skip to main content
10.1145/3485768.3485796acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicsetConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Relationship Between Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Online Education

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 December 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

In recent years, online education has become a mature, recognised, and heavily used alternative for delivering higher education programmes. Beyond its benefits, online education faces a number of challenges, some of which relate to its engagement and impact on student performance. To support the ongoing research into the complex relationships developed, this research investigated the relationship between engagement and academic performance for students that undertake standalone online programmes. The study uses as input the module content engagement data, as collected from an e-learning platform, including the number of content views, forum posts, completed assignments, and watching of videos. The study used Pearson correlation to evaluate the relationship between learner engagement and academic performance. The analysis revealed that the student engagement was positively correlated to the student performance both for individual modules as well as across the cohort. In addition, correlation between initial engagement with individual subjects and the overall engagement was also strong, indicating both variables lead to improved academic results.

References

  1. Mary D. Ainley. 1993. Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 85, 3 (1993), 395–405. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.85.3.395Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. John Biggs and Catherine Tang. 2011. Teaching according to how students learn. Teach. Qual. Learn. Univ. (2011), 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Phyllis C Blumenfeld, Alison H Paris, and Jennifer A Fredricks. 2004. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74, 1 (2004), 59–109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Anders Carlsson, Ievgeniia Kuzminykh, and Rune Gustavsson. 2019. Virtual Security Labs Supporting Distance Education in ReSeLa Framework. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 917, (2019), 577–587. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11935-5_55Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Maria J. Casuso-Holgado, Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas, Noelia Moreno-Morales, Maria T. Labajos-Manzanares, Francisco J. Barón-López, and Manuel Vega-Cuesta. 2013. The association between academic engagement and achievement in health sciences students. BMC Med. Educ. 13, 1 (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-33Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Birk Diedenhofen and Jochen Musch. 2015. Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS One 10, 4 (2015). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Online Education. 2020. Online: Trending Now. (2020), 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. R Gallegos Nava. 2001. Holistic education: Pedagogy of universal love. (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sayid Dabbagh Ghazvini. 2011. Relationships between academic self-concept and academic performance in high school students. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 15, (2011), 1034–1039. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.235Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Peter Kahn, Lucy Everington, Kathleen Kelm, Iain Reid, and Francine Watkins. 2017. Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: the role of reflexivity. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 65, 1 (2017), 203–218. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9484-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Aditya Kamath, Aradhya Biswas, and Vineeth Balasubramanian. 2016. A crowdsourced approach to student engagement recognition in e-learning environments. 2016 IEEE Winter Conf. Appl. Comput. Vision, WACV 2016 (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV.2016.7477618Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. P. Klem, A. M., & Connell. 2004. Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. J. Sch. Health 74, 7 (2004), 262–273.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ievgeniia Kuzminykh, Maryna Yevdokymenko, Oleksandra Yeremenko, and Oleksandr Lemeshko. 2021. Increasing Teacher Competence in Cybersecurity using the EU Security Frameworks. Manuscr. Submitt. Publ. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jung Sook Lee. 2014. The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? J. Educ. Res. 107, 3 (2014), 177–185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.807491Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Hao Lei, Yunhuo Cui, and Wenye Zhou. 2018. Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Soc. Behav. Pers. 46, 3 (2018), 517–528. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Oleksandr Lemeshko, Tetiana Strilkova, Oleksandra Yeremenko, Maryna Yevdokymenko, and Ievgeniia Kuzminykh. 2021. Experience of Adaptation and Organization of Distance Learning in Ukrainian Universities. In Revealing Inequities in Online Education During Global Crises.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Oleksandr Lemeshko, Tetiana Strilkova, Maryna Yevdokymenko, and Ievgeniia Kuzminykh. 2020. Features of creating the virtual cybersecurity lab for distance learning. New Coll. 3, (2020), 41–45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohamed Jama Madar and Othman Bin Ibrahim. 2011. E-learning towards student academic performance. 2011 Int. Conf. Res. Innov. Inf. Syst. ICRIIS’11 (2011). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRIIS.2011.6125718Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Abdallah Moubayed, Mohammadnoor Injadat, Abdallah Shami, and Hanan Lutfiyya. 2018. Relationship between student engagement and performance in e-learning environment using association rules. EDUNINE 2018 - 2nd IEEE World Eng. Educ. Conf. Role Prof. Assoc. Contemp. Eng. Careers, Proc. (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUNINE.2018.8451005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Rabindra Nepal and Ann M. Rogerson. 2020. From theory to practice of promoting student engagement in business and law-related disciplines: The case of undergraduate economics education. Educ. Sci. 10, 8 (2020), 1–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080205Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. OECD. 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on student equity and inclusion: supporting vulnerable students during school closures and school re-openings. OECD Publ. (2020), 1–37. Retrieved from https://oecdedutoday.com/coronavirus-students-special-education-needs/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Peter K. Oriogun. 2003. Towards understanding online learning levels of engagement using the SQUAD approach to CMC discourse. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 19, 3 (2003). DOI:https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1726Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Arti Ramesh, Dan Goldwasser, Bert Huang, Hal Daum, and Lise Getoor. 2013. Modeling Learner Engagement in MOOCs using Probabilistic Soft Logic. NIPS Work. Data Driven Educ. (2013), 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Leslie F Reid. 2012. Redesigning a Large Lecture Course for Student Engagement: Process and Outcomes. Can. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 3, 2 (2012). DOI:https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2012.2.5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Duane F. Shell and Jenefer Husman. 2001. The multivariate dimensionality of personal control and future time perspective beliefs in achievement and self-regulation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 26, 4 (2001), 481–506. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1073Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Vicki Trowler. 2010. Student engagement literature review. High. Educ. November (2010), 1–15. Retrieved from http://americandemocracy.illinoisstate.edu/documents/democratic-engagement-white-paper-2_13_09.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Paul Vogt. 2011. Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology. Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983907Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Allan Wigfield and Jacqueline Eccles. 2000. Expectancy Value theory of motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, (2000), 68–81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICSET 2021: 2021 5th International Conference on E-Society, E-Education and E-Technology
    August 2021
    302 pages
    ISBN:9781450390156
    DOI:10.1145/3485768

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 23 December 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)109
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format