Students&rsquo; Engagement in Online Learning Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic

Sheryl May  E. Ramos,; Mary Joy  D. Viñas,; Edward  R. Torrefranca,

Students’ Engagement in Online Learning Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic

Edward R. Torrefranca | Sheryl May E. Ramos | Mary Joy D. Viñas

Discipline: Education

Abstract:

The Philippine school system has welcomed flexible learning and made adaptations to allow for remote instruction via digital platforms since the COVID-19 pandemic dra-matically switched traditional study to on line learning. QCU launched complete on line learning in 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and blended learning in 2022- 2023. Online learning was not widely accepted before the pandemic. Thus, researchers want to know how much students learned online during the pandemic. The study also gives teachers, uni-versity policymakers, and designers ideas for student engagement strategiesto improve academic performance. This also makes accreditation andbenchmarking data more ac-cessible. Since online students rarely interact with the institution, Martin and Bolliger stress student engagement. Newmann, Wehlage, and Lamborn defined student en-gagement as "the student's psychological interest in and effort towards obtaining, comprehending, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts required for academic performance." (a) How engagedare online students? Does student engagement affect academic performance? A descriptive cross-sectional survey was chosen. Focus group discussions and interviews confirmed, explained and triangulated the investigation's findings. This study involves QCU students enrolled in the second semester of the Aca-demic Year 2022-2023. A total of 657 students responded to the invitation to answer thequestionnaire. A Shapiro-Wilk's test and a visual inspection of their histograms and normal Q-Q plots showed that the respondents' midterm general weighted average was not normally distributed. However, the distributions of Likert scores for the Online Classroom Student Engagement Scales (OCSES) were approximately normal for all the indicators. Students' overall level of engagement revealed a mean score of 3.37, which was interpreted as moderate engagement. Among the indicators, assignment activity was the highest. Online student engagement does not have much effect on the mid-term grades of the students except on assignment activity which usually requires a higher level of active engagement by the students. In general, students would be more engaged in learning when they are given activities or tasks that involve deeper learn-ing. Therefore, it is recommended to provide tasks, activities, discussions, and interac-tions that involve deeper learning, understanding, or analysis from the students.

References:

Amora, J.T. et al. (2016). Student Engagement and College Experience as Mediators of the Relationship Between Institutional Support and Academic Performance. Revista Digital de Investigación Lasaliana Revue numérique de Recherche lasallienne Digital Journal of Lasallian Research, (12), 15-30. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303328318
Chen, J. et al. (2020). Can engagement in learning enhance tourismundergradu- ates’employability? Acase study.https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720920930349. Retrieved from September 28, 2021from https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.1177/0020720920930349?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.2
Great Schools Partnerships (2016). Student Engagement. The Glossary ofEdu- cation Reform. Retrieved from: https://www.edglossary.org/student-en-gagement
Mandernach, J. (2012, February). Indicators of Engagement in the Online Classroom. Online Classroom, page 10-12. www.FacultyFocus.com
Magsambol, B. (2021, May 22). CHED: There’s no going back, ‘flexible learning will be new norm’. Rappler.

https://www.rappler.com/nation/ched-says-flexible-learning-newnorm

Martin, F. & Bolliger, D.U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online

Learning 22(1), 205222. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student Engagement in Online Learning: What Works and Why. ASHE Higher Education Report. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018
Perry, E.H. & Pilati, M.L. (2011). Online Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128, 95-104. Retrieved January 20, 2021 fromhttps:// www.learntechlib.org/p/110696/
Dixson M. (2015). Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning, Volume 19 Issue 4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561. Retrieved August 4, 2021 from https://
Splendor, C. N. & Chikeme, P.C. (2020). A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study: Practi- cal and Feasible Design in Investigating Health Care-Seeking Behaviors of Under- graduates. SAGE Research Methods Cases: Medicine and Health. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781529742862
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AmericanEdu- cational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educa- tional, & Psychological Testing (US), (2014).
Torrefranca, E. R. (2020). Survey on the Online Tools Readiness of QCU Faculty and Stu- dents. Unpublished manuscript.
Khan, R.A., Atta, K., Sajjad, M., & Jawaid, M. (2021). Twelve tips to enhance student engagement in synchronous online teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 44, 601-606.
Manning-Ouellette, A., & Black, K. (2017). Learning Leadership: A Qualitative Study on the Differences of Student Learning in Online versus Traditional Coursesin a Lead- ership Studies Program. The Journal of Leadership Education.