Article Sidebar

Submitted
Apr 30, 2021
Accepted
Apr 3, 2023
Published
Apr 27, 2023
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1515 Download : 643

Main Article Content

Abstract

Online teaching and learning have become the novel norm amidst COVID-19 pandemic crisis across the world. The educational institutions across the world have switched to online mode of instruction to continue to provide education. Thus, research on effectiveness of online teaching and factors affecting the student’s engagement in a virtual classroom has gained importance. Students during pandemic are learning at home and lack motivation and confidence in their academic life. The present study aimed to analyse the student engagement and the factors that affect the student engagement in online learning environment. The study employed a quantitative research design to collect data from 600 students attending online classes in schools and colleges of Bangalore, India. The study found that there is a positive correlation between students’ intrinsic motivation and student engagement. Student engagement increases as the academic pressure or tension decreases. The core findings of the study showed that interest towards learning, perceived competence, and perceived choice of students determines student engagement in online classroom. Almost 33.7 % variance in student engagement is because of students’ intrinsic motivation. Future researchers may explore external factors affecting student engagement. Student engagement is significant for meaningful learning in online learning environment.

Keywords

Intrinsic Motivation COVID-19 Online Learning Student Engagement Virtual Classroom

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

Author Biographies

Pramod Kumar MPM, Christ University

Assistant Professor, School of Education, Christ University, Bangalore, India

 

R Srilakshmi, Christ University

School of Education, Christ University, Bangalore, India

How to Cite
Prakasha, S. G., Pramod Kumar MPM, & Srilakshmi, R. (2023). Student engagement in online learning during COVID-19. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 19(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135500

References

  1. Ananga, P., & Biney, I. K. (2017). Comparing face-to-face and online teaching. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices, 7, 165–179. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322445537%0ACOMPARING
  2. Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069
  3. Azrin, M., Nasir, M., Janikowski, T., Guyker, W., & Wang, C. (2017). Modifying the Student Course Engagement.
  4. Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in the digital age. BC Open Textbooks. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
  5. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006
  6. Butola, L. K. (2021). E-learning-a new trend of learning in 21st century during COVID-19 pandemic. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v15i1.13443
  7. Charlotte Lærke Weitze, Rikke Ørngreen, K. L. (2013). The Global Classroom Video Conferencing Model and First Evaluations. In M. A. Mélanie Ciussi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on E-Learning : SKEMA Business School, Sophia Antipolis France (pp. 503–510). Academic Conferences and Publishing International.
  8. Chen, K.-C., & Jang, S.-J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
  9. Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 10(2), 1–13. http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=52225431&site=eds-live&scope=site
  10. Doffermyre, J. J. (2016). Formative assessment in the classroom: Getting it right. ProQuest LLC, 78(8-A(E)). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=psyh&AN=2017-23160-226&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=gsu1
  11. Dwivedi, A., Dwivedi, P., Bobek, S., & Sternad Zabukovšek, S. (2019). Factors affecting students’ engagement with online content in blended learning. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-10-2018-0559
  12. Eccles, J., & Wang, M.-T. (2012). Part I Commentary: So What Is Student Engagement Anyway? In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 133–145). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_6
  13. Garas-York, K. (2005). Exploring Student engagement in an online course.
  14. Gupta, M., & Pandey, J. (2018). Impact of Student Engagement on Affective Learning: Evidence from a Large Indian University. Current Psychology, 37(1), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9522-3
  15. H. Shroff, R., & R. Vogel, D. (2009). Assessing the Factors Deemed to Support Individual Student Intrinsic Motivation in Technology Supported Online and Face-to-Face Discussions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 8, 059–085. https://doi.org/10.28945/160
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
  17. Joshi, A., Vinay, M., & Bhaskar, P. (2020). Impact of coronavirus pandemic on the Indian education sector: perspectives of teachers on online teaching and assessments. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2020-0087
  18. Kilis, S., & Yıldırım, Z. (2019). Posting patterns of students’social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence in online learning. Online Learning, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1460
  19. Lawson, M. A. (2017). Commentary: Bridging student engagement research and practice. School Psychology International, 38(3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034317708010
  20. Legault, L. (2016). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1–4). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1139-1
  21. Lightner, C. A., & Lightner-Laws, C. A. (2016). A blended model: simultaneously teaching a quantitative course traditionally, online, and remotely. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.841262
  22. Lockee, B. B. (2021). Online education in the post-COVID era. Nature Electronics, 4(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0
  23. McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom to Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
  24. Moore, M. G. (2018). The Theory of Transactional Distance. In Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 32–46). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315296135-4
  25. Noesgaard, S. S., & Ørngreen, R. (2015). The effectiveness of e-learning: An explorative and integrative review of the definitions, methodologies and factors that promote e-Learning effectiveness. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(4), 278–290.
  26. Nunnally, J. C. (1979). Psychometric Theory: Secon d Edition. Applied Psychological Measurement.
  27. Pak, S. Il, & Oh, T. H. (2010). Correlation and simple linear regression. Journal of Veterinary Clinics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89993-0_6
  28. Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Depaepe, F. (2020). Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education, 143, 103682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682
  29. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L & Koole, M. (2020). Online University Teaching During and After the Covid-19 Crisis: Refocusing Teacher Presence and Learning Activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
  30. Rapp-McCall, L. A., & Anyikwa, V. (2016). Active Learning Strategies and Instructor Presence in An Online Research Methods Course: Can we Decrease Anxiety and Enhance Knowledge? Advances in Social Work, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18060/20871
  31. Reynolds, J. L. (2006). Measuring intrinsic motivations. Handbook of Research on Electronic Surveys and Measurements, Imi, 170–173. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-792-8.ch018
  32. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  33. Rybnicek, R., Bergner, S., & Gutschelhofer, A. (2019). How individual needs influence motivation effects: a neuroscientific study on McClelland’s need theory. Review of Managerial Science, 13(2), 443–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0252-1
  34. Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How Motivation Influences Student Engagement: A Qualitative Case Study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p252
  35. Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the Work: An Action Plan for Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED465719
  36. Rajalingam, S., Kanagamalliga, S., Karuppiah, N., & Caesar Puoza, J. (2021). Peer interaction teaching-learning approaches for effective engagement of students in virtual classroom. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157191
  37. Rizvi, Y. S., & Nabi, A. (2021). Transformation of learning from real to virtual: an exploratory-descriptive analysis of issues and challenges. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2020-0052
  38. Sharma, R. (2020). Online learning and its positive and negative impact in Higher education during COVID-19. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(9), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra2013
  39. Suárez, N., Regueiro, B., Estévez, I., del Mar Ferradás, M., Guisande, M. A., & Rodríguez, S. (2019). Individual Precursors of Student Homework Behavioral Engagement: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation, Perceived Homework Utility and Homework Attitude. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00941
  40. Triyason, T., Tassanaviboon, A., & Kanthamanon, P. (2020, July). Hybrid classroom: Designing for the new normal after COVID-19 pandemic. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology (pp. 1-8).
  41. Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The Classroom Engagement Inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050
  42. West, E., & Jones, P. (2007). A Framework for Planning Technology Use in Teacher Education Programs that Serve Rural Communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(4), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050702600402
  43. Wiles, G., & Ball, T. (n.d.). The Converged Classroom. 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 23.1176.1-23.1176.10. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22561