Volume 6, Issue 4 (12-2021)
IJREE 2021, 6(4): 75-90 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mokhtarzadeh M. Investigating the Relationship between Engagement and Achievement in Iranian Online English Classes in the COVID-19 Era. IJREE 2021; 6 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-611-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-611-en.html
Department of English Language and Linguistics, University of Birjand, Iran
Abstract: (3116 Views)
Online education, as a type of distance education, has attracted the attentions of administrators, instructors, and students in recent decades. In the midst of the Covid-19 epidemic, online education has become an unavoidable need. Students' participation in such programs may have an impact on their learning and achievement. The current study looked at the link between engagement and achievement in online classrooms. As a result, the study used a correlational design to address the research questions using Dixon's Online Student Engagement Scale and a researcher-created achievement exam. The questionnaire was developed in 2015 and comprises four categories and 19 items on a seven-point Likert scale. In 2020, the questionnaire was modified with Google Form and distributed to 297 students enrolled in general English courses via a university LMS. The second instrument was a 40-item test of reading comprehension developed by the researcher. The examination was created on the basis of reading theories and was given as a final exam. The one-sample t-test findings indicated that students’ achievement and engagement levels are adequate. Quantile regression revealed a strong link between top achievers’ engagement and achievement. However, bivariate correlation revealed no statistically significant link between typical students’ engagement and achievement. However, students’ level of engagement perception was satisfactory. The concept of engagement applies to high achievers but not to ordinary or low performers, making measurement error possible.
References
1. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511732935]
2. Alhazzani, N. (2020). MOOC's impact on higher education. Soc. Sci. Humanit, 2(1). [DOI:10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100030]
3. Al Kurdi, B., Alshurideh, M., & Salloum, S. A. (2020). Investigating a theoretical framework for e-
4. learning technology acceptance. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng, 10(6), 6484-6496. doi:10.11591/ijece.v10i6.pp6484-6496 [DOI:10.11591/ijece.v10i6.pp6484-6496]
5. Allen, T. O., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Dedicated to their degrees. Community College Review, 44(1), 70-86. [DOI:10.1177/0091552115617018]
6. Badrkhani, P. (2021). How a catastrophic situation turns into an exceptional opportunity: Covid-19 pandemic in Iran and challenges of online education for new English language educators. Interactive Learning Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1956545 [DOI:10.1080/10494820.2021.1956545]
7. Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2019). Early warning indicators and intervention systems: State of the field. In J. Fredricks, A. Reschly, & S. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions. London, UK. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00004-8]
8. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. [DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497]
9. Bigatel, P. M., Ragan, L. C., Kenan, S., May, J., & Redmond, B. F. (2012). The identification of competencies for online teaching success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1), 59-77. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ971040.pdf [DOI:10.24059/olj.v16i1.215]
10. Centner, T. J. (2014). Structuring a distance education program to attain student engagement. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 58(3), 230-235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.58.3.230
11. Chakraborty, M., & Nafukho, F. M. (2014). Strengthening student engagement: what do students want in online courses? European Journal of Training and Development, 38(9), 782-802. [DOI:10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0123]
12. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Boston, MA: Springer Science & Business Media. doi: [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7]
13. Connell, J. P., Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Clifford, E., Crichlow, W., & Usinger, P. (1995). Hanging in there: behavioral, psychological, and contextual factors affecting whether African American adolescents stay in high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(1), 41-63. [DOI:10.1177/0743554895101004]
14. Cox, E., & Egbue, O. (2014). Resistance to change in academia: Impacts and long-term implications for engineering education. Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE Midwest Section Conference, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
15. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. [DOI:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01]
16. Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79. [DOI:10.1080/01587910701305319]
17. Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student Engagement scale (OSE), Online Learning, 19(4), 1-15. [DOI:10.24059/olj.v19i4.561]
18. Farooq, F., Rathore, F. A., & Mansoor, S. N. (2020). Challenges of online medical education in Pakistan during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak, 30(6), 67-69. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2020.Supp1.S67. [DOI:10.29271/jcpsp.2020.Supp1.S67]
19. Fisher, K. (2010). Online student engagement: CCSSE finds enrollment status and online experience are key. Community College Week. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Online+student+engagement%3A+CCSSE+finds+enrollment+status+and+online+...-a0227361934
20. Gibson, M., & Bejinez, L. (2002). Dropout prevention: How migrant education supports Mexican youth. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(3), 155-175. [DOI:10.1207/S1532771XJLE0103_2]
21. Green, J., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., Marsh, H. W., & McInerney, D. (2012). Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key processes from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1111-1122. [DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.016]
22. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192. [DOI:10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192]
23. Hew, K. F. (2015). Towards a model of engaging online students: lessons from MOOCs and four policy documents. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(6), 425-431. [DOI:10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.543]
24. Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1997). Using multimedia to overcome the problems with problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 25, 97-115. [DOI:10.1023/A:1002967414942]
25. Horn, L., Peter, K., & Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary institutions: 1999-2000. Statistical analysis report. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES2002-168). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002168.pdf [DOI:10.1037/e492172006-011]
26. Horn, L. J., & Premo, M. D. (1995). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 1992-93. With an essay on undergraduates at risk. Statistical analysis report. (NCES 96-237). National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED392852.pdf
27. Hylton, M. E. (2007). Facilitating online learning communities: A comparison of two discussion facilitation techniques. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 25(4), 63-78. [DOI:10.1300/J017v25n04_04]
28. Kahu, E. R. (2003). Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ, 38(5), 758-773. [DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.598505]
29. Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: Engaging students to maximize learning in an online course. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(2), 107-115. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1141876.pdf
30. King, R. B. (2015). Sense of relatedness boosts engagement, achievement, and well-being: A latent growth model study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 26-38. [DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.002]
31. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross- linguistic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524841]
32. Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72-85. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1052833.pdf [DOI:10.32674/jis.v5i1.444]
33. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24-32. [DOI:10.1080/00091380309604090]
34. Layne, M., Boston, W. E., & Ice, P. (2013). A longitudinal study of online learners: Shoppers, swirlers, stoppers, and succeeders as a function of demographic characteristics. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 16(2), 1-13. https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer162/layne_boston_ice162.pdf
35. Levesque, C., Zuehlke, N., Stanek, L., & Ryan, R. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and U.S. university students: A comparative study based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 68-84. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2004_LevesqueZueStaRyan.pdf [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68]
36. Lewis, A. D., Huebner, E. S., Malone, P. S., & Valois, R. F. (2011). Life satisfaction and student engagement in adolescents. J. Youth. Adolesc, 4(3), 249-262. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9517-6 [DOI:10.1007/s10964-010-9517-6]
37. Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 282-293. http://www.anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/LimMorris(2009).pdf
38. Loh, C., Wong, D. H., Quazi, A., & Kingshott, R. P. (2016). Re-examining students' perception of e-learning: An Australian perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(1), 129-139. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/39370 [DOI:10.1108/IJEM-08-2014-0114]
39. Martins, J., & Nunes, M. B. (2016). The temporal properties of e-learning: An exploratory study of academics' conceptions. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(1), 2-19. [DOI:10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0048]
40. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
41. Mitra, S., & Le, K. (2019). The effect of cognitive and behavioral factors on student success in a bottleneck business statistics course via deeper analytics. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 1-30. doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2019.1700279 [DOI:10.1080/03610918.2019.1700279]
42. Moore, M. G. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. Open Learning, 5(3), 10-15. [DOI:10.1080/0268051900050303]
43. Muller, J. (2020). Penetration of leading social networks in Indonesia as of 3rd quarter 2019. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/284437/indonesia-social-network-penetration/
44. Nassoura, A. B. (2020). Measuring students' perceptions of online learning in higher education. International Journal of Science & Technology Research, 9(4), 1965-1970. https://www.ijstr.org/final-print/apr2020/Measuring-Students-Perceptions-Of-Online-Learning-In-Higher-Education.pdf
45. Nickerson, L. A., & Shea, K. M. (2020). First-semester organic chemistry during COVID-19: Prioritizing group work, flexibility, and student engagement. J. Chem. Educ, 97, 3201-3205. doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00674 [DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00674]
46. Ouimet, J. A., & Smallwood, R. A. (2005). CLASSE: The class-level survey of student engagement. Journal of Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education, 17(6), 13-15. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ790789
47. Patrick, H., Ryan, A., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83-98. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83]
48. Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167-208). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198507932.003.0006]
49. Pérez-Pérez, M., Serrano-Bedia, A. M., & García-Piqueres, G. (2020). An analysis of factors affecting students' perceptions of learning outcomes with Moodle. J. Furth. High. Educ., 44(8), 1114-1129. [DOI:10.1080/0309877X.2019.1664730]
50. Perets, E. A., Chabeda, D., Gong, A. Z., Huang, X., Fung, T. S., & Ng, K. Y. (2020). Impact of the emergency transition to remote teaching on student engagement in a Non-STEM undergraduate chemistry course in the time of COVID-19. J. Chem. Educ, 97(9), 2439-2447. [DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00879]
51. Phillips, N. (2005). Forced learning theory. Training: the magazine of manpower and management development, 42(6), 46.
52. Pino-James, N. (2018). Evaluation of a pedagogical model for student engagement in learning activities. Educational Action Research, 26(3), 456-479. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2017.1354771 [DOI:10.1080/09650792.2017.1354771]
53. Poll, K., Widen, J., & Weller, S. (2014). Six instructional best practices for online engagement and retention. Journal of Online Doctoral Education, 1(1), 56-72. https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=english_facpubs
54. Qureshi, F., Khawaja, S., & Zia, T. (2020). Mature undergraduate students' satisfaction with online teaching during COVID-19. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(12), 456-475. doi: 10.46827/ejes.v7i12.3440
55. Reschly, A., Appleton, J. J., & Pohl, A. (2014). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & P. Harrison (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 37-50). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
56. Reschly, A. L., Pohl, A., Christenson, S. L., & Appleton, J. J. (2017). Engaging adolescents in secondary schools. In B. Schultz, J. Harrison, & S. Evans (Eds.), School mental health services for adolescents (pp. 45-77). New York: Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1093/med-psych/9780199352517.003.0003]
57. Reschly, A. L., Pohl, A. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2020). Editors student engagement effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective Interventions at school. Switzerland: Springer Nature. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-37285-9]
58. Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2004). Exploring the interaction equation: Validating a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 25-37. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1808/639 [DOI:10.24059/olj.v8i4.1808]
59. Rose, M., & Moore, A. (2019). Student Retention in Online Courses: University Role. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 22(3), 1-14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1228760
60. Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross- national study. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol., 33(5), 464-481. [DOI:10.1177/0022022102033005003]
61. Schreiber, B., & Yu, D. (2016). Exploring student engagement practices at a South African university: Student engagement as reliable predictor of academic performance. South African Journal of Higher Education, 30(5), 157-175. [DOI:10.20853/30-5-593]
62. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciences. United States of America: Westview Press.
63. Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 767-779. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/sheridan_1210.htm
64. Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-7089-2]
65. Shernoff, D. J., Ruze, E., & Sinha, S. (2016). The influence of the high school classroom environment on learning as mediated by student engagement. School Psychology International, 38(2), 201-218. [DOI:10.1177/0143034316666413]
66. Shrestha, E., Mehta, R. S., Mandal, G., Chaudhary, K., & Pradhan, N. (2019). Perception of the learning environment among the students in a nursing college in Eastern Nepal. BMC Med. Educ., 19, 382. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-019-1835-0]
67. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525. [DOI:10.1177/0013164408323233]
68. Song, D., Oh, E., & Rice, M. (2017). Interacting with a conversational agent system for educational purposes in online courses. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human System Interaction (pp. 78-82). Ulsan, South Korea: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HSI.2017.8005002 [DOI:10.1109/HSI.2017.8005002]
69. Stocker, B. L. (2018). Transitioning from on-campus to online in a master of science nursing program: A comparative study of academic success. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(2), 113-130. [DOI:10.1080/08923647.2018.1443371]
70. Stoessel, K., Ihme, T. A., Barbarino, M. L., Fisseler, B., & Stürmer, S. (2015). Sociodemographic diversity and distance education: Who drops out from academic programs and why? Research in Higher Education, 56(3), 228-246. [DOI:10.1007/s11162-014-9343-x]
71. Taplin, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in distance education: Practitioners' beliefs about an action learning project. Distance Education, 21(2), 278-299. [DOI:10.1080/0158791000210206]
72. Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different: stalking the second tier. Tucson, Ariz. (6840 E. Broadway Blvd., Tucson 85710-2815): Research Corp.
73. Umbach, P., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184. [DOI:10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1]
74. Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. London: Longman.
75. Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for E-learning in higher education? A stakeholders' analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26-36. http://library.oum.edu.my/oumlib/sites/default/files/file_attachments/odl-resources/4332/who.pdf
76. Wang, M. T., Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Willett, J. B. (2011). Trajectories of family management practices and early adolescence behavioral outcomes in middle school. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1324-1341. [DOI:10.1037/a0024026]
77. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 220-232. [DOI:10.1111/jcal.12042]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
