Engaging students can be a challenge in online education. Student inactivity and drop-out are well-known issues that online courses may face. In the H2020 Integrity project, we investigated these issues with the aim of increasing student engagement in our three online integrity courses for PhD students. We did a survey on reasons for course drop-out, tested several methods for decreasing student inactivity, and interviewed eight course participants on their engagement. In this blog post we share the insights we gained.

As part of the H2020 Integrity project, we developed three Small Private Online Courses (SPOCS) on research integrity. PhD students could enroll in these courses for free via the project website. In each of the courses we had some highly motivated and active participants. However, other students were less engaged and were absent during the live meetings, did not complete all activities, or neglected to contribute to group assignments. Moreover, part of the students who registered never started the course or dropped out after the first week. The courses are small-scale and interaction between participants is important, thus increasing student engagement was a main concern in improving the courses.

To better understand student inactivity, we sent a survey to students who dropped out of the course or never started, inquiring about the reasons for their absence. In total, ten students filled in the survey. The main reason, indicated by 80% of survey respondents, was not having enough time for the course. Another reason (mentioned by 20%) was that something came in between.

Based on these findings, we tried a few methods for decreasing the number of inactive students in our courses. Two weeks prior to subsequent course runs we sent a confirmation email to everyone who had registered. This email contained more information about the course, the time investment needed, and the requirement of active participation in group assignments, as well as a request to confirm registration in order to enroll in the course. On average, 29% confirmed their registration and enrolled in the course, suggesting that these emails were effective in decreasing the number of participants who were likely to join the course without participating actively. We also sent personal emails to inactive students at the end of the first week, which in each case either helped to increase the student’s activity or to identify problems and intervene.

So how do we get students who do participate to feel motivated and engaged? To answer this question, we conducted interviews with eight course participants, and asked them what helped them most to feel engaged in the course. This is what they overall found most engaging:

• Involving personal experience: Participants felt engaged by assignments in which they had to apply what they learned to themselves and to their experiences in doing PhD research. They also enjoyed sharing personal experiences and views with other course participants.

• Focusing on grey areas: Traditional FFP (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) education tends to focus on misconduct, mainly teaching students what they should not do and what rules they should follow. The H2020 Integrity PhD courses take a broader approach by focusing on the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) and places more emphasis on grey areas and dilemmas in which it is not immediately clear what you should do. Participants felt engaged by this focus on grey areas and said that they enjoyed reflecting on such issues. Some students said that it helped them deal with grey areas in their own work as a researcher.

• Keeping a personal portfolio: Throughout each of our PhD courses, participants keep a personal portfolio, in which they are prompted to reflect on questions related to the course topics and to make personal notes about what they learned. Half of the interview participants mentioned this as one of the most engaging parts of the course. It helped them reflect and encouraged them to answer questions about their own research that they had not considered before.

• Interacting with other PhD students: The PhD courses offer ample opportunities for social interaction with others, through live meetings, group assignments, and discussion forums. Most interview participants found at least some aspects of this engaging. They particularly enjoyed hearing other perspectives and learning from other PhD students. However, the social aspect of the course could also become a source of disengagement if other students did not participate actively, for example not doing their part of a group assignment. This underlines the importance of the active involvement of all course participants for an engaging SPOC environment.

Overall, our findings suggest that student engagement in online integrity courses is a multifaceted issue that requires a combination of solutions. Some students may simply lack the time or commitment to be active in the course, and it seems best to address these students by making clear that registration for the course is not free of obligation. By thus decreasing the number of low-activity students, and by incorporating personal reflection and grey areas in the course, we can help create an engaging course environment for our students.

Feature image author – @drobotdean