When it comes to the topic of education, most will readily agree that active student participation is crucial for the acquisition of meaning learning. The most effective means of learning is community-centered, acknowledges Anderson (2008). A standard way of thinking of active student participation within the virtual learning community is the requirement of discussion posts. This requirement, however, is not the only approach to elicit learner engagement. An, Shin, and Lim (2009) examined the effects of various instructor facilitation approaches in an effort to identify what strategies generated more interactions among students in asynchronous discussions. Their findings suggest student led discussions provided more student interaction than online discussion boards, which were seen as task-oriented and impersonal. One group in their study enjoyed increase student interaction and student satisfaction with minimal instructor facilitation, openly given their expressions and opinions. Anderson (2008) pointed out traditional online course design student-student interactions requirements in distance learning settings had been downplayed.
Chen, Chen, and Kinshuk (2009) observed factors that influenced student engagement in sharing knowledge among its virtual learning community members is dependent upon the own individual members self-efficacy viewpoint of themselves. Self –efficacy is the belief one’s own capabilities. This self-efficacy viewpoint encompasses both knowledge sharing and web specific abilities. The members viewpoint of themselves, their knowledge, and their abilities is what influenced knowledge sharing among learning community. This finding has more important consequences for the broader domain of student motivation as the belief in one’s own capabilities can become a major factor in the frequency as well as the quality of learner engagement.
Davies and Graff (2005) compared the frequency of online engagement and final grades of 122 undergraduate students and their findings indicates the frequency of student engagement does not lead to significant increases in their final grades, however, those students who didn’t receive passing grades also were less frequent student participants. The study suggests the type of interaction, voluntary or compulsory, as well as whom interactions occur that are related to course grades. Though it is conceded that significant grade increases are not necessarily a direct result of increased compulsory learner engagement, learner engagement is a perquisite for knowledge generation.
Although learner engagement may seem tacit in its implication, it is a crucial component of the learner centered: for this engagement is at the center of meaning learning experiences.
