In 2020, the global pandemic saw higher education institutions and association teachers and students across the globe, forced to rapidly shift from on-campus to online learning, which required academics to pivot to online teaching.  Over a few short months the higher education sector changed (Moore, 2020), forcing people to adapt and apply existing “competencies to new and unfamiliar situations” (Blaschke, 2012, p. 59).  The expectation for educators in higher education to shift in a relatively short amount of time from face-to-face to online teaching was not a simple request, nor in reality, an easy process.

During the early months, while many academics demonstrated remarkable resilience in their efforts to modify pedagogy and practice to the online environment (Olsen, Faucon, & Dillenbourg, 2020), a lack of institutional understanding of online pedagogy proved to be a complicating factor. This lack of appreciation of the challenges involved coming to terms with developing ‘teacher presence’;      needing to orientate students with new systems, technology and online learning expectations; as well as consideration for ways to support online student engagement (Cutri & Mena, 2020; Stone, 2019).  These concerns are confirmed by Redmond, Heffernan, Abawi, Brown, and Henderson (2018) who note that while there is an increased emphasis on online engagement, there is a lack of clarity regarding “what counts as online engagement”, or the implications these types of engagement have on teaching strategies (p. 195).

Moreover, while online learning depends more on students’ self-efficacy in managing their learning there are fewer prompts or sources of reinforcement (e.g., interactions with instructors and peers) that keep learners on-task with the learning objectives. In times of crisis, these types of difficulties are exacerbated for educators and institutions. Online educators and their students experience other distractions, such as financial hardships stemming from redundancies; isolation stress, home-schooling children; and limited access to digital devices. These competing commitments are potentially taking priority over students’ studies (Stone & O'Shea, 2019), with both educators and students negatively affected by these types of issues, as well as frustrations stemming from technical difficulties with online access.

Thus, for educators unfamiliar with online pedagogy, students’ lack of engagement can be severe. You (2016) observes that low online engagement is linked to poor academic achievement, procrastination, and withdrawal. Aware of the significant challenges confronting noviceonline educators at this time, a group of academics embarked on a research project.  The goal of project was: to provide academics with an online engagement framework, including the associated paper (Redmond, Heffernan, Abawi, Brown, & Henderson, 2018) and key information on the Framework that would support their reflection on the elements of online engagement in the design of online courses; and then to evaluate the efficacy of the Framework in informing and enhancing educators pedagogical expertise and capacities in responding to the crisis-induced ‘on campus-online shift’. The multidimensional framework (Redmond et al., 2018), consisted of five interrelated elements of engagement (social, cognitive, behavioural, collaborative, and emotional engagement), considered crucial for effective student online engagement.  Evidence reinforces that scholars had already found value in the Framework as a reflection tool and deployed the online engagement framework in their teaching practice (Fanshawe, Burke, Tualaulelei, Cameron, in print). It also gained traction nationally (see, for example, Stone & O'Shea, 2019) and internationally, particularly being identified as an invaluable tool during the COVID-19 crisis.  However, the Framework was still at a conceptual stage. The team wanted to operationalise and test its impacts and explore its contributions to theory, concepts, and practical applications beyond CoVID19.

A case study approach was employed, bounded by the online teaching experience (the phenomena) with multiple embedded units of analysis (the educators) (Yin, 2014). Case study is recognised as having a distinct advantage for its ability in supporting in-depth exploration of a phenomenon (generate principles or guidelines for pedagogic design and implementation and answer ‘how’ and why’ type questions), particularly when questions were being asked about a contemporary event that mattered to the individuals (Chadderton & Torrance, 2011; Yin, 2014). A five-phase research process was followed. In Phase 1, novice HE online educators, or those who supported academics who were pivoting were recruited during international webinar presentations. Eleven participants from across the globe (including South Africa, Australia and the UK) were recruited through referrals or an expression of interest after participating in an online orientation seminar (see Phase 2); and through professional networks, associations and social. Phase 1 also included applying for and gaining ethics approval. Participants who had not joined the first webinar were invited to engage in a dedicated online orientation seminar that introduced and unpacked the Online Engagement Framework. Participants were then emailed and asked to connect with one of the researchers for a quick meeting (via zoom) where the project’s goals and intent were outlined. Phase 2: Participants then spent several months (approx. 3-4 months) applying the elements and indicators of the Online Engagement Framework in efforts to enhance student engagement in their course and make notes related to reflecting and evaluating the value of the Framework. Phase 3 involved conducting semi-structured interviews 1:1 via Zoom (approximately 45 minutes) to investigate their experiences of using elements of the Framework and its effectiveness in enhancing their planning, application, evaluation and reflection of the online engagement strategies they implemented in their course. Feedback was also sought regarding the Framework’s effectiveness in building their confidence and competency in online pedagogy and its impact on increasing student engagement. Phase 4 involved the transcription of interviews and identifying themes, adopting deductive thematic analysis (Brown, 2019). A filtering process helped determine categories and conceptual elements. A priori and open coding (Glaser, 2016) technique were then used to develop alternative codes and themes based exploring emerging concepts, patterns and outliers beyond the a priori codes.

This project responded to the global priority of reducing the spread of COVID-19 through national shutdowns and isolation. A consequence of higher education is the rapid shift to online learning for all students. Post COVID-19 this demand continues in many universities across the globe, who are rationalising their delivery systems. Thus, it requires a strong evidence base to support its viability and evidence of academics’ challenges. This project has international significance in increasing educators’ expertise in online teaching, mainly related to the Online Engagement Framework (Redmond et al., 2018) heightening awareness of the different types of online engagement and supporting individuals and teaching teams in making decisions about their teaching approaches for online learning. The project fills a gap in terms of limited support tools of this kind. It contributes to providing novice online educators, nationally and internationally, with an accessible framework to support decision-making and strategies for online L&T. Insights from the project have supported revisions and refinements to the Framework, particularly concerning the addition of strategies to support engagement, linked to the five elements of the framework, and in doing so, increasing its effectiveness and efficacy.

Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56-71. Brown, A. (2019). Respectful research with and about young families – Forging frontiers and methodological considerations. London, UK: Palgrave Pivot. Chadderton, C., & Torrance, H. (2011). Case Study In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and methods in social research (pp. 2-15). London: Sage Cutri, R. M., & Mena, J. (2020). A critical reconceptualization of faculty readiness for online teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 361-380. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Glaser, B. G. (2016). Open coding descriptions. Grounded theory review, 15(2), 108-110. Moore, R. L. (2020). Developing lifelong learning with heutagogy: contexts, critiques, and challenges. Distance Education, 41(3), 381-401. Olsen, J. K., Faucon, L., & Dillenbourg, P. (2020). Transferring interactive activities in large lectures from face-to-face to online settings. Information and Learning Sciences. Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175 Stone, C. (2019). Online learning in Australian higher education: Opportunities, challenges and transformations. Student Success, 10(2), 1. Stone, C., & O'Shea, S. (2019). Older, online and first: Recommendations for retention and success. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1). Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. You, J. W. (2016). Identifying significant indicators using LMS data to predict course achievement in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 23-30.