Write or Type: Course Engagement of Accountancy Students in an Online and

Face-to-Face Environment

INTRODUCTION

The onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic has led to fundamental change in

countries around the world, which have contributed to the emergence of new and

innovative education methods for students (Kauppi, Muukkonen, Suorsa, and Takala,

2020). Worldwide, many universities decided to convert the mean of teaching from the

traditional one (face-to-face) to online learning, at the same time all in-campus activities

have been cancelled or postponed until further notice (Sahu as cited by Sarea,

Alhadrami, Taufiq-Hail, 2021 ). The development and use of online courses for

instruction have grown rapidly in recent years, which enables the students to learn from

home. There was no choice but to switch entirely to online teaching-learning for several

academic institutions that were previously unwilling to shift their conventional

pedagogical approach (Dhawan, 2020). Due to this rapid transition of from face-to-face

learning environment to online/virtual classes many issues arise and discussed about

the quality of education that the undergraduate accounting students will get (Faidley,

2018; Paul & Jefferson, 2019)

The COVID-19 crisis has also affected the context of education in the

Philippines. Classes were postponed due to lockdown. The majority of universities and

colleges have faced virtual learning challenges (Talidong & Toquero, 2020). Besides,

students were unwilling to implement the online-blended learning approach (Baloran,

2020). Nevertheless, despite difficulties, online learning can also bring significant
improvements in students’ learning experiences. Students can learn and interact with

teachers and other students independently (Singh & Thurman, 2019).

Educational institutions and students across the world have accepted and

appreciated the online platform of learning. The reasons of this acceptability are ease of

use, learning flexibility and controllable environment. However, despite its multiple

advantages there are quite a few limitations of e-learning such as social isolation, face

to face interaction between teacher and student, connectivity issues, etc. (Serpa, 2020)

In the classroom, postsecondary students face diverse challenges across a

variety of tasks (Hadwin, Davis, Bakhtiar & Winne, 2019). Some students successfully

navigate these challenges, but some students do not; students who have performed

poorly in the past are more likely than their peers to perform poorly in the future.

However, at times, students with a history of weak performance are successful. This

success is partially due to their engagement in the course (Edwards, Davis, Hadwin,

Milford, 2020)

Students’ engagement in both the processes and products of learning are

predictors of achievement and performance. Unlike some student factors (e.g., race,

gender, academic history), student engagement is malleable: students can make

changes to their engagement. Additionally, instructors have a role to play in

encouraging and supporting student engagement (Fredricks, Parr, Amemiya, Wang &

Brauer, 2019)

Accounting education is an attractive field of study for young students globally

because it is an essential stage for skilled and talented accountants that are required by

the profession. Accordingly, if accounting education is affected negatively, this will have
bad consequences on the profession. Therefore, the research design of this study

attempts to answer the course engagement of accountancy students in an online and

face-to-face environment.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to understand and compare the course engagement of

accountancy students under the traditional and flexible learning modality using key

influential factors anchored in the framework used in the study. Further, this study will

seek to answer the following questions:

1.) What is the demographic profile of accountancy students in terms of:

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Year Level

d. Residence

2.) What is the level of course engagement of accountancy students in terms of the

following dimensions under traditional learning modality:

a. Affective

b. Behavioral

c. Cognitive

3.) What is the level of course engagement of accountancy students in terms of the

following dimensions under flexible learning modality:

a. Affective

b. Behavioral
 c. Cognitive

4.) Is there a significant difference between course engagement under traditional

and flexible learning modality among accountancy students when analyzed in

terms of:

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Year Level

d. Residence

Research Hypotheses

The hypotheses of the study are developed as:

Hypotheses0 – There is no significant difference between the course engagement of

accountancy students under traditional and flexible learning modality in term of their

age.

Hypotheses1 – There is no significant difference between the course engagement of

accountancy students under traditional and flexible learning modality in term of their

gender.

Hypotheses2 - There is no significant difference between the course engagement of

accountancy students under traditional and flexible learning modality in term of their

year level.

Hypotheses3 - There is no significant difference between the course engagement of

accountancy students under traditional and flexible learning modality in term of their

residence.
Significance of the Study

Through understanding and comparing the course engagement of accounting

students through online and face-to-face learning the following would benefit from the

study:

The School - This study contributes to the body of research in colleges of

business in understanding the course engagement of accountancy students of

online classes compared to a traditional face-to-face method of instruction.

Accounting Teaching Professors – They study would contribute and give an idea

for the professors which type of learning modality is best approach to be able to

maximize the students’ capacity and improve their course engagement.

Future Researchers - This study will benefit them since they will obtain more

information and might help with their own research work and uncover new ideas

that have not been learned in past studies regarding course engagement in an

online and face-to-face learning modality.

Scope and Limitations

The primary objective of this study is to understand and compare the course

engagement of accounting students in an online and face-to-face learning environment.

The data will be collected through a survey questionnaire to gather the participants’

thoughts and views about the research’s objective. Thus, survey questionnaire is only

accessible for the Accountancy students that have undergone through online and face-

to-face modality. Since most of the studies in the past primarily focused on the context

regarding the course engagement of accounting students, specifically, to management,

taxation and auditing subjects through online and face-to-face learning, this information

will not be included in the study, which serves as the limitation.

 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The purpose of this literature review is to comprehend the course engagement of

accountancy students under the online and face-to-face learning modality. The pages that follow

provide a thorough examination of the literature anchoring the key concepts of this study.

The difference between e-learning and face-to-face learning has also been pointed out in

relation to the main sources of information, as well as the evaluation and quality of learning.

Whereas in face-to-face learning, students are evaluated exclusively by teachers, who represent

their main source of information, and the quality of learning is strongly dependent on them, in e-

learning, students’ evaluations can be carried out using tools, they can access information from

various documents uploaded onto the platforms, and the quality of learning is strongly dependent

on both the teachers’ level of digital training and their teaching style (Gherhes, Stoian, Farcasiu,

Stanici, 2021)

Course Engagement

The notion of engagement is multidimensional and dynamic. In the extant literature, the

concept has been defined in various ways, but the widely agreedupon three-part typology

engagement comprises behavioural, emotional and cognitive components (Fredricks,

Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Even though, the term engagement is elusive, and it has various

definitions in the literature, the importance of it is understood and seen as an indicator of the

quality of student experience in higher education (Kahu, 2013; Redmond, Heffernan, Abawi,

Brown, & Henderson 2018).

Reeve (2013) posits these three factors should be augmented with the behaviours, thoughts,

and actions represented by agentic engagement. Students who are agentically engaged express
preferences, ask questions, communicate their thoughts and needs, recommend goals, and seek

clarification. Reeve (2013) conceived agentic engagement as the student-initiated teacher-student

interactions that create a motivationally supportive environment. Blended or fully online learning

requires students to use different strategies than traditional face-to-face learning (Ellis, Hand &

Pardo, 2018).

Perera and Richardson (2010) recommend that the quality of the actual time spent online

may be influential on learning outcomes. This provided some support for an earlier study by

Davies and Graff (2005) which found that students interacting less frequently with online

resources performed less well academically. Williams, Birch, and Hancock (2012) explored the

relationship between levels of student engagement with online quizzes and their academic

performance. The study found that students who attempted the online quizzes multiple times

performed much better than those who attempted a fewer number of times. Additionally, course

engagement has been associated with a variety of positive educational outcomes (Fredricks et al.,

2016; Trowler, 2010; Vytasek Patzak & Winne, 2020); one such positive outcome is academic

performance.

Traditional Learning Modality

Traditional learning is defined as a learning process in which the teacher controls the

learning environment. (Hamdani, Laksmi & Hardinto, 2021). It is an instructional method where

course content and learning material are taught in person to a group of students (Gherhes, Stoian,

Farcasiu, Stanici, 2021). Also, Xu and Jaggars (2016) identifies classroom teaching as a well-

established instructional medium in which teaching style and structure have been refined over

several centuries
Paul and Jefferson (2019) emphasized that traditional modality or face-to-face learning modality

is a type of learning environment wherein classroom instruction is teacher-centered and requires

passive learning by the student. In teacher-centered, or passive learning, the instructor usually

controls classroom dynamics. The teacher lectures and comments, while students listen, take

notes, and ask questions (Salcedo, 2010).

Traditional classroom teaching provides real-time face-to-face instruction and sparks

innovative questions. It also allows for immediate teacher response and more flexible content

delivery. Online instruction dampens the learning process because students must limit their

questions to blurbs, then grant the teacher and fellow classmates time to respond (Salcedo,

2010). Over time, however, online teaching will probably improve, enhancing classroom

dynamics and bringing students face-to face with their peers/instructors. However, for now, face-

to-face instruction provides dynamic learning attributes not found in Web-based teaching (Kemp

and Grieve, 2014).

Similarly, face-to-face instruction doesn’t rely upon networked systems. In online

learning, the student is dependent upon access to an unimpeded internet connection. If technical

problems occur, online students may not be able to communicate, submit assignments, or access

study material. This problem, in turn, may frustrate the student, hinder performance, and

discourage learning (Paul & Jefferson, 2019).

Flexible (Online) Learning Modality

Online learning is defined by Dani, Singhai and Hyde (2018) as a formally and

systematically organized teaching and learning activities in which the teacher and the students

are geographically separated. In this environment, the teacher becomes the guide that facilitates
the learning process of the learners, while the student must take an active role in the learning

process. Online learning is still new, and it is continuously evolving by the rapidly changing

technologies. More efforts are required by all online educators to integrate pedagogy with

technologies in order to enhance student learning.

Due to its more autonomous nature, an online course or degree requires the student to

display high levels of motivation and self-regulation (Artino Jr. and Stephens 2009; Wandler and

Imbriale 2017). Self-regulatory learning skills have been positively correlated with academic

achievement. Students lacking this skill within an online environment may underestimate its

importance and fail in their studies (Barnard et al. 2009; Zimmerman and Schunk 2001). A self-

regulated learner is an engaged learner, displaying confidence in their learning and a strong

involvement in the learning process (Cho, Kim and Choi 2017; Delen and Liew 2016).

With technological advancement, learners now want quality programs they can access

from anywhere and at any time. Because of these demands, online education has become a

viable, alluring option to business professionals, stay-at home-parents, and other similar

populations. In addition to flexibility and access, multiple other face value benefits, including

program choice and time efficiency, have increased the attractiveness of distance learning

(Wladis et al., 2015). Literatures also indicates that a positive correlation exists between online

engagement (also described as interaction or participation) and students’ learning (Carver,

Mukherjee and Lucio 2017; Davies and Graff 2005; Duncan et al. 2012).
Dimensions of Engagement

The following variables are anchored from Astin’s Theory of Involvement, the affective,

behavioral and cognitive. These variables will be used to test the course engagement of the

accountancy students towards online and face-to-face learning modality.

Affective Engagement.

Affective engagement refers to how the students feel (e.g., amused, happy, proud)

in their respective class. Affective engagement can include student feelings toward

school, expressing interest, reporting fun and excitement, feeling safe, having positive

relationships with teachers and peers, having a supportive family, expressing feelings of

belonging, and perceiving school as valuable (Pagán, 2018; Olson & Peterson 2015;

Jimerson, et. al. 2003) The terms psychological and emotional engagement have also

been used in the current literature to describe this construct (Appleton, Christenson, Kim,

& Reschly, 2006; Reschly et. al., 2007).

Researchers have operationalized this variable using perceptions of belongingness

(Goodenow, 1993), the perceived benefits and value of education (Eccles, Wigfield,

Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993), and specific importance of school in helping students

reach specific goals (Bouffard & Couture, 2003; Watt, 2004). Most of these concepts can

be treated more generally or specifically (i.e., according to different subject matter),

depending upon the research question.

Aker (2016) asserts that affective engagement is difficult for an external observer

to assess and analyze. A student who is frowning could be enjoying a particular task; a

student who is frustrated could be deeply cognitively engaged in resolving

inconsistencies in thought. Student self-report is an important aspect of assessing

affective engagement.

Behavioral Engagement.

Fredricks et al., 2004 defines behavioral engagement as the student’s compliance

in class-related activities and work (e.g., listening carefully and completing assignments),

and the student’s effortful class participation (e.g., working with other students and being

actively involved in class discussions). Behavioral engagement can refer to aspects

related to student attention, concentration, effort, adherence to class rules, risk and

behaviors, and involvement in the classroom and with extracurricular activities. (Pagán,

2018; Olson & Peterson (2015); Caraway & Tucker, 2003;). This statement was

supported by Reeve (2013) which claims that course participation is included in

behavioral engagement because definitions of the word “engagement” include

involvement and commitment. The effort, attention, and persistence students show in

learning activities are considered behavioral engagement

Behavioral engagement can be divided into three main axes: positive behaviors,

involvement in school-related tasks, and participation in extracurricular activities

(Fredricks et al., 2004). Behaviors defining all three axes range on a continuum and may

be positive and negative. For the positive behavior axis, school attendance vs. skipping

class and compliance with rules vs. oppositional behavior and represent good examples

along the engagement/disengagement continuum (Costenbader & Markson, 1998). When

it comes to involvement in school-related tasks, behaviors could be addressed as to

whether and to what extent students do their homework and participate in classroom-

related work and discussions (Posner & Vandell, 1999; Tymms & Fitz-Gibbon, 1992).
Finally, studies that focus on participation in extracurricular activities generally address

their frequency of participation (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997).

Cognitive Engagement.

Cognitive engagement refers to metacognitive and self-regulatory strategies

employed by students to better comprehend the instructional material Cognitive

engagement includes a student’s perceptions and beliefs associated to school and learning

(e.g., I will do well in this class if I try). Cognitive engagement refers to the cognitive

processing a student brings to academic tasks as well as the amount and type of strategies

a student utilizes (Pagán, 2018; Olson & Peterson (2015); Walker, Greene, & Mansell,

2006)

Cognitively engaged students think critically and creatively, reflect on their

learning, and use multiple strategies for learning. Typical indicators of cognitive

engagement include effort, goal orientation, and help-seeking behavior. Two alternative

models in the research literature identify an additional, fourth facet of engagement

indicating the importance of help-seeking behavior to cognitive engagement (Lee &

Anderson, 1993). Cognitive engagement is difficult for an external observer to assess and

analyze. For example, a student may show no help-seeking behaviors, but be profoundly

engaged in mental processing. Student self-report is important for assessing cognitive

engagement

Cognitive engagement addresses two variables that might affect achievement and

psychosocial adjustment. These are student psychological investment in learning and the

use of self-regulation strategies by students. Cognitive investment in learning covers

 perceptions of competency, willingness to engage in learning activities and engage in

effortful learning, and establishing task-oriented goals (i.e., performance, mastery, and

performance-avoidance goals; DeBacker & Nelson, 2000). Self-regulation strategies

focus on specific learning tools such as memorization, task planning, and self-monitoring

(Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998).

Theoretical Framework

Astin’s (1984) theory of involvement will be utilized as the construct to conceptualize

and guide the research. Student involvement is the defined by Astin as the amount of physical

and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience. Accordingly, this

theory emphasizes on how students might focus their physical and mental efforts on studying,

spend more time on campus, get involved in student activities, and engage with educators and

other students. the more involved a student is in university, the more learning and personal

development he or she will receive.

 Astin’s (1984) theory of involvement is developed around five basic postulates. The

theory of involvement identifies the five postulates as: involvement as an investment of physical

and psychological energy; involvement occurring along a continuum; involvement as qualitative

and quantitative; learning while involved is related to quality and quantity of involvement; and,

academic performance being correlated to involvement. Through the five postulates, behavioral

components and educational learning outcomes are conveyed suggesting that involvement is

foundational to student success. Thus, this theory serves as a foundation and basis for

determining and comparing the student engagement of accountancy student in the traditional

learning modality and flexible learning modality.

Research Paradigm

The research paradigm of the study is anchored through the Input-Output Model that was

developed by Astin (1993). He defines that, inputs are personal qualities students bring initially

to an educational program, while environment refers to students’ actual experiences during an

educational program, and outcome is talent that lecturers are trying to develop in their

educational programs

Age Affective Engagement

Traditional Face-To- Behavioral
Sex
Face Engagement
Year Level
Flexible Online Class Cognitive
Residence (Rural/Urban)
Engagement

Demographic Profile of Modality of Learning Students’ Engagement

Accountancy Students to Accounting Classes
 As we look in the figure above. The input is talks about the demographic profile of the

accountancy students which is their age, sex, year level, and residence if they are living in a rural

or urban area. The second is the process or the students’ environment which is the traditional

face-to-face and the flexible online class mode of learning.  Lastly, the output which covers the

engagement of students to the accounting classes.

Definition of Terms

Course Engagement – it deals about the engagement (the amount of time and effort

exerted) of the student to a course (Accountancy).

Flexible/Online Learning Modality – it uses internet to deliver the modality to learners.

Traditional/Face-to-face Learning Modality – it uses live interaction between the

learner and the instructor. This is usually taught in person to a group of students.

South Philippine Adventist College (SPAC) – this is the location wherein the study will

be conducted.
 METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research methods available in the study and also explains the

applicable methods used to answer the problem of this research. Further, this chapter presents the

entire plan, various procedures and strategies in identifying sources for needed information of the

study. Thus, specifically explained the research design, sampling procedure, research instrument,

research procedure and data analysis.

Research Design

The primary focus of this paper was to find out if there is a significant difference existed

in the course engagement of accountancy students under the traditional and flexible learning

modality. To address the problems of the study and to achieve its purpose, the descriptive-

comparative design was employed by the researcher. Descriptive-comparative research design is

a design wherein the researchers consider two variables and establishes a formal procedure to

compare and conclude if one is better that the other or if significant difference exists (Depaynos,

Butala & Atompag, 2021). The researcher found that this design would be appropriate because

this study intended to describe and determine the significant difference existing in the course

engagement of students under the traditional and flexible learning modality.

Population & Sampling Techniques

This portion, the researcher indicated the total population, and the sample size if the

population is large. It also described the most appropriate sampling technique that is used in the

study.
Population.

The population refers to all of any specified group of human beings or non-human

entities taken into consideration for a study. According to Johnson and Christensen

(2008), population is the large group to which a researcher wants to generalize the sample

results. The population of the present study consisted all the accountancy students

currently enrolled at South Philippine Adventist College (SPAC). The students were

categorized by their respective year levels. However, the study restricts the first-year

students because they didn’t meet the main criteria of the research – they should

experience both online and face-to-face modality of learning accounting.

Figure 3.1. Population of the Study

Population of Accountancy Students

27%
32%

41%

2nd Year 3rd year 4th Year

As shown in Figure 3.1. the population of accountancy students is presented. In

the graph, the greatest number of students is from the 3rd year, which comprises 41% of

the graph that corresponds to 18 students. Further, 32% corresponds to 14 students, which

are the 2nd years. And lastly, the 4th year students have the lowest population in the graph,

which is only 27% that corresponds to 12 students.

 Sampling Techniques.

Sampling refers to a small proportion of the population from whom the information

needed for the study is obtained. A good sample helps in saving resources without compromising

the validity of the findings. The systematic process of selecting the sample from the population is

called sampling (Ormrod, 2011).

In the study, a purposive sampling was used to identify the respondents by their year

level within the total population. According to Etikan, Musa and Alkassim (2016) a purposive

sampling technique, also called judgment sampling, is the deliberate choice of the researcher due

to the qualities the participant possesses. It is a nonrandom technique that does not need

underlying theories or a set number of participants. The main criteria that the researcher decides

to determine the respondents is that, they must experience both online and face-to-face learning

modality in learning as an accountancy student. The total population didn’t reach at least a

hundred, therefore, the researcher already concluded that the total population must also be the

sample of the study.

Instrumentation

In order to operationalized the variables, the study adapted the questionnaire from Hart,

Steward & Jimerson (2011). This questionnaire is used because it consists of the key factors

(affective, behavioral, cognitive) that is influential in determining the difference between the

course engagement of the accountancy students in an online and traditional environment.

All items were designed in 5-point Likert-type rating scales to ease the respondents in making

their choice by simply rating “out of five” (Dawes, 2008). Specifically, 1 denoted “strongly disagree, 2

meant “disagree”, 3 is intended as “neither agree or disagree”, referred to “agree” and 5 represented

“strongly agree”.
Table 3.1. Scaling of the Instrument

Numerical Scale Range Descriptive Equivalent Interpretation

5 4.20-5.00 Strongly Agree Very High Engagement

4 3.40-4.19 Agree High Engagement
Neither Agree or
3 2.60-3.39 Undecided Engagement
Disagree
2 1.80-2.59 Disagree Low Engagement
1 1.00-1.79 Strongly Disagree Very Low Engagement

Table 3.1 portrayed the scaling of the instrument. The table showed that five (5) point served as

the highest numerical scale which corresponds to the range of 4.21-5.00, with a descriptive equivalent of

“strongly agree” and is interpreted as having a very high engagement. The four (4) point corresponded to

a range of 3.40-4.19, with a descriptive equivalent of “agree” and is interpreted as having a high

engagement. The three (3) point is represented for the range of 2.60-3.39, with a descriptive equivalent of

“neither agree or disagree” and has an interpretation of having an undecided engagement. The two (2)

point a range of 1.80-2.59, with a descriptive equivalent of “disagree” and interpreted as having a low

engagement. And finally, the one (1) point corresponded to a range of 1.00-1.79, with a descriptive

equivalent of “strongly disagree” and interpreted as a very low engagement.

Data Gathering Procedure

In order to gather all the necessary data, a procedure must be followed. The flowchart

provided below is a brief explanation of the research procedure that has been done by the

researcher.
Figure 3.2. Flowchart of Research Procedure

Permission with the Answering

Distribution & Analysis and
VPAA & Research Problems
Collection of Survey Interpretations of
Accountancy & Providing
Questionnaire Survey Results
Chairperson Recommendations

Based on figure 3.2, before the researcher conduct the survey, he should ask first for the

permission from the Vice President of Academic Affairs and to the Chairperson of the Accountancy

Department. After the approval, the researcher will now start distributing the survey questionnaire by

sending the google form link to the respondents, as well as collecting it at the same time. The results were

then analyzed and interpreted. Finally, using the interpreted data, the researchers described and compared

the significant differences of the course engagement of the accountancy students in an online and face-to-

face environment and further provide recommendations for future researches.

Statistical Tool

After the data was collected, it was organized and analyzed. The statistical tool that was

used to analyze the data are the means of central tendency and z-test. The mean or average is

used because the measurements divided by the number of observations each data set. Through

this, the researcher will able to describe the problem of the study. While, Z- test will tell the

researcher if the hypothesis given is probably true or not.  

Z-test is a statistical test where normal distribution is applied and is basically used for

dealing with problems relating to large samples when the sample is larger than 30. It is also a

type of hypothesis test (Andale, 2014)