older learners online (Boston and Ice, 2011; O’Shea et al., 2015). Greenland and Moore (2014) also noted the potential for unexpected work commitments and/or busy work schedules to contribute to student intermissions and discontinuations. With regard to factors that influence student choice to study online, there is evidence that students opting to study online choose flexibility (i.e., convenience) over the perceived value of studying on-campus (Bolliger and Martindale, 2004). This flexibility is likely to be prioritized due to many online students being at a later life stage than younger on-campus students, whereby study must be accommodated around work and family commitments. However, the source of a requirement for flexibility also brings with it additional complications: factors such as age, gender, educational history, work obligations, and family commitments have all been found, in turn, to impact on completion rates in tertiary education settings (Tsay et al., 2000; Colorado and Eberle, 2010). Becoming an online learner places different demands on students. The fundamental quality and nature of the student experience shifts in online learning environments to a greater reliance on asynchronous modes of communication. Interactions also occur through a variety of methods, including learner-to-content, learner-to-instructor, and learner-to-learner (peer) interaction (Bolliger and Martindale, 2004). This necessitates a more proactive, self-directed approach on the part of students (Brown, 1997; Tsay et al., 2000; Khiat, 2015; Kırmızı, 2015). Self-regulated learning, where students use meta-cognitive skills to plan, implement, and reflect on their learning, have been increasingly associated with better academic achievements (Johnson, 2015; Khiat, 2015). Active engagement in academic materials, and with instructors and peers, has been emphasized as a core component of successful learning for students (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). In one study, lack of social interaction was found to be the largest single barrier to student success online (Muilenburg and Berge, 2005). Meaningful connections with the institution are a key ingredient in student engagement (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). However, not all of the responsibility for effective engagement in online courses lies with the student. There is an institutional and faculty responsibility to create an inclusive, supportive structure where students can engage in social interactions and a sense of (online) community can be fostered, as has been apparent in research findings from Garrison and colleagues in applying and extending the Community of Inquiry model (e.g., Garrison et al., 2000; Aragon, 2003; Garrison and Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007) (see Figure 2 below). 19
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzYwNDE=