A Comparison of Online Engagement for Undergraduates

A Comparison of Online Engagement for Undergraduates

Noor Hanim Rahmat

Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia  

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000240

Received: 04 June 2025; Accepted: 10 June 2025; Published: 09 July 2025

ABSTRACT

Post covid teaching era has normalized online teaching and learning. Although before that, there were already many online courses available and people have successfully benefitted from them. Nevertheless, many courses are conveniently carried out via missed mode; face-to-face and online mode. This study is done to investigate students’ perception on online engagement. In addition to that, this study also compares their perception on the different types of engagement; specifically behavioural, cognitive, affective engagement. This study was guided from the social cognitive and classroom engagement theories. The instrument used was a questionnaire that contains three main sections and they are behavioural, cognitive and affective components. Data was collected from 80 students who respondents who attended mixed mode classes; face-to-face and online classes. Findings showed there is a relationship between behavioural and cognitive engagement. There is also an association between cognitive and affective engagement. Finally, findings also showed that there is an association between affective and behavioural engagement. The findings of this study bear interesting pedagogical implications in this era of online teaching mode.

Keywords: online, students’ engagement, behaviour, cognitive, affective

INTRODUCTION

The covid days have opened more pathways to gaining education. Although there were already many online courses prior to that, it was the covid era that gave us the assurance that online learning is the way to go. Many institutions now have mixed mode classes; within the same programs/course, some classes are taught face-to-face while other classes are done online.

One biggest worry about online learning is engagement. Hollister, et.al. (2022) voiced their worry about learning via online that was not able to provide an engaging environment. The worry comes from different angles. One is the angle from the teacher. Can I reach my students like I did during face-to-face classes? Next, is the angle from the students. Can I interact with my instructor like I did in a traditional classroom? Can I interact with my peers during class? Can I feel involved with the content of the lessons? As such, Limbu (2025) suggested that further studies on student engagement. Researchers should into aspects of engagement in the online classroom to improve teaching and learning in the online mode; particularly student engagement. This study is done to explore perception of learners on classroom engagement in learning strategies. Specifically, this study is done to answer the following questions;

• How do students identify classroom behavioural engagement in online learning?
• How do students identify classroom cognitive engagement in online learning?
• How do students identify classroom affective (emotional) engagement in online learning?
• How do the means for classroom engagement differ?
• Is there a relationship between all engagement types in online?

LITERATURE REVIW

Theoretical Framework of the Study

The Social Cognitive Theory and Classroom Engagement

Learning involves the interaction of three main factors. According to Bandura (1986), The fist factor is the environment. The environment can be positive or negative depending on the activities planned by the instructor. This includes well-prepared course materials and well-planned class activities. In addition to that, in the context of online class, the environment includes the online mode as well.

The environment sets the mood for learning and task and learning activities would have effects on the learners (personal). The learning experience will create an impact on the learner. For instance, positive learning experience creates positive learning behaviour, and vice versa. Bandura (1986) posits that these three factors (environment, personal and behaviour) have a reciprocal interaction.

Figure 1- The Social Cognitive Theory (Source: Bandura, 1986)

Similarly, the classroom engagement theory states that successful learning needs commitment from involved parties such as the students, teachers and the institutions. This theory emphasizes that learning is a dynamic, social and also contextual process. This process is facilitated by engagement. According to Fredericks, et.al (2004), engagement can be categorized into three and they are behavioural, cognitive and affective engagement. Behavioural engagement refers to the observable actions in learning such as the learning tasks which includes class attendance and participation. Next, cognitive engagement includes the students’ efforts to make sense of the learning.  Finally, affective engagement involves the students’ emotional reactions towards the learning process.

Moving on to affective engagement in the classroom. According to Young (1959), affective engagement considers the learners’ affective state such as learners’ mood and emotional state as influencing learning motivation.  The theory states that positive engagement can lead to positive learning experience and vice versa. This is also supported by Li & Xue (2023) who states that positive classroom engagement leads to positive emotions. The emotions will lead to positive learning behaviour.

Past Studies on Online Classroom Engagement

Al Hussaini, et.al (2024) conducted a qualitative study to investigate strategies used to get student engagement. The instrument used was a self-developed questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale. This study explored factors influencing students’ engagement. The factors measured were Classroom Activities and Engagement, Teacher Feedback and Support, Use of Technology, Collaborative Learning, Motivation and Interest and Classroom Environment and Culture. Findings revealed that Inquiry-based and project-based learning, differentiated instruction, and technology integration were found to be encourage active participation among students. The study also revealed the importance of supportive learning environments with positive teacher-student relationships and peer collaboration.

Next, the study by Alamban (2023) was done to investigate the relationship between student engagement and classroom management. This study employed the correlation research design and is done to determine the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Two sets of questionnaires were used; one is on classroom management and the other is about student engagement. Findings revealed that there is a relationship between classroom management and student engagement.

Cents-Boonstra, et.al. (2021) conducted a study on levels of engagement in the classroom. This study is anchored by Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to understand the motivation and demotivating factors for student engagement. Data was collected from classroom observation of 120 observed lessons of 43 teachers. Findings showed that there are distinct relations between motivating teacher’s behaviour and student engagement. The findings also revealed that motivating teachers’ behaviour provided the highest level of engagement.

The study by Rahmat, et.al. (2021) looked at the perception of learners on learning Japanese online. The study is anchored from the social learning theory and online engagement to account for the sense of engagement learners get in online learning. A survey of 24 items was used as the instrument. 433 students participated as respondents. The findings showed that learners needed positive motivation by the teacher in the classroom to get positive student interaction. Studies also revealed that learners learn bets in an environment with supportive peer interactions.

Gray & DiLoreto (2016) conducted a cross-sectional study to explore student engagement in the classroom. The independent variables in the study are course structure and organization, learner interaction, instructor presence. The dependent (outcome) variables were improved student learning, student satisfaction, mediating variable is student engagement. The instrument used was the Student Learning and Satisfaction in Online Learning Environments Instrument (SLS-OLE). 187 students participated as respondents. Findings showed that the course structure and organization are crucial in online learning environments. Statistical analysis showed that there are significant relationships with learner interaction, instructor presence, student engagement, student learning, and student satisfaction. Data analysis also showed students benefitted from appreciate well-designed and developed online courses.

In summary, student’s online engagement depends on three important factors. The first is the instructor’s well-planned classroom activities coupled with well-designed course materials. Next, the environment is an important factor that facilitates student engagement. A positive environment leads to positive interactions between the learners and the materials, the instructor and also their peers. Finally, the interactions with the peers in online environment boosts learners learning motivation.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

Figure 2 below shows the conceptual framework of the study. This study is guided from classroom engagement by Fredericks, et.al. (2004) who states that there are three main types of classroom engagement and they are behavioural, cognitive and affective engagement. Do the categories of classroom engagement by Fredericks, et.al. (2004) comply with online engagement strategies? According to Redmond, et.al. (2018), there are several types of online engagement such as social, behavioural, collaborative, cognitive and emotional engagement. Social online engagement allows learners to build a community to facilitate learning. Behavioural online engagement allows learners to develop academic skills while upholding online learning norms. Collaborative online engagement takes pace when learners interact with peers. In the context of this study, social, behavioural and collaborative complies with behavioural classroom engagement by Fredericks, et.al (2004). Next, cognitive online engagement refers to learners thinking critically while interacting online. This also involves learners integrating ideas and justifying decisions. This complies with cognitive classroom engagement. Lastly, emotional online engagement refers to learners managing expectation and committing to learning and even recognizing motivations. This complies with Fredericks, et.al. (2004) affective classroom engagement

This study also explores if there is a relationship between behavioural and cognitive classroom engagement. It also investigates if there is a relationship between cognitive and affective classroom engagement as well as the relationship between affective and behavioural engagement.

Figure 2- Conceptual Framework of the Study Comparison of all types of Classroom Engagement

METHODOLOGY

This quantitative study is done to explore motivation factors for learning among undergraduates. A purposive sample of 80 participants responded to the survey. The instrument used is a 5 Likert-scale (table 1) survey. No 1 refers to strongly disagree, 2 refers to disagree, 3 refers to undecided, 4 is agree while 5 refers to strongly agree.

Table 1- Distribution of Items in the Survey Likert Scale

The instrument is rooted from classroom engagement components by Fredericks, et.al. (2004) and replicated form Redmond, et.al. (2018) to reveal the variables in table 1 below. The survey has 4 sections. Section A has items on demographic profile. Section B has 16 items for Behavioural engagement; section C has 6 items on Cognitive engagement while section D has 5 items on Affective engagement.

Table 2- Reliability of Survey

Table 2 shows the reliability of the survey. The analysis shows a Cronbach alpha of .956 for Behavioural engagement, .897 for Cognitive engagement and .870 for Affective engagement. The overall Cronbach Alpha for all 27 items is .969; thus, revealing a good reliability of the instrument chosen/used. Further analysis using SPSS is done to present findings to answer the research questions for this study.

FINDINGS

Findings for Demographic Profile

This section presents the analysis of demographic profile in percentage form.

Figure 3- Percentage for Gender

Figure 3 above shows the percentage for gender. Out of 80 respondents, 21% were male students and 79% were female students.

Figure 4- Percentage for Cluster

Figure 4 presents the percentage for the cluster of the participants of this study. 41% were reported to be the Science & Technology cluster. In addition to that, 59% were studying in the Social Sciences & Humanities.

Findings for Classroom Behaviour Engagement

This section presents data to answer research question 1: How do students identify classroom behavioural engagement in online learning? In the context of this study, social engagement is measured by (i) social, (ii) behavioural and (iii) collaborative engagement.

Social Engagement (Se) (Behavioural)

Figure 5- Mean for Social Engagement

Figure 5 presents the mean for social engagement. The highest mean is 3.9 (SD=0.8) is for the item where learners reported that online learning allowed them to participate in academic activities. Next, two items share the same mean of 3.8 and they are item 2 (SD=0.8) which reported that learners felt online learning allowed them to participate in non-academic activities. Learners also reported that online learning gave them a purposeful relationship (mean=3.8; SD=0.8). Finally, two items shared the same mean of 3.7 and they are item 3 (SD=0.7) which states that online engagement gave them a sense of belonging to their course mates. Sharing the same mean of 3.7 (SD=0.8) is the item that states that online learning allowed them to establish trust among peers.

Behavioural Engagement (Be)

Figure 6- Mean for Behavioural Engagement

Figure 6 shows the mean for behavioural engagement. Three items share the highest mean of 3.9 The first item is item number 1 (SD=0.7) which reports that online learning allowed them to learn about academic skills. Next, with the same mean of 3.9 (SD=0.7) is the item 5 which states that the students reported they followed the online norms when they studied online courses. Students also reported (mean=3.9, SD=0.8) they were able to communicate with their peers well in online learning. Two items share the same mean of 3.7 and they are item number 2 (SD=0.8) which states that online learning gave them the opportunity to participate in discussions. The respondents also reported that online learning gave them the opportunity to learn skills out of their discipline (mean=3.7, SD=0.6).

Collaborative Engagement (Ce) (Behvaioural)

Figure 7- Mean for Behavioural Engagement

Figure 7 above presents the mean for collaborative engagement. The highest mean is 4.2 (SD=08) for the item 3 which states that the students felt that their lecturers were helpful to respond to their queries during online learning. Two items share the same mean of 4. The first item with a mean of 4 is number 2 (Mean=4, SD=0.8) which states that the students enjoyed learning with their peers. They also reported that they were able to connect to their institutions via online. Two items share the lowest mean of 3.9. Firstly, the students reported that their peers helped them understand online classes (mean=3.9; SD=0.8). They also reported that they were able to develop professional networks via online (mean=3.9, SD=0.7).

Findings for Classroom Cognitive Engagement

This section presents data to answer research question 2: How do students identify classroom cognitive engagement in online learning?

Figure 8- Mean for Cognitive Engagement

Figure 8 shows the mean for cognitive engagement. Two items share the same highest mean of 4. The first is item 4 (mean=4, SD=0.7) which states that online learning allowed the opportunity to compare ideas from different sources. In addition to that, the students felt that online engagement allowed them to check their sources from different experts (mean=4, SD=0.7).

Findings for Classroom Affective Engagement

This section presents data to answer research question 3: How do students identify classroom affective (emotional) engagement in online learning?

Figure 9- Mean for Emotional Engagement

Figure 9 shows the mean for emotional engagement. The highest mean is 4.3 (SD=0.8) for the item that states that the students will continue learning in the future. Next, two items share the same mean of 4. The first item is item number 1 (SD-0.7) that state states that the students were able to communicate with the university if they needed to get some information. They also they were fully committed to learning via online (mean=4, SD=0.7).

Findings for Comparison of Classroom Engagement

Figure 10- Comparison of Means for all types of Engagement

Figure 10 shows the comparison of means for all types of engagement. The highest mean if 3.9 for affective engagement. Both cognitive and behavioural share the same total mean of 3.8.

Findings for Relationship between all online engagement types

This section presents data to answer research question 5: Is there a relationship between all engagement types in online?

To determine if there is a significant association in the mean scores between all engagement types in online, data is anlaysed using SPSS for correlations. Results are presented separately in table 3, 4, and 5 below.

** Correlation is significant at the level .01 level (2 tailed)

Table 3 shows there is an association between behavioural and cognitive engagement.  Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between behavioural and cognitive engagement (r=.864**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between behavioural and cognitive engagement.

Table 4- Correlation between Cognitive and Affective Engagement

** Correlation is significant at the level .01 level (2 tailed)

Table 4 shows there is an association between cognitive and affective engagement.  Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between cognitive and affective engagement (r=.761**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between cognitive and affective engagement.

Table 5- Correlation between Cognitive and Affective Engagement

** Correlation is significant at the level .01 level (2 tailed)

Table 5 shows there is an association between affective and behavioural engagement.  Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between affective and behavioural engagement (r=.850**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between affective and behavioural engagement.

CONCLUSION

Summary of Findings and Discussions

Behavioural

Learners reported that online learning allowed them to participate in academic and non-academic activities. They reported that online learning gave them a purposeful relationship online engagement gave them a sense of belonging to their course mates which enabled them to trust their peers. They reported they were able to communicate with their peers well in online learning.  Online learning gave them the opportunity to participate in discussions. The respondents also reported that online learning gave them the opportunity to learn skills out of their discipline. They reported that lecturers were helpful to respond to their queries during online learning. They also reported that they were able to connect to their institutions via online. They also reported that their peers helped them understand online classes. The findings in this study is in accordance with the study by Al Hussaini,et.al (2024) and Rahmat,et.al. (2021) who reported similar findings on learners’ and teacher’ positive behaviour affecting learners positively.

Cognitive

When it comes to cognitive engagement, learners reported that online learning allowed the opportunity to compare ideas from different sources. In addition to that, the students felt that online engagement allowed them to check their sources from different experts. Similarly, Gray & DiLoreto (2016) also found that there are significant relationships between learner and instructor interaction and learning motivation.

Affective Engagement

When it comes to emotional engagement, learners felt motivated when they could communicate effectively with the university whenever they needed help. Findings also revealed the students were fully committed to learning via online. This finding is in accordance with the study by Cents-Boonstra, et.al (2021) who said that there is a relationship between motivating teachers’ behaviour and student engagement.

Comparison and correlation

Additionally, findings in this study revealed that in comparison the highest mean is affective engagement. The findings also showed that there is a relationship between behavioural and cognitive engagement. There is also an association between cognitive and affective engagement. Finally, findings also showed that there is an association between affective and behavioural engagement. This finding is in accordance with the study by Gray & DiLoreto (2016) who found significant relationships between learner interaction, instructor presence, and student satisfaction.

Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

This study was guided from the social cognitive theory and classroom engagement. Finding has revealed that there the learning process is a reciprocal interaction between the learner, the instructor and the learning environment. The online learning environment mirrors the three main types of engagement; environment, behavioural, and personal in terms of the interaction and engagement factors.

Future research could look into other factors that influence online engagement. Researchers could research deeper into motivational factors that encourages student engagement in general, or online student engagement.

REFERENCES

1. Alamban, A.A. (2023) Enhancing Student Engagement through Effective Classroom Management: A Study of Criminology Instructor. Journal of Legal Subjects, 3(1),18-28. https://doi.org/10.55529/jls.31.18.28
2. Al Hussaini, M. H., Kousar, S., Kousar, N., Batool, U., & Munawar, N. (2024). Exploring Effective Strategies for Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes in Elementary Education. International Journal of Learning Reformation in Elementary Education, 3(02), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.56741/ijlree.v3i02.573
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Theory: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4. Cents-Boonstra, M., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Denedden, E., Aeltermean, N., & Haerrens, L. (2021) Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: an observation study of teacher and students’ behaviours. Research Papers in Education, 36(6), 754-779.https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1767184
5. Fredericks, J.A, Blumenfeld, P.C. and Paris, A.H. (2004) School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 590109., https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516061
6. Gray, J.A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016) The Effects of Student Engagement, Student Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning in Online Learning Environments. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, Vol. 11, No. 1– May, 2016. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103654.pdf
7. Hollister B, Nair P, Hill-Lindsay S and Chukoskie L (2022) Engagement in Online Learning: Student Attitudes and Behavior During COVID-19. Front. Educ. 7:851019. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.851019
8. Jackson,S.L. (2015) Research methods and Statistics-A Critical Thinking Approach (5^tH Edition) Boston, USA:: Cengage Learning.
9. Li, J. & Xue, E. (2023) Dynamic Interaction between Student Behaviour and Learning Environment: Meta-Analysis of Student Engagement and Its Influencing Factors. Behavioural Science (Basel), 13(1):59, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9855184/
10. Limbu, Y. (2025) Factors Associated with Student Engagement in Online Learning During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. OLJ, 29(1), https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i1.4221
11. Rahmat, N.H., Abdullah, N.A.T., Ahmad, A., Sharif, S., Yean, C, P.W, & Boon, M.H.A. (2021) Social Learning During Online Learning? The Case for Japannese Language 11(3), 168-176.https://archive.aessweb.com/index.php/5007/article/view/3248
12. Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183-204.doi:10.24059/olj. v22i1.1175
13. Young, P. T. (1959). The role of affective processes in learning and motivation. Psychological Review, 66(2), 104–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045997