG #1) or Focus Group #2 (FG #2), with artefacts also labelled by the type of activity (i.e. written definitions = WD; written strategies = WS). Transcripts and artefacts were analysed using Coffey and Atkinson’s (1996) categorical analysis as this approach allowed for the use of both a priori and in vivo coding, with codes used as ‘tools to think with’ (32). The first author led the process of analysis, with other authors interrogating initially proposed codes.

To avoid further ‘jingle, jangle’ in relation to engagement definitions (Reschly and Christenson 2012) and allow data to be compared to existing research, a priori codes relating to four dimensions of engagement (i.e. behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic) were initially used to code teacher engagement definitions. These four dimensions were chosen given the rich scholarship base underpinning behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004; Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016) and the promising field emerging around agentic engagement (Reeve and Tseng 2011; Reeve 2013). However, during the coding process, researchers remained sensitive to potential differences between these a priori categories and teacher definitions. After undertaking a complex process of comparison and contrast, they ultimately determined that data did fit well with these existing engagement dimensions.

However, teachers’ described engagement strategies were not sufficiently well-aligned with previously generated classification systems (e.g. Borup, Graham, and Drysdale 2014; Harris 2010, 2011) to enable a priori codes to be used. Hence, in vivo codes were generated to better describe distinctions between strategies. This iterative process led to multiple categorisations and re-categorisations of data until the team reached consensus and a final set of categories were developed and compared to existing literature. Results are presented in two sections: engagement definitions and engagement strategies.

Results

Engagement definitions

Some teachers had trouble defining distance student engagement; only ten provided written definitions. While behavioural notions of engagement were frequently drawn upon in teacher definitions and practice descriptions, the majority also contained elements of emotional and cognitive engagement, with agentic engagement only occasionally evident via practice descriptions.

Evidencing behavioural engagement was a major focus for some teachers. One teacher explained ‘you can see that they’re actively engaged because they’re doing what you’ve asked them to do’ (FG #2), focusing on physical participation in activities. For example, in one focus group teachers explained:

Teacher 1:

When they’re engaged, they’re asking questions and —–

Teacher 2:

Yeah, they’re typing.

Teacher 3:

There’s messages going through, private messages are happening. You see the pens on the screen. (FG #2)

Silence or non-participation during a lesson was described as evidence of disengagement.

One challenge for teachers in relation to behavioural engagement was the flexible distance education rules. While attendance in online lessons was not technically compulsory [Education (General Provisions) Act, 2006], students were required to submit final work products for marking and feedback. One participant indicated ‘Students do not have to attend classes to be engaged’ [Written Definition (WD) FG #2], with teachers viewing work returned as a primary measure of participation and the only means to determine some students’ involvement [e.g. ‘When students submit work, they are engaged’ (WD FG #2)]. Notions of participation were sometimes made flexible given past student track records. One teacher shared that due to a student’s past attendance rate ‘our goal for him was to just turn up’ (FG #1). However, all teachers appeared to consider some form of participation (attendance, interactions during lessons, or work returned) as a vital component of student engagement.

Aspects of emotional engagement featured prominently in the data, including the value of relationships and the importance of interest and enjoyment. One shared definition stated:

Student engagement in a distance environment … is dependent on the ability of the student, teacher, and family to connect and establish a relationship. Then, if the learning is fun, interactive, and uses cutting edge technology, the kids will come with you. [WD, FG#2]

Particularly for primary school students, parent-teacher relationships were considered valuable as teachers discussed parents helping to set up and monitor the learning environment, in addition to providing some instructional support. However, reference to connections to peers and the school itself seemed to feature less heavily than in mainstream understandings (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004).

Aspects of cognitive engagement also appeared in many definitions. Multiple definitions referred to learning processes and metacognition [e.g. ‘Students sharing their thinking in lessons.’ (WD FG#2); ‘They are able to reflect upon what they have learnt.’ (WD, FG#1)]. Another definition stated:

They can make specific choices when presented with a learning challenge. Involves searching for options, tapping into prior knowledge, problem solving, creativity, and evaluation. (WD, FG#1)

This definition clearly depicted an engaged student as one who was self-directed, self-regulating, and able to draw on a range of strategies to address the task. However, there were difficulties evidencing this self-regulation:

I get them to verbalise what they're doing, what they plan to do, so I know what their intentions are. But I don't have any way besides seeing on the webcam that they actually are looking like they're doing their work … I can't gauge that until I see the output in that situation. (FG #1)

This example highlights the dilemma distance teachers encounter given internal thought processes are not directly observable, particularly in the absence of non-verbal cues like gestures and facial expressions.

There was also debate about whether engagement required higher order thinking. Teachers in Focus Group #1 shared:

Teacher 1:

… at the base level of the Bloom’s, which is identify, you can have a student who's fully engaged and recalling at that basic level. So, do they have to be at that top level of create, which is transform in IMPACT [a pedagogical model used at the school, Watt et al. 2014], or can they be engaged at each level?

Teacher 2:

Yes, I think yes, they can.

Teacher 1:

I think absolutely.

Teacher 3:

Yeah.

Teacher 4:

You know what? I don't work at the top order with my – you know, higher order thinking for every activity that I do during the day. That would be exhausting.

[Group laughter]

 

Hence, some participants appeared to believe that higher order thinking skills, while desirable, were not necessary for engagement.

While agentic engagement was absent within definitions, several teacher examples suggested that student engagement is sometimes manifest in this way. For example, teachers shared:

Teacher 1:

One of my students took over the class for me because my computer froze. And he said, ‘What are you trying to do Miss?’ I said, ‘I’m just trying to demonstrate how to split screens.’ He said, ‘Just give us permission, I’ll take over.’ I said, ‘Righto John, here you go,’ and he did. He was brilliant.

Teacher 2:

Having students be the teacher, they really enjoy that. (FG #2)

When asked why students enjoyed this, teachers said students got to show leadership, talk to each other, and ‘communicate at their level’ (FG #2). In these examples, students may be able to experience agentic engagement, albeit in defined and scaffolded ways via adopting ‘other’ roles in the online classroom. Moreover, descriptions suggest these opportunities are primarily responses to unplanned situations (e.g. technology failure) or designed to promote student interest, enjoyment, and collaboration rather than to promote agency per se.

Engagement strategies

Teacher strategies for promoting engagement were abstracted into six categories:

• Build relationships

• Create a safe classroom environment through differentiation

• Use technological tools to facilitate interaction and monitor progress

• Make learning fun and relevant

• Draw on school-wide pedagogical frameworks and teaching strategies

• Encourage self-regulation

However, participants noted that strategies were not equally appropriate for all students, nor implemented in the same way across groups:

Teacher 1:

I think you should put your year level on it. It really depends on what grade you’re teaching.

Teacher 2:

You look at that and you’ll, you’ll look at this [a strategy] and you’ll go, ‘Totally opposite’. (FG #2)

Categories were not hierarchical, although some appeared more strongly related to particular types of engagement.

Build relationships

Teachers agreed strong relationships were necessary for engagement, particularly since teachers and students were geographically apart [e.g. ‘I think building those relationships is very important to then facilitate that engagement in the lessons’ FG #1]. They described doing this via informal or casual interactions [e.g. ‘Students can chat/draw a few minutes before class starts’ WS, FG #2], made possible, in part, by small online class sizes (from n = ∼6 in lower primary to n = ∼15 in high school). For example, one teacher explained:

taking the time to get to know the kids, calling home, having a chat with them, doing the one-on-one, sending them an email afterwards. All of that kind of stuff is important to get that relationship. (FG #2)

Teachers thought that taking an interest in students’ lives showed care for students and helped make lesson content more relevant and relatable. This informal interaction, particularly before lessons, also helped them identify students who they might ‘have trouble reaching that day’ (FG #1).

Strong relationships with parents were also cited as vital. One early primary teacher explained teachers:

… rely on those strong school-home tutor relationships. So, when things aren't going [well] – students aren't as engaged or whatever, we have discussions with the home tutor [the parent] and we formulate plans to support the students. (FG #1)

Some parents were described as being very supportive, even notifying the teacher via email or chat during a lesson if the student was disengaging. However, this was not always the case, with one noting, ‘if you haven't got that person physically sitting with them in their classroom or in their kitchen or wherever they've got their desk set up, very tricky’ (FG #1). Teachers also mentioned it was sometimes difficult to get the balance right between appropriate parental support and overhelping.

Create a safe classroom environment through differentiation

Teachers also consistently identified the need to create a safe classroom environment for all students to foster engagement [e.g. ‘Create a safe space to encourage communication and socialisation’ WS FG #2]. Distance education was considered ‘a safer space’ because ‘it’s relatively anonymous’ (FG #2), with differentiation possible due to lower class sizes.

Teachers identified differentiation of both tasks and participation as a vital part of creating a safe environment. Different demographics were seen as having differing needs. One teacher shared that while most geographically isolated students were generally engaged, those with ‘social anxiety and depression and different medical things … don’t open up as quickly and you really have to create that kind of safe space, that engaging space’ (FG #2). To support engagement, some teachers discussed adjusting content [‘Make sure the content is not too hard or not too easy’ WS FG#2], conditions [‘Allowing time to complete activities online and offline’ WS FG#1], and activities [‘Every lesson you’ve got like multiple different activities in there: one for you, one for you, one for you’ FG#2]. However, the majority focused on how they differentiated expectations for participation within online lessons by not forcing group work and allowing students to choose to type rather than verbally respond. One explained: ‘I want them to feel safe. If they feel pressured to talk, then they’ll clam up and won’t come back to the class’ (FG #2). While many modifications helped students avoid speaking in class (e.g. writing in a chat box, circling answers on a screen, responding with a tick or cross), one participant nominated ‘Discussions rather than typing,’ suggesting that for some students, oral expression might be easier than written communication. One teacher explained:

I think the whole notion of Distance Ed and the way that you can support the kids with those other tools actually has enabled her to be able to feel comfortable back in a school environment. (FG #1)

Teachers also described using other forms of technology to interact with students who didn’t attend lessons for various reasons (e.g. autism, mental health concerns), for example, commenting on their work via Seesaw (i.e. an educational App allowing parents, teachers, and students to communicate and share photographs and student work).

Use technological tools to facilitate interaction and monitor progress

While teachers did comment about the potential for technology failure to disrupt lessons [e.g. ‘I equate that to behaviour problems you would have in a mainstream … That's our naughty child incidents’ FG#1], overall discussion focused on its affordances, particularly around facilitating interaction and monitoring progress. One teacher explained her work was:

good teaching, but I just use different tools. So, if I’m in the Collaborate classroom, when I'm checking for understanding, I might use the ticks and crosses, whereas in a mainstream classroom I might get them to put thumbs up, thumbs down. (FG #1)

Participants used these tools to suit their students and discipline area.

Teachers discussed multiple ways technological tools allowed them to better monitor student progress and engagement (e.g. online quizzes, programmes which facilitate written comments and audio feedback, student observation via web-cameras), with most reporting that students found these approaches engaging. Getting all students to respond to questions via online polling tools or chat boxes allowed teachers to monitor participation [e.g. ‘I can see very quickly who's paying attention’ FG#1] and check for understanding. However, these tools were viewed as potentially beyond the independent literacy and/or fine motor skills of early primary students. While primary teachers described web cameras as a helpful way to observe student behaviour as you can ‘see exactly what they’re doing’ (FG #2), secondary teachers noted some student resistance to their use as some older students preferred relative anonymity. Teachers also had to ‘teach them how to use technology’ (FG #1), alongside normal curriculum content.

Technology tools were also seen as boosting engagement by facilitating interaction between teachers and students, and students and their peers [e.g. ‘Interactive use of technology; use all features of collaboration (screen share, object generation and break out rooms)’ WS, FG #2]. One teacher, when describing a collaborative activity in a breakout room noted, ‘I reckon it’s the first time this term that they’ve all been really happy. I could see that their microphones are on and they’re also doing stuff on the screen’ (FG #2).

However, collaborative features, such as breakout rooms, sometimes created supervision issues [i.e. while the teacher was in one room, students in other rooms were unsupervised]. Hence, many collaborative features were perceived as more suitable for older rather than younger students.

Make learning fun and relevant

Teachers also discussed increasing student engagement by making learning materials and lessons fun and relevant for students. Some lower primary teachers talked about singing, dancing, playing games, and using comical voices during lessons to keep children’s attention. Across grade levels, teachers explained ‘your voice has to be really engaging because that’s all they often hear’ (FG #2).

The physical presentation of learning materials was also described as sparking student interest and engagement [e.g. ‘Design of lessons; colour, images and graphics’ WS FG #2]. One teacher described doing ‘interactive stuff’ with materials, as well as using ‘image manipulation on the screen’, ‘references to pop culture’, and ‘heaps of memes’ (FG #2). However, others argued that too much colour, animation, text, and/or interactive content could be distracting and create cognitive overload [e.g. Engaging slides that are not too busy to reduce cognitive overload, WS FG #1]. Teachers also discussed catering to students’ interests within lessons [e.g. ‘Tailor lessons to students interests and relate lessons to their real world’ WS FG #1] by referencing the students’ contexts (e.g. farm life) and typical interests (e.g. pop culture, games like Minecraft and Pokémon, music, videos). Bringing ‘real world connections’ (WS FG #1) and students’ interests into lessons were thought to support engagement by generating interest and strengthening student-teacher relationships.

Draw on school-wide pedagogical frameworks and teaching strategies

Most participants appeared to use a largely shared vocabulary around pedagogy and discussed school expectations around routine and pedagogy. For example, one teacher noted the similarities between shared engagement strategies and ‘our plans for our school, our AIP (Annual Implementation Plan) goals … ’ (FG #1). While the links between these approaches and increased student engagement were not always made explicit, teachers suggested these quality teaching practices would help maximise student engagement and learning.

Multiple teachers mentioned the importance of using the IMPACT model (promoted by the school) when designing lessons. As one teacher explained:

… the I stands for Inspire, the M stands for Model, the P stands for Practice, the A stands for Apply, the C stands for Connect, and the T stands for Transform …  I know when our line managers come in and have a look at our lessons, that's how they will look at our lessons. (FG #1)

Despite many references, how this model informed teaching was seldom made explicit. Detailed planning was consistently described as vital, with one teacher explaining ‘ … we have the time to get ready to make these lessons amazing and engaging and interactive … ’ She noted that preparation was more time-consuming than in mainstream, in part because ‘it’s very transparent to the parents as well,’ stating ‘I wouldn’t put anything up on the screen that I wasn’t 100%, that I would not show our Principal, because the parents are right there. Everything you say is recorded’ (FG #2). Teachers identified a high level of external accountability as parents observed lessons and all were recorded.

Teachers appeared to be encouraged to adopt particular lesson structures [e.g. ‘Consistency in lesson sign posts; warm up, WALT (acronym for ‘we are learning today’ – the learning goal, Clarke 2001), WILF (acronym for ‘what I am looking for’- the criteria describing success, Clarke 2001), brain break and reflection’ WS FG #2]. Primary teachers discussed using ‘brain breaks’ in the middle of lessons (e.g. noughts and crosses game, hangman) to ‘release fidgeting’ (FG #1), encourage interaction, and help students learn to manipulate images and icons on the screen. Teachers also appeared encouraged to include hands-on or active learning. One teacher explained:

I have counters and so I'll get them out and we'll actually physically do things. They watch me on the webcam. They also have some of those materials at home, so it's about them getting those materials out and knowing that we're going to use them. (FG #1)

Such activities were thought to promote engagement because ‘It’s hands on; they wanted to do it. It’s fun. I make it fun’ (FG #2). There were multiple references to structures which invited student active participation [e.g. ‘I do, we do, you do structure’ (WS FG#1 and FG#2)]. Several teachers reported giving students opportunities to lead lessons to promote engagement. There also appeared to be school-wide expectations that students receive prompt feedback (e.g. ‘Provide instant or as quick as possible feedback.’ WS, FG #1) via emails, audio recordings, and written comments on work.

Encourage self-regulation

A small number of utterances suggested that at least some teachers did move beyond primarily teacher-directed pedagogical actions to encourage students to self-regulate their learning. For example, one teacher shared ‘unpacking neuroscience to learners’ (WS FG#1) as an engagement strategy, suggesting a focus on helping students understand how they learn, giving them the tools needed to more effectively monitor their approaches to learning. Another mentioned ‘question answering questions’ (WS FG#1), suggesting she expected students to formulate responses to their own questions, helping themselves to move towards learning goals. Another used this strategy with peers [‘As a student gives one example, an answer, I'll ask someone else “Was that right? Can you improve on it?”’ FG #1].

The strongest example of encouraging self-regulation came from one teacher. She explained ‘verbalising the strategies, the things that the kids are doing that are helping them to be good learners’ (FG #1), arguing that ‘over time, they do tend to come back to engagement because they know what it looks like’ (FG#1). However, this was an idiosyncratic statement, sitting outside practices and discourses more strongly embedded within the school’s pedagogical culture.

Discussion

As in other studies (e.g. Harris 2010, 2011), teachers shared differing engagement definitions and strategies within the inclusive distance education context. Teachers generally described behavioural and emotional dimensions of engagement, while cognitive dimensions appeared in only some definitions. Notions of agentic engagement (Reeve 2013) had to be inferred via teacher descriptions of practice. Hence, it appears that teacher understandings of student engagement within this context focused on observable student behaviours and emotional responses, with agency, quality thinking, and self-regulation discussed as markers of engagement by some, but not all staff.

The general lack of reference to student agency as a component of student engagement may relate to the primary school context of most participants or reflect broader challenges distance education teachers face in current contexts. Across both groups, teachers frequently discussed how student engagement is ‘evidenced’ through students’ physical participation, talk, and tangible work products. Agency within online contexts may be more difficult to measure; while teachers may give control of particular tools or even the flow of instruction to individual students during online lessons, multiple teachers noted they have significantly less class time than mainstream teachers [e.g. ‘Our lessons are 55 min … so it’s got to be quite short and sharp … any waffle you get rid of’ (FG #2)]. With limited time available, it is perhaps safer to adopt a more teacher-led approach to instruction, where lesson segments are tightly planned and follow the school’s expected lesson structure. While students were occasionally described as ‘leading’ lessons, it appeared they were still expected to follow the teacher’s script or lesson patterns. There were clearly many opportunities for student choice, particularly around interests and how they might participate, but there was no discussion of student input into major curriculum decisions (e.g. nature of assessment tasks). How greater student agency can be fostered within Prep-12 distance learning contexts is clearly an area ripe for further study.

Teachers also described tensions around how to evidence engagement in the absence of visual cues, an issue also noted in the literature (Borup, Graham, and Drysdale 2014). Most teachers seemed to resolve this by having frequent ‘check points’ within lessons where students were expected to respond in some way (e.g. write on the screen, use polling application, answer verbally). However, these are likely easiest to design around basic knowledge, recall, and emotional response. There are risks for distance education teachers who choose to give students longer periods of uninterrupted time to work or think, as without direct observation and frequent monitoring, it is hard to verify the authorship of submitted work and there is the possibility that the student is completely off-task (Borup and Kennedy 2017). Finding balance between expecting students to ‘check in’ too frequently (potentially disrupting the flow of work) and monitoring infrequently (where student misconceptions and/or disengagement may be discovered too late) remains an important area for future investigation.

Likewise, it is important to further consider how school-wide (and system-wide) structures and approaches help and hinder teacher efforts to engage their students. This school had a suite of technological tools, pedagogical frameworks, and strategies teachers were expected to draw upon. However, within the time-constraints of the focus groups, it was impossible to verify participant understandings of the theories underpinning these or explore their motives for use. Looking more closely at how these enable or constrain good practice around engaging students is worth further examination.

Teachers’ engagement strategies were not directly correlated to the four dimensions of engagement identified (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004; Reeve and Tseng 2011); however, there were tentative relationships between strategies and definitions. For example, notions of emotional engagement appeared related to strategies focused on building relationships, creating safety, and generating interest. Likewise, behavioural notions of engagement appeared strongly linked to how online tools were used to check for participation and monitor progress. While the encouragement of self-regulation did seem directly related to cognitive notions of engagement, links between those and school-wide pedagogical approaches were less explicit, although potentially present. Given the strong, shared language staff drew on within focus groups, it may be fruitful for future professional learning opportunities to build on the self-regulation strategies voiced by a handful of staff to help embed such strategies within the school’s culture. Notions of agentic engagement seemed largely absent from definitions and strategies and how to further promote student agency in distance contexts remains an important area for study.

Conclusions

Given the limited work done to date exploring notions of engagement within primary and secondary distance education (Borup, West, et al. 2014), this study provides valuable empirical evidence about how one school’s distance education teachers define and support engagement. It raises questions around how distance education can provide better opportunities for agentic engagement, while simultaneously acknowledging ways online technology and pedagogy are helping distance education teachers better monitor and support the behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement of their diverse students.

However, as a small-scale exploration, this study has limitations. First, as participants were drawn from the same school, it is unclear if voiced engagement definitions and strategies are shared across the broader distance education community. While one focus group included secondary teachers, most were primary teachers instructing students predominantly from geographically isolated backgrounds, with obvious differences between these students’ needs and those of the same school’s more diverse secondary cohort. Additionally, while teachers’ self-reports describing strategy implementation help readers consider possibilities, neither student voice data nor classroom observations were collected, making it difficult to verify if students or outside observers would share the teachers’ opinions about any strategy’s impact on engagement. This is a perpetual challenge when relying on teacher self-reports.

These limitations make areas for future research clear. As Barbour (2017) identifies, there is an urgent need for more research to establish effective practice in primary and secondary distance education. Student voice research is required to help better understand students’ perspectives on engagement and their evaluations of strategies. Likewise, future studies should work to verify the impact and effectiveness of the described strategies. There is a need for multi-site studies to establish generalizability. Additionally, given the major focus teachers within this study placed on individual student needs, it is important to gain more nuanced understanding of what works for whom, and when. Future studies should more carefully investigate what type/s of engagement (i.e. behavioural, emotional, cognitive, agentic) are supported via particular strategies and make sure these align with teacher and curriculum goals for students and students’ goals for themselves. Finally, more work is needed to investigate ways students can be encouraged to exercise agentic engagement, despite the potential constraints of curriculum and the nature of teaching and learning within a distance environment.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by a seed grant from the Centre for Regional Advancement of Learning, Equity, Access and Participation (LEAP) for the project ‘Identifying teaching strategies to engage school-aged distance students in regional Australia’. We would like to thank the teacher participants for sharing their time and ideas with the research team.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by an internal seed grant from Central Queensland University's Centre for Regional Advancement of Learning, Equity, Access and Participation (LEAP) for the project ‘Identifying teaching strategies to engage school-aged distance students in regional Australia’. We would like to thank the teacher participants for sharing their time and ideas with the research team.

Notes on contributors

Lois Harris

Lois Harris currently works part-time as a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education and the Arts at Central Queensland University, Australia, alongside work as a Research Fellow at Australian Catholic University in their Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education. Her research focuses primarily on student engagement and educational assessment. Research methodology is another area of interest and her work utilises a range of qualitative and mixed method designs. She has co-authored two recent books with Routledge press, the Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment and Using self-assessment to improve student learning.

Joanne Dargusch

Joanne Dargusch is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education and the Arts at CQUniversity. Jo researches in the areas of assessment and pedagogy in both school-based and higher education contexts. Recent research work has included a focus on equity, particularly in relation to how students from disadvantaged groups experience assessment. As a teacher of Senior English in Queensland secondary schools for 15 years, Jo has brought insight from years as a classroom practitioner to her research passions. She is currently Head of Course of the Graduate Certificate in Tertiary and Adult Education, teaches undergraduate students in the Bachelor of Education (Secondary), and supervises RHD students.

Kate Ames

Kate Ames is the Director, Flexible Learning and Innovation Projects at CQUniversity and is based at the Brisbane campus. She has a background as a cultural sociologist, with interest in community connection, public interaction, and storytelling. She has lived much of her life in regional areas and is known for her work on Australian regional radio. She has a passion for equity in education, has been nationally recognised for her approaches to teaching via distance education, and heads a unit focused on developing innovative online programmes.

Corey Bloomfield

Corey Bloomfield is a Lecturer in in the School of Education and the Arts, teaching in the areas of diversity and inclusion at CQUniversity, Australia. Prior to this, he worked for fifteen years in a range of primary and secondary schools in regional Queensland, three of those years in a School of Distance Education. His current PhD project investigates the features of a distance education led, alternative learning programme servicing the needs of marginalised young people aged 15–18 years in regional Australia. Corey has presented papers on topics of curriculum affordance, transition pathways, and social mobility both domestically and internationally. He is also a member of the Centre for Regional Advancement in Learning, Equity, Access and Participation (LEAP) and, with a team of researchers, is exploring engagement and innovation within the field of K-12 Schools of Distance Education.