See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353022417

The effect of attendance on student performance: implications of using

virtual learning on overall performance

Article · July 2021

DOI: 10.1108/JARHE-04-2021-0135

CITATIONS READS

4 3,782

4 authors:

Randa Diab-Bahman Abrar Al-Enzi

12 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS   
Gulf University for Science and Technology (Kuwait)
9 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Wael Sharafeddine Sapheya Aftimos

Kuwait College of Science and Technology Australian University
3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implications of using virtual learning on overall performance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wael Sharafeddine on 09 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm

The effect of attendance on student Effect of

attendance on
performance: implications of using student
performance
virtual learning on
overall performance
Randa Diab-Bahman, Abrar Al-Enzi and Wael Sharafeddine Received 5 April 2021
Revised 11 May 2021
Kuwait College of Science and Technology, Safat, Kuwait, and 2 June 2021
Sapheya Aftimos Accepted 3 June 2021

Australian College of Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the correlation between academic performance and attendance of
e-learning, away from the conventional classroom setting.
Design/methodology/approach – The study investigates the impact of attendance in the final grades of 389
undergraduate first- and second-year undergraduates taking Business Management classes online for the first
time over the span of three consecutive academic semesters during an academic year.
Findings – The results show that there was a negative correlation between attendance and grades. However,
splitting the results by year provided some insightful information as there was a difference between the
relationships for first- and second-year students. Therefore, it can be concluded that both attendance and the
year of the students did have a statistically significant influence on grades.
Originality/value – Although the impact of students’ attendance on their academic performance has not been
the subject of extensive research, especially in the field of Management studies and in an online delivery
medium, it is likely to be of interest to academics and policymakers as the pandemic continues to make
e-learning more popular.
Keywords VLE, Attendance, Performance, Undergraduates, e-learning, Kuwait
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Technology has been a very significant phenomenon in education in terms of facilitating both
learning and teaching experience. Constant changes in learning strategies (Siemens and
Tittenberger, 2009) and the need for enduring learning for the individuals in a community
(Scott, 2010) have created new educational needs due to the spread of technology and its
dominance over all parts of human life. The old education system cannot meet these needs,
and this is often one of the reasons why e-learning has developed a fundamental measure of
our education and path of life (Mishra et al., 2020). Moreover, it must be recognized that, in any
society, education shall have a general aim: to equip its students with the tools and capacities
needed to succeed in life particularly during the current pandemic (Galy et al., 2011; Mishra
et al., 2020). Furthermore, e-learning has quickly become an attractive solution for delivering
academic education as well as technical training or continuing education requirements in a
large scale (Elfaki et al., 2019).
Over the last 20 years, the teaching and learning landscape of universities has
encountered unprecedented change as institutions adapt to the challenges and innovations of
technology (Saykili, 2019). However, institutions appear undecided about how to measure the
impact of virtual learning environments (VLEs), usually resorting to measuring success in
terms of the number of student hits on a particular online resource (Donnelly and O’Rourke,
2007; Lyndon and Hale, 2014). Due to the current global pandemic crisis, educational Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education
institutions were forced to adapt to various teaching–learning activities while establishing a © Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
linkage between a change management process and an online teaching process, as to DOI 10.1108/JARHE-04-2021-0135
JARHE overcome any persisting academic disturbance to the procedure in the education system
(Mishra et al., 2020). Institutional implementation and student engagement with VLEs has
been slow, but over the past decade there has been tangible endeavor to utilize VLEs to
support teaching and learning in higher education (HE) (Montalbo and Chua, 2014). Prior to
converting to VLEs, traditional classrooms with face-to-face interaction have both a
qualitative and quantitative measurable value. In the previous literature, the predictor of
student performance that has received the most attention is class attendance. The results
have shown to be consistent as there is a positive association between class attendance and
academic success (Newman-Ford et al., 2008). With the changing student demographics, it is a
vital target for educational personnel to seek new methods to enhance the learning process.
Nowadays, with the expansion of HE and the various usages of e-learning tools, recent years
have witnessed a growing impact of students’ attendance on their performance. Findings
from various studies are mixed, with some authors concluding an overall positive effect of
VLEs (Means et al., 2009) while others failing to provide conclusive evidence (Morrice and
Demian, 2012). In order for VLEs to be successful, student and instructor engagement is
essential, requiring interest, commitment and active participation. Also, given the current
emphasis on VLE and the length of time which has now elapsed since their introduction, it is
necessary to evaluate their impact in various ways.
There is a large body of existing data-driven research on class attendance, absenteeism
and their impact on academic achievements (Schmidt, 1983). The theoretical literature on
student achievement/performance emphasizes that class attendance is associated with better
performance. However, there is a lack of research investigating factors that influence
students’ performance in online courses. One reason for the general lack of clear evidence
about this relationship is that the concept of student engagement has been differently defined
and operationalized indifferent contexts (Ashwin and Mcvitty, 2015; Ali and Hassan, 2018).
Thus, foreseeing students’ performance is considered a vital topic.
Furthermore, the aim of this research is to identify any correlations which may impact the
overall student grades. The findings contribute to the literature on how the attendance may
impact students’ performance in HE institutions in general. As well, the research’s outcomes
extend previous work done on the subject of e-learning to overcome obstacles that students
might face while it heavily unfolds across the globe. Hence, to better comprehend the impact
of VLE on students’ performance, the feasibility of e-learning and its various elements will be
explained, as well as some of the implications which could impact the student learning
experience online. The primary objective of the research is to see if there are any relationships
between overall attendance and grades of management students, Also, the research seeks to
investigate any statistically significant differences in the attendance and grades between the
first- and the second-year students. Kuwait is chosen as there is a dearth of information about
the various elements which impact the learning process and its outcomes in higher learning,
particularly as e-learning unfolds for the first time in the midst of a pandemic. The findings of
this research will be significant to policymakers and educators to identify better ways to help
serve students and their HE needs.

Litreature review
Definition of e-learning
E-learning is a term which combines two main themes, learning and technology. The former,
is explained as a cognitive process for achieving knowledge, while the latter is described as an
enabler of the learning process (Aparicio et al., 2016). The term e-learning is deduced
differently by diverse researchers, presenting a variety of situations including distance
learning, e-learning and networked learning (Coldwell et al., 2008). Today, the e-learning
concept, apart from technology, includes learning strategies, learning methods and lately is
directed to the vast possibilities of content diffusion and connection (Aparicio et al., 2016). Effect of
Oblinger and Hawkins (2005) stated that e-learning has transformed from a fully online attendance on
course to using technology to deliver part or all of a course independent of permanent time
and place. Furthermore, LaRose et al. (1998) and Keller and Cernerud (2002) defined e-learning
student
as any education that is Internet-enabled or web-based. Also, Coldwell et al.(2008) defines e- performance
learning as an innovative approach for delivering well-designed, learner-centered and
interactive environment.
There are various methods of classifying types of e-learning. Alqahtani (2010) classified
these types based on the extent of students’ engagement and the timing of interaction. He also
divided e-learning in two basic types: computer-based and Internet-based e-learning.
Computer-based learning consists of the usage of full range of hardware and software. On the
other hand, Internet-based learning is a further improvement of the computer-based learning,
where the content is made available via the Internet. Alqahtani (2010) added that the fully
online mode can fall under synchronous or asynchronous modes. The synchronous mode
timing comprises alternate online access between instructors and learners and allows
learners to discuss with the instructors and also among themselves via the Internet at the
same time with using available tools (e.g. videoconference and chat rooms). On the other
hand, asynchronous mode allows all participants to post communications to any other
participant over the Internet and to discuss with them at different times. It can therefore be
concluded from the above that it is difficult to identify a common definition for e-learning.

Pros and cons of e-learning

The adoption of e-learning in education, specifically in Higher Education Institutions, has
several benefits; given its advantages, e-learning is considered among the best methods of
education. Firstly, e-learning focuses on the needs of an individual learner as an important
factor in the educational process rather than on the need of the instructors or the educational
institution (Baranova et al., 2019). Secondly, students and instructors have the flexibility in
terms of choosing the time and place that suits each individual. Thirdly, the use of e-learning
allows safe-pacing (Kocdar et al., 2018). For example, the asynchronous method allows
students to study at their own pace and speed (quick or slow). This results in higher
satisfaction and reduces stress (Hiltz, 1997; Millis et al., 2009; Baig, 2011; Sun and Chen, 2016).
Fourthly, e-learning assists in compensating for scarcities of academic staff, including
instructors, facilitators, lab technicians, etc. Also, when English is a second language and
ethnicity is considered, flexibility in learning channels may prove to be useful (Diab-Bahman,
2021a, b). Lastly, e-learning provides opportunities for interaction between learners through
discussion forums, also by removing the fear barrier that hampers students’ participation
(Coldwell et al., 2008).
E-learning, in spite of the advantages when adopted in education, it also has some
disadvantages as reported by researchers through various studies. For instance, although
claims that e-learning can improve the quality of education, Freeman and Robinson (2020)
argued that there is a pressing need to improve perceptions regarding the value of
assessment in HE, since materials available online improves learning only for certain forms of
collective assessment et al., 2003). Also, Gillett-Swan (2017) examined whether e-learning is
solely a support device for existing approaches of learning (Moore et al., 2011). The most
common criticism of e-learning is the complete absence of vital personal interactions, which
leads to the lack of interpersonal skill development, lack of memory and learning
development and lack of student motivation (Elfaki et al., 2019). Hence, e-learning method
may be seen as less effective than traditional methods of learning, as it has a negative impact
on the development of communication skills of the learners. Researchers have claimed that e-
learning is more suitable in social science and humanities than the fields such as medical
JARHE science and engineering where there is the need to develop practical skills (Peterson and
Feisel, 2002; Fernandez-Rodriguez et al., 2013). Thus, not all educational disciplines can
effectively implement e-learning in their curriculum, e.g. scientific fields that require the
practical component of learning. In reality, many educators are facing challenges as they
have not received enough support and sufficient training on how to deal with such a crisis.
Correspondingly, e-learning may lead to heavy use of some websites, which will require
constant maintenance costs in time and money (Sun and Chen, 2016).

E-learning through a pandemic

The global shutdown of many activities, including educational activities, has been effectively
forced by this pandemic, resulting in a considerable crisis-response migration of universities
via online education emerging as a learning forum (Adedoyin and Soykan, 2020). As a result
of the worldwide closure of universities, e-learning was essential to keep up with social
distancing in order to control the fast transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
(Manfuso, 2020). The decision of adopting e-learning was not only done in Kuwait but
universities worldwide were also engaged with advanced change measure to optimize and
fulfill their objectives. However, the migration process was smooth for certain universities,
while some reacted with crisis-response migration measures because of the pandemic
(Hodges et al., 2020). Also, it was found that some universities were more prepared than others
as some had been using VLEs as part of the learning process (Diab-Bahman, 2021a, b).
Universities changing their conventional classroom delivery methods to e-learning forums
were accompanied with few difficulties, one being that the change has caused necessary
adjustment in the attitudes of universities, instructors and students on the importance of web-
based learning (Ribeiro, 2020). Moreover, the emotional implications of the pandemic were
found to impact overall well-being, which may affect those students who involuntarily
accepted online learning (Diab-Bahman and Al-Enzi, 2020).Also, in another recent
publication, a positive correlation between the face-to-face class attendance and virtual
learning engagement was found which suggests that students can benefit from a hybrid
model of learning supported by integrating the virtual learning elements into the face-to-face
class delivery (Li et al., 2021) . Given the circumstances, educational institutes scrambled to
roll-out e-learning for the first time in Kuwait without much guidance during the pandemic.
Therefore, it is important now to assess what happened and how e-learning impacted
students’ performance in terms of attendance and grades.

Impact of attendance on student performance

Conventional learning (on-campus) vs conventional e-learning (non-COVID)
Conventional includes a learning environment that is led by an instructor teaching an entire
class of students the required curriculum. The components of conventional learning usually
include projector, whiteboard, instructor and students in a classroom (Allen and Seaman,
2015). Compared to conventional studies, few researchers evaluated conventional e-learning
as more viable than conventional learning on campus. Despite its numerous benefits, there
are some studies that dismissed it with the explanation of less social association, high
investment costs and significant technological problems. In addition, various investigations
pointed that e-learning negatively affects students’ accomplishments. For example, it has
been reported that motivation is an ability that cannot be created when students are given the
opportunity to finish assignments at their own pace and leisure (Jahng et al., 2007). Not to
mention, e-learning dismisses interpersonal skill development, which may affect students’
performance, especially since there is no actual student–instructor interaction (Al-Alawneh,
2014). As Titthasiri (2013) clarified, even though “e-learning has a potential to improve
students’ performance, but to boost success in the digital economy, individuals and Effect of
institutions of higher learning must use research to guide the adaptation and integration of attendance on
new technology into the learning process” (p. 69). The connection between student’s
performance and attributes, such as gender and age, have been an interest of previous
student
scholars in identifying the correlation between both factors, such as those done by Graff performance
(2006) and Coldwell et al. (2012) in a conventional classroom. Hence, it is vital to acknowledge
ways in which such attributes influence students’ performance in e-learning.
Demographics – age and gender. With regards to age, existing literature has exhibited that
age is an incredible indicator of accomplishment, with mature-aged students performing
better than youthful students. This implies that education does not have to end once an
individual turns a particular age. E-learning made it possible for mature-aged students to
continue their studies while balancing between their work and family obligations (Meyers
et al., 2004; Koper and Tattersall, 2004). In fact, Alstete and Beutell (2004) witnessed that
mature-aged students tend to achieve better grades and participate in online discussions
more than youthful students, which may suggest that youthful students may not be prepared
for self-directed and self-restrained nature of online courses and may require more help from
teachers with regards to virtual learning. With the assumption that second-year students are
older thus more mature than first-year students, there may be some discrepancies in data
findings when it comes to attendance and grades. The reason for choosing Kuwait College of
Science and Technology (KCST) University as a case study is due to being one of the few
universities in Kuwait that is specialized in Science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) learning. Not to mention, the researchers are employed at KCST,
hence making it easier to gather data based on their management courses.

Impact of behavioral, cognitive and emotional engagement

After the announcement of closing universities by the Ministry of Education in Kuwait, the
primary option available for universities was to actualize e-learning for the first time.
However, the decision of implementing e-learning in Kuwait was not a smooth procedure.
Hence, it seemed essential to investigate the matter and examine factors such as behavioral,
cognitive and emotional engagement as they abruptly and involuntarily moved to e-learning.
Behavioral engagement. Behavioral engagement refers to a person’s capacity, effort and
encouraging conditions that influence one’s ability to utilize educational technologies
(Ali, 2020). Behavioral engagement incorporates usability, self-adequacy and openness to
innovation (Garcia et al., 2018). Students may accomplish the mentioned factors in virtual
learning based on their technological experiences and some may require assistance in
utilizing various learning devices and platforms before the beginning of an online course
(Heckel and Ringeisen, 2019). Eventually, if students gained the necessary knowledge, skills
and resources, it would emphatically impact their use of e-learning and platforms (Alghamdi
et al., 2020; Yakubu and Dasuki, 2019).
Cognitive engagement. Kemp et al. (2019) defined cognitive engagement as the
psychological cycle that permits a client to ingest information. It incorporates focusing on
attention, drawing in interest, concentration and stream. In other words, cognitive
engagement refers to concentrating on one action without focusing on anything else
(Kemp et al., 2019). Previous findings proposed that there is a negative relationship between
negative feelings and cognitive behavior (Heckel and Ringeisen, 2019). However, based on
Baranova et al. (2019) recent research, students are willing to work and engage more in online
classes than traditional educational setting by paying more attention in lectures and
understanding assignments.
Emotional engagement. Emotional engagement implies to student’s inherent motivation to
learn. It includes the fulfillment of an activity and the aim of accomplishing an objective.
Students who are roused will take part in self-administrative exercises that will help them
JARHE accomplish their objectives (Kemp et al., 2019). Albelbisi and Yasop (2019) clarified that
students who are exceptionally self-directed display successful positive motivation and self-
adequacy concerning their learning measures through choosing the learning content,
distinguishing learning objectives, sorting out and controlling their education. In addition,
previous research indicated that the absence of motivation and self-guidance skills in virtual
learning could result in either students investing more energy/time in finishing tasks, turning
in late tasks or submitting low-quality work (Albelbisi and Yasop, 2019). Moreover,
researchers have found that remote working conditions such as the ones experienced during
the current pandemic, may impact emotional engagement in several ways including
performance (Diab-Bahman and Al-Enzi, 2020).
Dimensions of VLE systems. Given the current pandemic, adopting VLE-based learning is
no more a complementary or an option to support learning processes within educational
institutions. Hence, due to COVID-19, VLEs are currently being used as a primary tool to
reach and connect students with instructors to maintain appropriate social distancing among
audience; in addition to promoting safety measures while not compromising the quality of
education with various tools to assess students’ performance.
In view of that, as mentioned by Lee and Hong and Ling in 2001, there are several
measures that depend on adequate skills and attitudes of learners to have a successful VLE.
One of these measures, as stated by Martins and Kellermanns (2004), mentioned that
students’ acceptance of VLE system is positively related to prior experience with computer
and web use along with awareness of VLE system capabilities. In addition, many scholars
enclosed numerous research studies in terms of VLE dimensions, which could be allocated
into two major categories (Hamutoglu et al., 2018):
(1) The first category is user satisfaction from the perspective of both learners and
instructors regarding the course content, technology and design. When it comes to
design, Higgins et al. (2012) discussed the continuous debate between teachers and
software designers about pedagogy versus technology, and as a solution to design
and maintain successful VLEs, Galanouli et al. (2004) and Barak (2007) debated the
need of training teachers in designing web-based courses.
(2) The second category is communication among students within a VLE system as well
as the communication between students and teachers. Rourke et al. (2001) mentioned
that the development of online communities is supported jointly by interaction with
course content, interaction with course instructors and interaction among course
participants. Such development is expected to change the feeling of students from
outsiders to become part of community (Wegerif, 1998). Accordingly, a further
investigation and research is needed within the field of online education and VLE
systems to better support interactions with content, instructors and students.
VLE frameworks. A successful VLE framework combines supporting social constructivist
approach to teaching and learning along with providing learners with all facilities and learning
opportunities that they experience in a face-to-face teaching situation (Jonassen and Land, 2000;
Konrad, 2003; Oliver and Harrington, 2003). According to European Schoolnet (2003), VLE is a
one stop shop, and its success depends on multiple factors embracing course outlines, email,
conference tools, homepages, assignments, assessments, feedback tools, multimedia resources,
chat, file upload, etc. Khan’s octagonal framework acts as a good guidance to blend educational
environment that addresses design, development, delivery and evaluation using different
dimensions to organize and describe principles governing course designs, yet it misses
addressing infrastructural needs in a multi-campus environment as discussed by Khan (2005).
Evaluation of KCST VLE platform. KCST’s VLE platform was established initially to
support students with online communication at the level of sharing course materials,
documents and messages through Moodle LMS or emails. However, the influence of Effect of
COVID-19, in line with any other institutions, enforced the implementation and development attendance on
of technological infrastructure to support students with 100% virtual-based online education.
Therefore, there was a need to introduce Zoom for videoconferencing, which changed the
student
learning experience for students from face to face on campus to 100% online presence. performance
Furthermore, all online lecturing sessions taking place through the Zoom application were
recorded and shared on Moodle LMS with students who were experiencing two types of
online education comprising synchronous and asynchronous modes with an obligatory
online attendance and a permissible absence of 12 h out of total class hours throughout the
semester. However, the current KCST VLE platform is yet to be perfected. It was rather a
reactive implementation of technological tools as temporary solutions to respond to issues
raised by COVID-19 prohibiting students from attending classes and undertaking exams on
campus.

Research objectives
The emergence of online education has added momentum to pedagogical research on online
education. In addition, the exponential growth and extensive use of information technology
over the years has resulted in a need to conduct more research on the implications of the tools
available, especially when it comes to delivering education. Therefore, the objective of this
research is to determine if there are any connections between student performance and their
level of attendance of online lectures during a given semester. The aim is to better understand
the dynamics of e-learning, especially in the midst of a stressful pandemic. In line with ethics,
best practice and value creation for the students, it is important to assess and understand all
elements involved in the education process in hopes of providing students a better learning
environment. The primary research objectives include:
(1) Examine attendance variable as having an impact on the overall student grade;
(2) Consider correlations between attendance and grade during online education and
(3) Examine if year of study impacts attendance and/or grades.

Hypothesis
Links have previously been established between lecture attendance and academic
performance in the conventional classroom settings in fields as diverse as biological
sciences (Gatherer and Manning, 1998), economics (Stanca, 2006), geography (Stewart et al.,
2011) and psychology (Gunn, 1993). However, from an e-learning perspective, Demian and
Morrice (2012) have concluded that there is negligible impact of VLE use on students’
performance, regardless of year of study. Attendance of virtual classes, which can be
considered as an active part of VLE use, may then be similar in that it has a negligible effect
on performance.

Scientific contribution
According to the literature review, it is obvious that there is a plethora of information and
research regarding attendance and grades in the conventional classroom setting. However,
there is a dearth of information regarding the subject when it pertains to online medium for
the delivery of education, particularly in the field of Business Management studies. Although
direct causality may be automatically inferred between virtual attendance and academic
performance, any correlations or insight between any of the elements of a VLE and academic
performance for different classes of students or different types of modules can yield insights
JARHE into the effective use of online systems. Furthermore, given the current pandemic, it is
essential to find the impact of all elements involved in the e-learning process, especially
during a stressful life event when e-learning was not necessarily a choice.

Methodology
In this research, final grades were used as proxy for assessment records for three first and
second-year Faculty of Management modules in the academic year 2020/2021 over the span
of three semesters online. All records were anonymized by each member of academic staff
who assigned unique number identifiers to each student. Also, the data were also checked
manually for any repetition, and the academics from all modules adhered to the university’s
policy of encouraging (but not mandating) virtual attendance by the students. The data of 389
total students were used spread over first- and second-year status.
Thus, this study employs a primary quantitative approach as it is descriptive in nature
and uses an existing set of data. The data-oriented approach used is best described as a
causal-comparative in that it aims to find an impact of an element on a group, or a factor for
comparison. Also called the quasi-experimental research, this quantitative research method
is used by researchers to conclude cause-effect equation between two or more variables,
where one variable is dependent on another independent variable (a). Hence, the dependent
variable in this research is the student’s performance (final grade) and the independent
variable is their attendance throughout the individual semesters in each individual course.
Also, using a relatively more homogeneous group, such as undergraduate students, is
particularly helpful to minimize random error that might occur by using a heterogeneous
sample such as the general public (Calder et al., 1981). This is because the likelihood of error
within the measurement model being inflated by situational factors inherent in diverse
samples (e.g. age, income and social class) is reduced when respondents are homogeneous
across demographic and behavioral characteristics (Assael and Keon, 1982).

Data gathering
The purposeful sampling technique used was primarily due to the data required to conduct
the research and reach its objectives. Also, convenience sampling can be applied to this
method of data collection as it also helps serve the purpose of data collection that was
conducted using a structured method of gathering grades and attendance information over
the span of three semesters (the first semester was when the university went fully online,
followed by the second and third semesters of equal lengths which were also conducted
virtually). The site selected was primarily due to the fact that they were the only ones
undergoing virtual learning at the time of initiating this research. Purposive sampling is a
nonprobability sampling technique which focuses on the selection of participants possessing
predefined characteristics associated with the research study (Etikan et al., 2016).

Data findings
This section presents key findings that address the research hypotheses using descriptive
statistics. The focal variables for this study were attendance (continuous), grades
(continuous) and year (binary, categorical). The major aim of the study was to establish
whether there was a relationship between attendance and grades, and being both continuous
variables, regression analysis was done. Correlation tests were also reported, along with the
scatterplots. The research sought to determine whether the year had an effect on the grades
and to achieve this, again, the regression analysis was done. Lastly, to compare whether there
were any differences in the attendance and grades between the first- and the second-year
students, the independent samples t-test analysis was used.
Descriptive statistics Effect of
The descriptive summaries for attendance and grade are presented in Table 1. attendance on
As shown in Table 1, the results show that the average attendance ratio was 89.571% (SD
(SD) 5 10.771). This was comparatively higher for the first-year students (Mean
student
(M) 5 92.506%, SD 5 8.414) than for second-year students (M 5 87.244; SD 5 11.834), performance
which explains why the foregoing SD results showing that the variability in the attendance
was higher in the second year than in the first year.
With regards to the grades, the overall average grade was 88.011%. Splitting by year, it is
clear that the grades were higher for first-year students (M 5 93.649%; SD 5 4.619) than the
second year (M 5 83.542; SD 5 7.907), hence also explains the reason for having more
variability in the grades for the second-year students than first as witnessed by the SD
results.
Objective 1: comparison between first year and second year. The first research objective
sought to establish whether there were any statistically significant differences in the
attendance and grades between the first and the second years. The attendance and grades
were continuous, while the grouping variable was a binary categorical variable with unequal
groups; hence according to Zimmerman (2004), the optimal test to use was the separate
variance t-test. Therefore, the hypothesis tested was:
H0. There is no difference in the average attendance between Year 1 and Year 2 students
H1. There is a difference in the average attendance between Year 1 and Year 2 students
H0. There is no difference in the average grades between Year 1 and Year 2 students
H1. There is a difference in the average grades between Year 1 and Year 2 students
The results for the tests of the above hypotheses are presented in Table 2.
With respect to the attendance, t(380) 5 5.170, p 5 0.000, thus since the p-value was less
than 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected and the researcher concludes that there was a
statistically significant difference in the attendance ratio between the first-year students
(M 5 92.506%, SD 5 8.414) and the second-year students (M 5 87.244; SD 5 11.834).
Likewise, for the second hypothesis on the grades, t(380) 5 15.859, p 5 0.000. Again, because
the p-value was less than 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the researcher concludes
that there was a statistically significant difference in the grades between the first-year
students (M 5 93.649%; SD 5 4.619) and the second-year students (M 5 83.542; SD 5 7.907).

Aggregate data Attendance Grade

Attendance Grade Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Mean 89.571 88.011 92.506 87.244 93.649 83.542

Median 92 90 96 90 95 83
Mode 100 96 100 75 96 90
Minimum 0 47 62 0 72.5 47
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 98
Range 100 53 38 100 27.5 51
Variance 116.009 68.596 70.801 140.037 21.338 60.946
SD 10.771 8.282 8.414 11.834 4.619 7.807
Coefficient of variation 0.120 0.094 0.091 0.136 0.049 0.093
Skewness 1.875 0.877 1.181 1.924 1.506 0.629
Kurtosis 10.739 1.372 0.535 11.816 3.134 2.498
Count 389 389 172 217 172 217 Table 1.
Standard error 0.546 0.420 0.642 0.803 0.352 0.530 Descriptive summaries
JARHE Attendance Grade

Numerator of degrees of freedom 1.111 0.166

Denominator of degrees of freedom 0.003 0.000
Total degrees of freedom 380.085 380.717
Degrees of freedom 380.000 380.000
Standard error 1.027 0.638
Difference in sample means 5.307 10.122
Separate-variance test statistic 5.170 15.859
Two-tail test
Table 2. Lower critical value 1.966 1.967
Separate-variance Upper critical value 1.966 1.967
t-Test p-value 0.000 0.000

Objective 2: relationship between attendance and grades. The second research objective of this
study was to establish whether there was a relationship between the attendance and the
grades. The scatterplot for the correlation is presented below.
The results show that there was a negative correlation between attendance and grades. To
test this correlation inferentially, since both variables were continuous variables, the Pearson
correlation coefficient was computed. For both years, r(387) 5 0.063, p 5 0.213 > 0.05, and
this was not statistically significant. The direction was negative and the magnitude was low.
However, splitting the results by year provided some insightful information as there was a
difference between the relationships for first and second years (see Figure 1).
With respect to the first year, there was no statistically significant correlation between
attendance and grades with r(170) 5 0.094, p 5 0.221, and the distribution of plots is
illustrated in Figure 2.
However, unlike for the first-year students, for the second-year students, there was a
statistically significant negative correlation with r(215) 5 0.452, p 5 0.000 < 0.05 as
shown below.

R2 Linear = 0.004
100

90 y = 92.83 − 0.05*x

80
Final Grade

70

60

50

Figure 1. 40
Scatterplot –
60 70 80 90 100
attendance and grades
Attendance
 Year: Year 1 Effect of
100 attendance on
student
95 performance
y = 88.89 + 0.05*x

90
Final Grade

85

80

75

Figure 2.
70 Scatterplot –
60 70 80 90 100
attendance and grades
(Year 1)
Attendance

Year: Year2
100

90
y = 1.12E2 − 0.32*x

80
Final Grade

70

60

50

Figure 3.
40 Scatterplot –
attendance and grades
60 70 80 90 100
(Year 2)
Attendance

To test whether attendance and year had an impact on the grades, the following hypotheses
were tested using a multiple linear regression mode as shown in Table 3:
H0. Attendance does not have an impact on the grades.
H1. Attendance has an impact on the grades.
H0. Year of student does not have an impact on the grades.
JARHE Multiple R R square Adjusted R square Standard error Observations

Regression statistics 0.644 0.415 0.412 6.350 389.000

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 2 11048.597 5524.299 136.985 0.000

Residual 386 15566.483 40.328
Total 388 26615.080

Coefficients Standard error t stat p-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Table 3. Intercept 120.530 3.198 37.694 0.000 114.243 126.817

Multiple linear Year 11.010 0.668 16.474 0.000 12.324 9.696
regression model Attendance 0.172 0.031 5.560 0.000 0.232 0.111

H1. Year of student has an impact on the grades.

As shown in Table 3, the regression coefficient was R 5 0.644 and the R-square was 0.415,
meaning that only 41.5% of the variation in the grades was explained by the attendance and
the year of students. Regarding the model fitness, F(2, 386) 5 136.985, p 5 0.000. Since
p < 0.05, this meant that the model did fit the data well. Lastly, on the regression coefficients,
for the attendance, βatt 5 0.172, t(386) 5 5.560, p 5 0.000, and for the year, βyear 5
11.010, t(386) 5 16.474, p 5 0.000. Since the p-value was less than 0.05 for both variables,
the null hypothesis was rejected. In this regard, it can be concluded that both attendance
and the year of the students did have a statistically significant influence on grades.

Research limitations
Several implications can be drawn from this research. Practical limitations include the fact
that the research was conducted over three semesters only. By increasing the timeframe of
data collection, perhaps the research could have varying results. Also, it was only conducted
on first- and second-year students in Management classes for the sake of uniformity. In the
future, a more comprehensive group of students would give more accurate results.
Moreover, the study was implemented during the lock down circumstances, which means
that stress could also have played a factor in the findings. As well, social implications
include that, during the time of this research, students were involuntarily enrolled in VLE
modes of learning. It would be useful to test these results against a normal time when there
are no restrictions and/or in a situation where students have voluntarily chosen to undergo
their students online. This research will assist universities acknowledge the benefits
associated with VLE and why they should consider implementing mixed teaching methods
in Kuwait.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper shows that there was a negative correlation between attendance and
grades in online learning. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant negative
correlation between second-year students while none were found among first-year students.
Therefore, it can be concluded that both attendance and year of study did have a statistically
significant influence on grades. Although these results differ from the initial hypothesis, they
are not surprising as the hypothesis mentioned previously was based on research conducted Effect of
under regular conditions and voluntary participation. As for this research, it differs in that it attendance on
was conducted during a stressful pandemic and many students did not have the luxury of
choosing online learning as it was imposed upon them. This could possibly impact the
student
expected outcome as the intention of students to learn rather than just to be present and performance
obtain points for attendance may have an effect. The influence of attendance found could
possibly explain the discrepancies and inflation/deflation of grades which are becoming more
and more evident as VLE becomes more popular. Nowadays, online learning eliminates the
proximity factor and enables even the least studious/dedicated students to be “present”.
Moreover, in terms of the influence of the year of study, it could be explained in that as
students’ progress and learn the ways of their institutes, it becomes reflected in their
educational behavior. Thus, second-year students may be prone to more extreme grade
tendencies as a result of having established their unique processes of learning. Though the
effect of VLE on student performance has not been the subject of extensive research, the
findings of this paper contradict the findings reported by Demian and Morice (2012),
which served as the motivation behind this paper, and proved that there are possible
correlations between virtual attendance and grades. This research will also assist universities
to acknowledge how VLE is beneficial in the long run in Kuwait, especially during a
pandemic.

Future research
Although this study did not explicitly investigate the similarities and equivalence among
face-to-face courses and online courses, these results launch an initial point for future
research in this area. This overview study of online attendance and its relationship to
students’ performance provides an initial forum for discussion and further research.
Continued studies, including qualitative and mixed method studies regarding the matter,
may provide further information that may lead to strategies for improving students’
performance in e-learning environments and give insight to policymakers and educators on
influential factors which may be improved to better serve the students.

References
Adedoyin, O. and Soykan, E. (2020), “Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and
opportunities”, Interactive Learning Environments, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
Al-Alawneh, M. (2014), “Examining E-learning barriers as perceived by faculty members of
engineering colleges in the Jordanian universities”, The Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 22-40.
Albelbisi, N. and Yusop, F. (2019), “Factors influencing learners’ self –regulated learning skills in a
massive open online course (MOOC) environment”, The Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, Vol. 20, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.17718/tojde.598191.
Alghamdi, A., Karpinski, A.C., Lepp, A. and Barkley, J. (2020), “Online and face-to-face classroom
multitasking and academic performance: moderated mediation with self- efficacy for self-
regulated learning and gender”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 102, pp. 214-222.
Ali, W. (2020), “Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: a necessity in light of
COVID-19 pandemic”, Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 16-15.
Ali, M.M. and Hassan, N. (2018), “Defining concepts of student engagement and factors contributing to
their engagement in schools”, Creative Education, Vol. 09 No. 14, pp. 2161-2170, doi: 10.4236/ce.
2018.914157.
Allen, I. and Seaman, J. (2015), “Grade level: tracking online education in the United States”.
JARHE Alqahtani, A. (2010), “The effectiveness of using e-learning, blended learning and traditional
learning on students’ achievement and attitudes in a course on islamic culture: an
experimental study”, Durham theses, Durham University, Durham E-Theses, pp. 1-435,
available at: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/817/.
Alstete, J. and Beutell, N. (2004), “Performance indicators in online distance learning courses: a study
of management education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
Aparicio, M., Bacao, F. and Oliveira, T. (2016), “An e-learning theoretical framework”, Educational
Technology and Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 292-307.
Ashwin, P. and Mcvitty, D. (2015), “The meanings of student engagement: implications for policies
and practices”, The European Higher Education Area, Springer, Cham, pp. 343-359, doi: 10.
1007/978-3-319-20877-0_23.
Assael, H. and Keon, J. (1982), “Nonsampling vs. sampling errors in survey research”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 114-123.
Baig, M.A. (2011), “A critical study of effectiveness of online learning on students achievement”,
I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 28-34, doi: 10.26634/jet.7.
4.1391.
Barak, M. (2007), “Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in
undergraduate chemistry courses”, Computers and Education, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Baranova, T., Khalyapina, L., Kobicheva, A. and Tokareva, E. (2019), “Evaluation of students’
engagement in integrated learning model in A blended environment”, Education Sciences, Vol. 9
No. 138, doi: 10.3390/educsci9020138.
Calder, B.J., Philips, L.W. and Tybout, A. (1981), “Designing research for application”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 8 Sept, pp. 197-207.
Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T. and Mustard, J. (2008), “Online students: relationships between
participation, demographics and academic performance”, Electronic Journal of E-Learning,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T. and Mustard, J. (2012), “Online students: relationships between
participation, demographics and academic performance”, Electronic Journal of E-Learning,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Demian, P. and Morrice, J. (2012), “The use of virtual learning environments and their impact on
academic performance”, Engineering Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-19, doi: 10.11120/ened.2012.
07010011.
Diab-Bahman, R. (2021a), “VLEs in a post-COVID world: Kuwait’s universities”, Challenges and
Opportunities for the Global Implementation of E-Learning Frameworks, IGI Global, pp. 265-283.
Diab-Bahman, R. (2021b), “The impact of dominant personality traits on team roles”, The Open
Psychology Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-45.
Diab-Bahman, R. and Al-Enzi, A. (2020), “The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on conventional work
settings”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 40 Nos 9-10, pp. 909-927,
doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-07-2020-0262.
Donnelly, R. and O’Rourke, K.C. (2007), “What now? Evaluating eLearning CPD practice in Irish third-
level education”, Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 31-40, doi: 10.1080/
03098770601167864.
Elfaki, N., Abdulraheem, I. and Abdulrahim, R. (2019), “Impact of E-learning vs traditional learning on
student’s performance and attitude”, International Journal of Medical Research and Health
Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 10, p. 7, available at: https://www.ijmrhs.com/medical-research/impact-of-
elearning-vs-traditional-learning-on-students-performance-and-attitude.pdf.
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S. (2016), “Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive
sampling”, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
European Schoolnet (EUN) (2003), Virtual Learning Environments for European Schools, Brussels, Effect of
European Schoolnet, available at: http://www.unideusto.org/tuningueu/teaching-learning-a-
assessment.html (accessed 24 April 2016). attendance on
noz, F. (2013), “Engineering Education through
Fernandez-Rodriguez, J.C., Rainer, J. and Miralles-Mu~
student
eLearning technology in Spain”, International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial performance
Intelligence, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 46.
Freeman, K. and Robinson, C. (2020), “Grand challenges for assessment in higher education”, Journal
of Research and Practice in Assessment, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Galanouli, D., Murphy, C. and Gardner, J. (2004), “Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-
competence training”, Computers and Education, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 63-79.
Galy, E., Downey, C. and Johnson, J. (2011), “The effect of using e-learning tools in online and campus-
based classrooms on student performance”, Journal of Information Technology Education:
Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 209-230, doi: 10.28945/1503.
Garcıa, B.G., Questier, F., Cincinnato, S., He, T. and Zhu, C. (2018), “Acceptance and usage of mobile
assisted language learning by higher education students”, Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 426-451, doi: 10.1007/s12528-018-9177-1.
Gatherer, D. and Manning, F.C. (1998), “Correlation of examination performance with lecture
attendance: a comparative study of first-year biological sciences undergraduates”, Biochemical
Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 121-123.
Gillett-Swan, J. (2017), “The challenges of online learning: supporting and engaging the isolated
learner”, Journal of Learning Design, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 20.
Graff, M. (2006), “The importance of online community in student academic performance”, Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 127-132, [online], available at: http://www.ejel.org.
Gunn, K.P. (1993), “A correlation between attendance and grades in a first-year psychology class”,
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 201-202.
Hamutoglu, N.B., Gemikonakli, O., Savasci, M. and Gultekin, G.S. (2018), “Development of a scale to
evaluate virtual learning environment satisfaction”, International Journal of Assessment Tools
in Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 201-222.
Heckel, C. and Ringeisen, T. (2019), “Pride and anxiety in online learning environments: achievement
emotions as mediators between learners’ characteristics and learning outcomes”, Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 35, pp. 667-677, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12367.
Higgins, S., Xiao, Z. and Katsipataki (2012), “The impact of digital technology on learning: a summary
for the education endowment foundation”, available at: http://educationendowmentfoundation.
org.uk/library/the-impact-of-digitaltechnologyon-learning.
Hiltz, S.R. (1997), “Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: some
preliminary results”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A. (2020), “The difference between emergency
remote teaching and online learning”, Educause Review, available at: https://er.educause.edu/
articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
Jahng, N., Krug, D. and Zhang, Z. (2007), “Student achievement in online distance education compared
to face-to-face education”, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.
1-12.
Jonassen, D.H. and Land, S.M. (2000), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, L. Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Keller, C. and Cernerud, L. (2002), “Students’ perception of e-learning in university education”,
Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 55-67.
Kemp, A., Palmer, E. and Strelan, P. (2019), “A taxonomy of factors affecting attitudes towards
educational technologies for use with technology acceptance models”, British Journal Education
Technology, Vol. 50, pp. 2394-2413, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12833.
JARHE Khan, B.H. (2005), Managing e-Learning: Design, Delivery, Implementation, and Evaluation,
Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA, available at: http://BooksToRead.com/eLearning.
Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., Bozkurt, A. and Buyuk, K. (2018), “Measuring self-regulation in self-paced open
and distance learning environments”, International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 25-43.
Konrad (2003), “Review of educational research on virtual learning environments (VLE) – implications
for the improvement of teaching and learning and access to formal learning in Europe”, paper
presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20
September 2003, available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003192.htm
(accessed 15 September 2010).
Koper, R. and Tattersall, C. (2004), “New directions for lifelong learning using network technologies”,
British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 689-700.
La Rose, R., Gregg, J. and Eastin, M. (1998), “Audio graphic tele-courses for the Web: an experiment”,
Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 34-43.
Lee, J., Hong, N.L. and Ling, N.L. (2001), “An analysis of students’ preparation for the virtual learning
environment”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 231-242.
Li, N., Wang, J., Zhang, X. and Sherwood, R. (2021), “Investigation of face-to-face class attendance,
virtual learning engagement and academic performance in a blended learning environment”,
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 112-118.
Lyndon, S. and Hale, B. (2014), “Evaluation of how the blended use of a virtual learning environment
(VLE) can impact on learning and teaching in a specific module”, Enhancing Learning in the
Social Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 56-65, doi: 10.11120/elss.2014.00019.
Manfuso, L.G. (2020), “How the remote learning pivot could shape Higher Ed IT”, EdTech Magazine,
available at: https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2020/04/how-remote-learning-pivot-
could-shape-higher-ed-it.
Martins, L.L. and Kellermanns, F.W. (2004), “A model of business school students’ acceptance of a
web-based course management system”, The Academy of Management Learning and
Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. and Jones, K. (2009), Evaluation of Evidence-Based
Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online-Learning Studies, US
Department of Education, Washington.
Meyers, W., Bennett, S. and Lysaght, P. (2004), “Asynchronous communication: strategies for
equitable e-Learning”, in Atkinson, R., McBeath, C., Jonas-Dwyer, D. and Phillips, R. (Eds),
Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, 5-8 December,
pp. 655-662.
Millis, R.M., Dyson, S. and Cannon, D. (2009), “Association of classroom participation and examination
performance in a first-year medical school course”, American Journal of Physiology - Advances
in Physiology Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 139-143.
Mishra, D.L., Gupta, D.T. and Shree, D.A. (2020), “Online teaching-learning in higher education during
lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic”, International Journal of Educational Research Open,
Elsevier, Vol. 1, p. 100012, doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012.
Montalbo, J. and Chua, C. (2014), “Assessing student’s satisfaction on the use of virtual learning
environment (VLE): an input to a campus-wide E-learning design and implementation”, IISTE
Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 108-115.
Moore, J.L., Dickson-Deane, C. and Galyen, K. (2011), “E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning
environments: are they the same?”, Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 129-135.
Morrice, J. and Demian, P. (2012), “The use of virtual learning environments and their impact on
academic performance”, Engineering Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-19.
Newman-Ford, L., Fitzgibbon, K., Lloyd, S. and Thomas, S. (2008), “A large-scale investigation into the Effect of
relationship between attendance and attainment: a study using an innovative, electronic
attendance monitoring system”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33, pp. 699-717. attendance on
Oblinger, D.G. and Hawkins, B.L. (2005), “The myth about e-learning”, Educause Review, Vol. 40 No. 5,
student
pp. 1527-6619. performance
Oliver, R. and Harrington, J. (2003), “Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical
perspective”, Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 111-126.
Peterson, G.D. and Feisel, L.D. (2002), “E-learning: the challenge for engineering education”,
Proceedings of the 2002 eTEE Conference, August, pp. 164-169.
Ribeiro, R. (2020), “How university faculty embraced the remote learning shift”, EdTech Magazine,
available at: https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2020/04/how-university-faculty-
embraced-remote-learning-shift.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R. and Archer, W. (2001), “Assessing social presence in
asynchronous text based computer conferencing”, Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Saykili, A. (2019), “Higher education in the digital age: the impact of digital connective technologies”,
Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, pp. 1-15, January. doi: 10.31681/jetol.
516971.
Schmidt, R.M. (1983), “American economic association who maximizes What ? A study in student time
allocation”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 23-28.
Scott, C. (2010), “The enduring appeal of ‘learning styles’”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 5-17, doi: 10.1177/000494411005400102.
Siemens, G. and Tittenberger, P. (2009), Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning, University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Stanca, L. (2006), “The effects of attendance on academic performance: panel data evidence for
introductory microeconomics”, The Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 251-266.
Stewart, M., Stott, T. and Nuttall, A.M. (2011), “Student engagement patterns over the duration of level
1 and level 3 geography modules: influences on student attendance, performance and use of
online resources”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-65.
Sun, A. and Chen, X. (2016), “Online education and its effective practice: a research review”, Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, Vol. 15 No. 2016, pp. 157-190.
Titthasiri, W. (2013), “A Comparison of E-Learning and traditional learning: experimental approach”,
International Conference on Mobile Learning, E-Society and E-Learning Technology
(ICMLEET), Singapore, November 6 – 7, 2013.
Wegerif, R. (1998), “The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks”, Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Yakubu, M.N. and Dasuki, S.I. (2019), “Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning technologies
among higher education students in Nigeria: a structural equation modeling approach”,
Information Development, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 492-502, doi: 10.1177/0266666918765907.
Zimmerman, D.W. (2004), “A note on preliminary tests of equality of variances”, The British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 173-181.

Further reading
Britain, S. and Liber, O. (1999), “A framework for pedagogical evaluation of virtual learning
environments”, JISC Technology Application Programme, Vol. 17 October 1999, pp. 41-44,
available at: http://www.jtap.ac.uk.
Cook, T.D. (2015), “Quasi-experimental design”, Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, Vol. 11, pp. 1-2.
JARHE Craig, A., Fisher, J. and Dawson, L. (2005), “Evaluating intervention programs for women in IT”,
Proceedings of the Qualitative Research in IT and IT in Qualitative Research Conference,
Brisbane, Australia, Griffith University.
Dowling, C., Godfrey, J.M. and Gyles, N. (2003), “Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve
accounting students’ learning outcomes?”, Accounting Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 373-391.
Ferrer, J., Ringer, A., Saville, K., Parris, M. and Kashi, K. (2020), “Students’ motivation and engagement
in higher education: the importance of attitude to online learning”, Higher Education, pp. 1-22,
doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5.
Gunn, C., McSporran, M., Macleod, H. and French, S. (2003), “Dominant or different: gender issues in
computer supported learning”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 14-30.
Mishra, S. (2002), “A design framework for online learning environments”, British Journal of
Educational Technology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 493-496.
Nwabude, A., Ogwueleka, F.N. and Irhebhude, M. (2020), “The use of virtual learning environment and
the development of a customised framework/model for teaching and learning process in
developing countries”, Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-12, 2020.
WHO (2020), Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic, World Health Organization, available at:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.
Wild, R., Griggs, K. and Downing, T. (2002), “A framework for e-learning as a tool for knowledge
management”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 102 No. 7, pp. 371-380.
Young, S. and McSporran, M. (2001), “Confident men - successful women: gender differences in online
learning”, EdMedia, pp. 433-436.

Corresponding author
Randa Diab-Bahman can be contacted at: randadiab5@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats