TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LEVEL OF

ENGAGEMENT TO ONLINE LEARNING

An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the College of Industrial Technology
Bicol University
Legazpi City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education

JEZEL BADRINA VENUS

PAUL JOHN BAESA RIVERA
SHEENA TUYO BRIONES
VINEL JOHN BALICTAR BANDOLIN

June 2021

i
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
COLLEGE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
Legazpi City

RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

This undergraduate thesis entitled: TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL TEACHER

EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT TO ONLINE LEARNING,
prepared and submitted by Jezel B. Venus, Paul John B. Rivera, Sheen T. Briones,
Vinel John B. Bandolin, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor
of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education, is hereby submitted to the Thesis
Committee for consideration and approval.

ARLENE O. BALLERAS, MAIE

Research Adviser

THESIS COMMITTEE

This undergraduate thesis entitled: TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL TEACHER

EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT TO ONLINE LEARNING,
prepared and submitted by Jezel B. Venus, Paul John B. Rivera, Sheen T. Briones,
Vinel John B. Bandolin, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor
of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education is hereby recommended for final oral
examination.

ROMNICK D. APIN, MAIE

Chairman

WILMA O. PAJAVERA, MAIE KENGIE E. MERENCIANO, Phd

Member Member

ii
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
COLLEGE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
Legazpi City

RESULT OF THE FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

Results of the Final Oral Examination of Names of the Researchers

(Alphabetically Arranged, First Name first), candidates for the degree Bachelor of
Technical-Vocational Teacher Education.

Title : Technical-Vocational Teacher Education Students’

Engagement in Online Learning

Venue :

Date : June __, 2021

This is to certify that Names of the Researchers (Alphabetically Arranged,

First Name first) has passed the Final Oral Examination with a final rating of _ %.

Panel Examiners Action Taken

ROMNICK D. APIN ________________

Chairman

WILMA O. PAJAVERA ________________

Member

KENGIE E. MERENCIANO ________________

Member

iii
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
COLLEGE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
Legazpi City

APPROVAL SHEET

Upon recommendation of the Oral Examination Committee, this undergraduate

thesis entitled: TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’
LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT TO ONLINE LEARNING prepared and submitted by
Jezel B. Venus, Paul John B. Rivera, Sheen T. Briones, Vinel John B. Bandolin, is
hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of
Technical-Vocational Teacher Education.

CHRISTIAN C. CALLEJA, MAIE

Department Chair

ROLENZ DERICK R. CRUZ, BSFT

Research Coordinator

JONATHAN C. ARROCO, PhD

Dean

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We have to be responsible for ourselves in order to achieve what we really

want. We need adjustment, sacrifices in some way, and be more vigilant to our actions

for us to succeed.

This is now the product of our sacrifices, adjustment, and hard work by the

support and comfort of those people who deserved to be acknowledged and worthy

of appreciation.

Making this research study has become a big challenge to us in this time of

pandemic. We have experienced different difficulties and problems which we

overcome with the help and guidance of the persons whom we want to express our

sincerest gratefulness.

To the Almighty Father, who gives us the strength, wisdom, security, guidance,

and courage in making this project successful and worth valuing to everyone. Thank

you, God, for hearing and answering our prayers to make everything possible happen.

With heartfelt appreciation, we would like to extend our gratitude to the

following people who gave us their invaluable time, efforts, and expertise for the

accomplishment of this study.

We cannot begin to express our thanks to our instructor, Prof. Christian C.

Calleja, MAIE for his friendly guidance and great advice have been invaluable

throughout all the chapters.

We are extremely indebted to our thesis adviser Prof. Arlene O. Balleras, MAIE,

thank you for accepting us as your advisees. Thank you for leading us while doing this

v
research and giving us hopes that we can finish this task. Your valuable comments

and suggestions have greatly contributed to the success of our thesis.

Special thanks to Prof. Nick D. Apin, you have been a tremendous supporter

and motivator. Thank you for your brilliant ideas and extended discussion has a

substantial contribution to the success of our study.

We are extremely grateful to the panel of our thesis, Prof. Kengie and Prof.

Pajavera. Thank you for lending us your invaluable time and effort in criticizing each

detail of our work and providing us with the necessary suggestion or recommendation

for the improvement of our thesis.

This success would not have been possible without the support and approval

of College Dean, Mr. Jonathan C, Arroco, PHD. Thank you sir, for having us legal

action in conducting a survey through Google Form.

To our family especially to our dearest parents, who become our inspiration for

this study. Thank you for showing and giving us the support, love, guidance, trust and

understanding that made this undertaking possible.

To the respondents who become part and played a big role in finishing this

study, thank you for the trust, willingness, and cooperation in sharing your thoughts

and personal experiences.

To our friends and classmates, thank you for supporting and giving us words

of encouragement in pursuing this study despite trials and uncertainties.

To all who contributed to this research, without you this would not be made in

reality, we would like to impart to you the success of this one-of-a-kind research.

vi
 ABSTRACT

Research Title : Technical-Vocational Teacher Education Students’

Engagement to Online learning
Author/s : Jezel B. Venus, Paul John B. Rivera, Sheen T.
Briones, Vinel John B. Bandolin
Type of Document : Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis

Institution : Bicol University College of Industrial Technology

Degree : Bachelor of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education

The unprecedent transition into online learning at this time of writing (February

2021) have led to ponder on the student’s level of engagement in online class. This

study aimed to investigate the technical-vocational teacher education (TVTEd)

students’ level of engagement iton online learning. The researchers adopted Lee,

Song, and Hong’s student engagement framework, a 24-Likert scale questionnaire

with six identifying parameters as basis to measure the TVTEd students’ level of

engagement in online learning. Overall, 92 students responded on the questionnaire.

The data gathered was interpreted using the descriptive analysis on the profile and

level of engagement and Pearson-r correlation test for the significant relationship to

students’ profile. The findings revealed that TVTEd students have a mid-level

presence in psychological motivation, peer collaboration, cognitive problem-solving,

interaction with instructors, community support, and learning management. It was also

revealed that there is no connection of age, gender, and area of specialization to

students’ level of engagement, although it was revealed that the learning modality

vii
have connection to students’ psychological motivation, cognitive problem solving,

community support, and learning management. From the results, the researchers

have recommended strategies to strengthen student engagement. Therefore, the

overall result of this study can serve as a reference for future academic-related

undertakings.

Keywords: student engagement, online learning, vocational education

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

TITLE PAGE i

RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION ii

RESULTS OF THE FINAL ORAL ECXAMINATION iii

APPROVAL SHEET iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT v

ABSTRACT vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ix

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF APPENDICES xii

CHAPTERS

I. THE PROBLEM

Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Hypothesis 5

Scope and Delimitation 5

Significance of the Study 5

Notes 7

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature 9

ix
 Related Studies 17

Synthesis of the Art 25

Gap Bridged by the Study 26

Theoretical Framework 27

Conceptual Framework 32

Definition of Terms 34

Notes 36

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Method 43

Respondents of the Study 43

Sources of Data 44

Research Instrument 45

Data Gathering Procedures 45

Statistical Treatment 46

Notes 50

IV. TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’

ENGAGEMENT TO ONLINE LEARNING

Profile of the respondents 51

Level of students’ engagement 57

Significant relationship 70

Recommendations to strengthen student engagement 91

Notes 99

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

x
 Summary 113

Findings 114

Conclusions 115

Recommendations 116

BIBLIOGRAPHY 117

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Likert scale Interpretation 46

2 Pearson R correlation text interpretation 48

3 Level of Psychological Motivation 58

4 Level of Peer Collaboration 59

5 Level of Cognitive problem-solving 61

6 Level of Interaction with Instructors 63

7 Level of Community support 65

8 Level of Learning Management 67

9 Overall level of engagement 69

10 Relationship: profile and psychological motivation 72

11 Relationship: profile and peer collaboration 74

12 Relationship: profile and cognitive problem-solving 77

13 Relationship: profile and interaction with instructors 81

14 Relationship: profile and community support 85

15 Relationship: profile and learning management 88

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Theoretical Paradigm 31

2 Conceptual Paradigm 33

3 Age of the respondents 52

4 Gender of the respondents 53

5 Area of Specialization of the student 55

6 Learning modality of the respondent 55

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Letter of approval instrumentation 138

B Letter to conduct data gathering 139

C Letter Request to Validate Questionnaire 140

D Questionnaire e-form 143

E Profile of the respondents raw data 151

F Level of students’ engagement raw data 152

G Significant relationship computation data 161

xii
 Chapter I

THE PROBLEM

This chapter includes the introduction, statement of the problem, scope and

limitation, and the significance of the study.

Introduction

The Online Learning at this time of writing (January 2021) has been in the use

as a surrogate context of Learning since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

pandemic disrupted the education worldwide, and the Philippines was not an

exemption1 . Before the pandemic, Online learning has been used as an alternate

route to impart education due to its efficient use and later become a necessity2 .

Started from August 2020 when majority of the Higher Institutions unprecedently

transitioned to various form of flexible learning (Blended learning, Offline learning, and

Online learning), it is unreasonable to expect a positive picture of the students’ level

of engagement in such a challenging situation considering that some online learners

can feel isolation and disconnection (Dixon, 2015)1,3,4 . Even the learning context has

been in a year and a half since the midyear of 2020, there were no studies describing

the students’ level of engagement in Online learning particularly for Vocational-

Education Schools. This is a crucial variable that is further to be discussed throughout

the Philippines.

Student Engagement is an important construct that has been associated with

student success5. It is a common instructional objective expressed by educators

1
regardless the context of learning6. Usually, it is assumed that learning progress when

students are curious, interested, or inspired7; and in contrast, the learning tends to

suffer when students are bored, dispassionate, disaffected, or otherwise

“disengaged”7.

Student Engagement refers to the level of attention, curiosity, interest,

optimism, and passion that students manifests when they are learning or being

taught7. It is also noted as a relationship between the student and the school, teachers,

peers, instruction and curriculum8. This term was dispatched to several discussions

due to its vagueness9. However, it was construed in an agreement that Student

Engagement will be described if the focus is determined10. This means that it should

anchor on the three student engagement dimensions: behavioral, emotional, and

cognitive, in choosing the context11. Behavioral Engagement refers to student’s

engagement in academic and extracurricular activities10,16; Emotional engagement

refers to student’s positive and negative reaction to peers, teachers and school

(Delfino,2019)10,19; and, Cognitive engagement talks about student’s thoughtfulness

and willingness to master difficult skills (Fredericks, et al., 2004)10,12,19.

To effectively describe and measure the Students’ Engagement, it should be

comprehensively reviewed with quantification coming from the scholars. This means

that it should be studied with an assessment tool that includes self-reports, student

surveys, rating scales, and observations. Student engagement rating scale is one of

the sensible ways that give numerable result; For instance, the National Survey

Student Engagement (NSSE), Online Student Engagement (OSE), and Student

Engagement Instrument (SEI) were commonly used among 21 instruments

2
identified13. However, these tools are limited because they do not reflect on the

specific characteristics of engagement that are emphasized in Online environment14.

This means that these tools are crafted not fully intended for Online learning context.

The preceding studies situate on traditional learning context blended with

Online are often found outside the Philippines. It was only few Institutions, including

Bicol University have offered Open learning prior the abrupt transition to indefinite

Online learning15. About the data identical to Student Engagement, it was scarce and

found less prominent. In this paper, we aimed to describe the Students’ Engagement

to Online Learning among Technical-Vocational Teacher Education (TVTEd) students

in Bicol University College of Industrial Technology. We will measure and investigate

Students’ level of engagement in terms of six parameter: Learning management,

Interactions with instructors, psychological motivation, Community support, Peer

collaboration, and Cognitive problem solving, that corresponds to the three

dimensions of student engagement in addition to the limited and varying studies found.

It is important to address this absence of information to glance and ponder on TVTEd

students’ engagement that has an unprecedent history of Online Learning.

3
Statement of the Problem

In this study, we will measure and analyze the TVTEd students’ level of engagement:

learning management, Interactions with instructors, psychological motivation,

Community support, Peer collaboration, and Cognitive problem solving, that

corresponds to the existing three dimensions of student engagement. Specifically, it

aims to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. age

b. gender

c. area of specialization

d. learning modality

2. What is the level of TVTED students’ engagement to online learning as perceived

by the respondents in terms of:

a. psychological motivation

b. peer collaboration

c. cognitive problem solving

d. interaction with instructors

e. community support

f. learning management

3. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents to the level

of student engagement?

4. What recommendations to be forwarded to strengthen the level of student

engagement?

4
Hypothesis

H: There is no significant relationship18 between the profile of the TVTEd students and

the level of engagement (psychological motivation, peer collaboration, cognitive

problem solving, interaction with instructors, community support, and learning

management) to online learning.

Scope and Delimitation

This study is primarily focused on the measuring and analyzing the TVTEd

students’ engagement level in terms of learning management, Interactions with

instructors, psychological motivation, Community support, Peer collaboration, and

Cognitive problem solving. The researchers consider every aspect of students’

information that has a connection on their level of engagement in learning such as

their age, sex, area of specialization, and learning modality. Each of the respondents

will be given the same questionnaires to respond. This study focuses on the current

third year TVTEd students of the present university academic year 2020-2021.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study could be beneficial to a group of people,

organizations, and institutions that purposes on development, understanding, and

discovering the student’s engagement in an online learning environment17. Moreover,

the results of the study will be beneficial to the following:

Educational Institutions. The result of this research can be used for knowing

what approach can be done to perform by the teachers. The result of this study can

5
also be utilized by school administrators to commence essential steps like the

assessment of programs to ameliorate teacher’s practice and approach to students

which may improve student engagement. This research may help heighten students

participation on Online Learning to build stronger rapport and produce world-class

competent and competitive students-as part of the Bicol University’s University Vision.

Students. The results of this study will provide them an information that can be

used as reference in small discussions, report, and other academic and non-academic

discourse to further understand, develop, and improve thei body of information that

has a relation to student engagement in online learning context.

Teachers. Teachers as facilitator can source the data of this study as

contributing basis in adjusting their teaching style to heighten student interest and

participation to class (if any), especially in the future. This study may also serve as an

aid for teachers to enhance their reflect and probe on their approach for the

improvement of student’s engagement regardless the classroom setting.

Other researchers. The findings of this study can be used as a source or

reference for future researchers in conducting or correlating student engagement-

related study

6
 Notes
1.
Baron, Robert Earl C. Mabulay, Lloyd Gabriel T. Rizada, Christl Jan S. Tiu,
Charlie A. Clarion, John Carlo B. Reyes (2021). “Barriers to Online Learning in the
Time of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines”,
accessed March 3, 2021 from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40670-
021-01231-z.pdf.
2.
The University of Arkansas (N.D). The Evolution of Distance Education in
2020, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/distance-education-evolution-in-2020.
3.
Bonz Magsambol (2020). Fast Facts: CHED's Flexible Learning. Rappler,
accessed March 3, 2021 from https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/things-to-know-
ched-flexible-learning.
4.
Mehmet Kara, Fatih Erdoğdu, Mehmet Kokoç, Kursat Cagiltay, (2019).
“Challenges Faced by Adult Learners in Online, Distance Education: A Literature
Review” accessed March 3,2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213733.pdf.
5.
Shelley R. Hart, Kaitlyn Stewart, Shane R. Jimerson (2011). The Student
Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report
Form-New (TERF-N): Examining the Preliminary Evidence. Contemporary School
Psychology, Vol. 15, p.67 accessed March 3,2021 from
https://casponline.org/pdfs/pdfs/2011_journal_individual/2011_student-
engagement_67-79.pdf
6.
LumenLearning (N.D). Student Engagement: Module 6: How Do We
Differentiate Instruction To Meet Our Students’ Needs, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationx92x1/chapter/94/
7.
Glossary of Education (2016). Student Engagement, accessed March 3,2021
from https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement/
8.
Jonathan Martin, Amada Torres (N.D). What Is Student Engagement And
Why Is It Important? Accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.nais.org/Articles/Documents/Member/2016%20HSSSE%20Chapter-
1.pdf
9.
Feliciano H. Veiga (2016). Assessing student Engagement in School:
Development and validation of a four-dimensional scale. Social and Behavioral
Sciences, accessed March 3,2021. pp. 813 – 815.
10.
Paul Ashwin, Debbie McVitty (2015). The Meanings of Student Engagement:
Implications for Policies and Practices, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312862857_The_Meanings_of_Student_E
ngagement_Implications_for_Policies_and_Practices.
11.
Jean B. Mandernach (2015). Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher
Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools, accessed March 3,2021
from https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/367.
12.
Jennifer A. Fredricks, Phyllis Blumenfeld, Jeanne Friedel, Alison Paris
(2004). School of Engagement, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Child_Trends-
2003_03_12_PD_PDConfFBFP.pdf.
13.
Jennifer Fredricks, Wendy McColskey, Jane Meli, Bianca Montrosse, Joy
Mordica Kathleen Mooney, (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper

7
elementary through high school: a description of 21 instruments, accessed March
3,2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514996.pdf.
14.
Jeongju Lee, Hae-Deok Song, Ah Jeong Hong (2019). Exploring Factors,
and Indicators for Measuring Students’ Sustainable Engagement in e-Learning.
Sustainability, accessed March 3,2021 from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/11/4/985.
15.
Cathrine Gonzales (2020). CHED: Only 20% of SUCs equipped to facilitate
online classes. Inquirer net, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1269090/ched-only-20-of-sucs-equipped-to-facilitate-
online-classes.
16.
Armando P. Delfino (2017). Student Engagement And Academic
Performance Of Students Of Partido State University. Faculty of Education, Partido
State University, Philippines pp. 2-4, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1222588.pdf.
17.
Ed Glantz, Chris Gamrat, Lisa Lenze, Jeffrey Bardzell (2021). Improved
Student Engagement in Higher Education’s Next Normal. Education and Learning,
accessed March 3, 2021 from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/3/improved-
student-engagement-in-higher-educations-next-normal
18.
Swapan K Haldar (2018). The Null hypothesis. Mineral Exploration (Second
Edition), from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-
sciences/null-hypothesis

8
 Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the related literature and studies found by the

researchers. This will also present the synthesis of the art, theoretical and conceptual

framework to fully understand the research to be done and lastly, the definition of

terms for better comprehension of the study.

Related Literature

“Online learning has manifested significant growth over the last decade”,

Koksal said. The physical “brick and mortar” classroom started to lose its notion as

the technology and education merged to provide people with the opportunity to gain

new skill1. However, the popularity of Online learning had become a necessity as a

protocol to curb the rapid spread and severity of the deadly coronavirus, “COVID-19”2.

Right after pandemic occurred last March 2020, most governments around the world

have temporarily closed educational institutions in attempt to contain the spread of the

virus3. In order to keep the education running, educational institutions have had to

quickly adapt to the situation which resulted in an unprecedented push to online

learning, especially in the Philippines4.

Initially, Online learning was first remarked by Sir Isaac Pitman in the 1840s by

mailing texts transcribed into shorthand on postcards and receiving transcriptions from

his students in return for correction either scheduled or preferred time5. This was

originally derived as “Distance Learning” in the modern sense, since the initial process

emphasized the distanced way of learning5.

9
 Online Learning is a form of education that is contextualized outside the brick-

and-mortar classroom, routes in the Internet sphere and with the use of all internet-

based tools like Google, Cloud meeting, Zoom, YouTube, and other tools for Online

course6. Ofttimes, it is with perplexed with other types of learning that uses Internet,

like web-based learning, flexible learning and e-learnins6,7. However, its contrast is

that online learning uses online tools and electronic devices, the e-learning uses

electronically supported devices that relies to Internet, web-based learning uses web

Internet, and flexible learning uses the combination of offline, online and semi-online
8
. Their commonality is that no physical interaction happens and involves the use of

Internet, which are just common variations of “Distance Learning” -a generic term for

any learning that takes place across distance and not in a traditional classroom6,9.

Student Engagement is one of the crucial discussions the Researchers,

Educators, and Policy makers are focusing as a way to address problems such as low

achievement, high levels of student boredom, alienation, and high dropout rates

(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris, 2004)10. In Online learning, one important

drawback among students is withdrawal or disengagement as they learn outside the

four-wall classroom11. In a domestic scale that shown how several Filipino students

are restricted by the Online learning situation, it could be construed that it can further

affect their engagement level. For instance, the Philippine Association of State

Universities and Colleges (PISA) posited through a nationwide survey that there were

nearly 44,000 students are planning to unenroll in academic year 2020-2021 due to

fear of contamination, financial problem, lack of gadgets, and their residence relative
12
to the university . In this sample anticipation, it clearly shows that some students

10
appear to disengage in Online Learning. This concept is similar to the humanistic

theory in education, where students’ engagement could be deranged if the student

experiences unpleasant support around his learning13.

There were 3.2 million college students who enrolled during the 2018 to 2019

school year prior the shift into Online Learning, according to CHED14. There were no

statistics yet shown the numbers of students enrolled in the 2020 to 2021 because it

is still in the process at this time of writing (2021)15. With these number, there are few

conclusions made on the engagement level of students throughout the country. It was

said that some student the considered themselves physically and mentally capable of

engaging in online learning; and the opposite is that students experience difficulties of

clarifying topics or discussions with the professors16,17. However, these conclusions

are made accustomed to a particular course and students in the Philippines.

Even there is a growing interest in student engagement, there are considerable

differences on how this concept has been made over time10,18. Initially, Student

engagement refers to observable behaviors such as participation and time on task19,20.

Scholars have used wide range of variations in the conceptualization of Student

engagement and led to vagueness20. However, it was generally characterized as a

multidimensional construct with behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions20,21.

These three dimensions have been widely accepted as it accords on the theoretical

perspective of the prospectors20,21.

There are large individual bodies of literature on behavioral, emotional, and

cognitive engagement10. Behavioral engagement refers to participation including

involvement in academic, social, or extracurricular activities and is considered crucial

11
for achieving positive academic outcomes and preventing dropping out10; other

scholars draw the idea in terms of positive conduct, such as following the rules,

adhering to classroom norms, and the absence of disruptive behavior such as skipping

school or getting into trouble10. Second, Emotional engagement commends on the

extent of positive and negative reactions to teachers, classmates, academics, or

school and is presumed to bring connection to the institution and influence willingness

to do the work; and other scholars draw the idea as an identification with the school,

which includes belonging, or a feeling of being important to the school, and valuing,

or an appreciation of success in school-related outcomes10,22. And lastly, Cognitive

engagement is defined as student’s level of investment in learning; It includes being

thoughtful, willing to exert the necessary effort for comprehension of complex ideas

and mastery of difficult skills10,23.

In addition, as it was also noted that educators may hold different views on

student engagement, it may be defined or interpreted differently from place to place19.

This means that there are specific terms pertinent to the context of study, especially

in Online Learning. For instance, the literature of Lee, Song, and Hong (2019) fits on

the context of this study and comprises 6 subcomponents under the three dimensions

of Student Engagement24. These will be further explained in this literature.

First, the Learning management under the Behavioral engagement refers on

learners that manage their own learning during active learning participation in online

courses24. This factor is related to active and self-directed learning activities for

learners in an independent learning environment24. Students in Online learning are

self-paced, which tend to behave on their own as they self-learn (Samuels, 2014)68

12
and have difficulties in managing their learning processes, and, are thus, subject to

failure24,25.

Second, the Interactions with instructors shows the behavioral engagement in

which the learner communicates with the instructor of an online course24. In the online

learning environment, it was said that the level of engagement is higher when the

learners sense a teaching presence that they feel in the actual learning field with the

professor26. The interactions with the instructor factor, which refers to communication

acts, such as a requesting extra help from the instructor or asking questions regarding

the contents of the lesson, can be considered as an important predictor of student

engagement in online learning24. According to Bawa and Donovan, the lack of teacher

presence can add to feelings of student isolation and disengagement in online

courses27 and may have a negative influence on learner performance and/or

motivation27.

Third, the Psychological motivation under Emotional engagement represents

learners’ thoughts or feelings (e.g., as interest, expectations, and motivation) that is

related to online learning24. Learning motivation and learning expectations are

important for higher level of learning activities in online learning environments as it

was construed as internal drivers to learning participation24.

Fourth, the Community support factor under the Emotional engagement is

related to the psychological state of the learners such as the bonds or the sense of

community that is formed among learners in the same online courses24. Emotional

sense of belonging can be a prominent factor in the prevention of dropouts and help

students to engage in classes24,28,29. One reason for the high dropout rate is related

13
to the lack of bonds or the sense of community among learners in online courses28,30.

According to Kitsantas and Dabbagh (2004), If learners lack a feeling of connection

or belonging with their fellow learners, then they tend to easily skip classes or leave

them early, which may eventually lead them to refrain from learning 24,30,31,67.

Fifth, the Peer collaboration under the Cognitive engagement factor refers to

activities which the learners discuss knowledge and collaboratively solve problems24.

Collaborative learning is a process of building and understanding knowledge with

peers, and it is recognized as an important part of student engagement24,32,33. In

Online environment, it has been posited that the students are challenged to share their

cognitive side as students are not in the same sphere to fully cooperate themselves

in the cognition34.

And sixth, the Cognitive problem solving under the Cognitive Engagement24.

These are important factors since students are learning at their own pace24. With a

fenced connection to the class, learners solving their problems at their own may be

hampered35. However, it can be empowered since most of the educational resources

are accessible in the Internet. With various support system to learners, it can help

increase their participation on solving a problem36.

These particular subcomponents of Student engagement (Learning

management, Interactions with instructors, Psychological motivation, Community

support, Peer collaboration, and Cognitive problem solving) intuitively subdivided the

learner’s engagement, extending from the existing three student engagement factors

(behavioral, emotional, cognitive)24. This was derived from Lee, Song, and Hong

(2019) as it reflects the actual learning situations in the Online learning environment24.

14
 After identifying the context of student engagement, scholars commend to

incorporate a particular methodology in measuring the student engagement to specify

the nature of data and provide a conclusive evidence on the field of study10,37,38.

Methods of measuring student engagement generally include Student self-report,

Experience sampling, Rating scale, Qualitative observations, and Interviews10,37,38.

Their general variance is either in a form of quantitative or qualitative and is explained

further in this literature.

The Self-report survey method is the most common method for assessing

student engagement; students are provided items that reflect on the different aspects

of engagement through objective domain and allows them to select the response that
10,37
bxest describes them, Fredrick and McColskey stated . However, this method is

in a general form. Second is Experience sampling10. In this methodology, individuals

are assessed in a detailed process to collect information (e.g., location, time) on

variations of engagement across time and situations10. Another Method of assessing

Student Engagement is the Rating scale10. This method can be in a form of checklist

or rating scale which is to be checked and/or rated, derived from a report; and includes

the grounds on the three main dimensions of student engagement10,37. Another is

Interview10. Interviewees are asked through structured and semi-structured questions

in an open-ended manner, and participants can tell their story ang give a detailed

answer depending on the scope of response10. And lastly, is Observation10. This

method records a predetermined category in a defined time interval and is often used

by school psychologists to screen individuals in both typical and special needs

populations, especially those at risk for disengagement and academic failure10,37.

15
 Rating scale as a method in studying a particular context of student

engagement is highly recommended and the sensible way among other methods

suggested by the scholars10,37. This is done by summing or averaging the scores of

the individual items under the variation of student engagement and assess

engagement indicators10,39. Aside from a quantitative process, it gives the researchers

a set of standards and the focus of student engagement37,39. This means that the

skeptics will take less to reach into conclusion defining their prospected student

engagement focus.

Rating scale is also called as Student Engagement instrument since it is a

mathematical-based standard of measuring student engagement10,37. Among these

Instrument-tool used are the National Survey Student Engagement (NSSE), Online

Student Engagement (OSE), and Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) from 21

instruments identified10,24,37,39. For instance, the NSSE focuses on academic

challenges, learning with peers, interaction with school institutions, and supportive

learning environments; OSE focuses on student behaviors, feelings and connections

with peer and instructor; and SEI focuses on emotional and cognitive factors24.

These instruments are used for a diverse purpose. However, the versatile

purpose of these instruments is to increase engagement and find solutions for low

academic achievement, high dropout rates, Alienation, Boredom, and other

Disengagement37.

Other purpose of student engagement report serves as a research on

motivational and cognitive theories of learning, analyzing the disengagement and

dropping out of students, assessment of school improvements and interventions,

16
determine and monitor at the student level, and assess the students’ needs37. These

are the primary concerns present in education that the researchers are using the

student engagement report to heighten student participation and lessen withdrawal,

present on all context of learning10,24,37.

Related Studies

The study of Chaw and Tang (2005), entitled “Driving high inclination to

complete massive open online courses (MOOCs): motivation and engagement factors

for learners”. They examined whether positive motivation resulted in positive

engagement; whether negative motivation resulted in negative engagement; and how

positive or negative engagement influenced learners’ willingness to complete a

MOOC if they were to enroll in one. Their study adopted the Motivation and

Engagement Scale (MES) by Martin (2007, 2009) to collect responses from students.

The results showed that there was a positive relationship between positive motivation

and positive engagement between negative motivation and negative engagement,

and between positive engagement and inclination to complete a MOOC, shown by .

However, they added that the relationship between negative engagement and

willingness to complete a MOOC was statistically not significant (Tang, 2005)40.

The study of Huang and Hew (2016), entitled “Measuring Learners’ Motivation

Level in Massive Open Online Courses” stated their correlated findings that the

“completed course group” was more motivated than the “uncompleted course group”

and that learners with higher motivation level are more likely to complete a course.

(Hew, 2016)41.

17
 The study of Little and Jones (2020), entitled "A Comparison of Student

Performance in face-to-face Classes versus Online Classes versus Hybrid Classes

Using Open Educational Resources" correlated that the performance of students in a

section of Accounting Principles with the same class taught in an online format with

two sections of the same course taught in a hybrid format. Their findings showed that

students performed better in the hybrid and online classes than in the face-to-face

class. This is due to the difference in performance by males in the three delivery

methods. Males performed much better in the online and the hybrid format than face-

to-face. Female performance was fairly consistent across the three different delivery

methods, meaning they outperformed males in the face-to-face format but did not do

as well in hybrid or online42.

The study of, Liu, Sung, Lin, Chen, and Cheng (2013), entitled “Effects of

Online College Student's Internet Self-Efficacy on Learning Motivation and

Performance” investigates how Internet self-efficacy helps students transform

motivation into learning action and its influence on learning performance. The

participants in this study were examined using social cognitive theory. The

researchers used quantitative analysis in linking the variance of student-perceived

Internet self-efficacy and learning performance. Their results showed that Students

with high Internet self-efficacy were higher than those with low Internet self-efficacy,

and were more confident in their ability to complete an online course. Also, their

findings indicated the gender differences in which males Internet self-efficacy and

confidence were higher than females; and females participates than males. (Chiung-

Sui Chang, 2013)43.

18
 The study of Rovai, Ponton, Wighting, and Baker (2007), entitled “A

Comparative Analysis of Student Motivation in Traditional Classroom and E-Learning

Courses” determine if there were differences of motivation between students

(undergraduate, graduate) enrolled in both (e-learning, traditional) university courses

using Multivariate analysis of variance. Their findings show that: e-learning students

possess stronger intrinsic motivation than on campus students who attend face-to-

face classes; graduate students have stronger intrinsic motivation than undergraduate

students in both courses; and there were no motivational differences based on

ethnicity. (Alfred P. Rovai, 2007)44.

The study of Saeed, Sitwat; Zyngier, David(2012) entitled “How Motivation

Influences Student Engagement: A Qualitative Case Study” they investigated which

type of motivation--intrinsic or extrinsic--is more closely aligned to authentic student

engagement as identified by Schlechty (2002, 2011). Their findings that students who

preferred extrinsic motivation also showed ritual and retreatist forms of engagement

and students demonstrating both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation showed authentic,

ritual, retreatist and rebellious engagement45.

The study of Barak, Watted, and Haick (2004), entitled “Motivation to learn in

massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social

engagement” investigated the motivation patterns of online learners but in a different

language of instruction (English, Arabic) and correlate them with the mode of

engagement, then characterize the results on the participants using the exploratory

case study. Their findings showed that participants were driven to learn by similar

goals, emphasizing intrinsic motivation and self-determination regardless the

19
language of instruction. The results also indicated a positive relationship between

motivation gain, the number of members in the online study groups, and the number

of members (Miri Barak, 2015). This study conveys that motivation drives the student

to attend learning which turns into a high level of engagement in online learning

regardless the situation and language46.

The study of Gulten and Kulusakli (2016), entitled “A Comparative Study on the

Motivation and attitudes of Language Learners of Online Distance and Traditional In-

Classroom Education” investigates and compare the motivation and attitudes of

undergraduate language learners of 250 online distance and 250 traditional in-

classroom educations in a state university in Turkey. Two questionnaires were used

to evaluate motivation level and attitudes, and a background information form to

collect data from the students. After calculating each participant’s motivation and

attitudes scores, their scores were compared to the variables selected. Their study

result indicated statistically significant relationships between motivation and attitudes

of the participants and some individual variables (Gulten Genc, 2016)46.

The study of Zakarian, Hashim, and Musa (2016), entitled “Motivation,

experience and satisfaction among adult learners with fully online web-based courses”

explored the correlation between motivation, experience and the level of satisfaction

among fully sixty-nine (69) online adult learners in Open University Malaysia using a

structured questionnaire survey. Their study findings show that learners are highly

motivated with the concept of online learning mainly agreeing that fully online courses

allow them do well in class providing if the materials are studied appropriately.

However, their experience and satisfaction with the fully online platform does not

20
match the high level of motivation. Contributing factors to the dissatisfaction would be

the limit of personal interaction and reliance on (Zulaika Zakariah, 2016)48.

The study of Reparaz, Sanado, and Mendoza (2020), entitled “Self-Regulated

Learning and Massive open online courses (MOOC) retention” assessed the

differences in self-regulated learning strategies and other variables related to MOOC

retention (perceived effectiveness, MOOC interaction, motivation and socio-

demographic characteristics) between course completers and non-completers. Their

results stated that Completer students were more capable of self-regulating their

learning and showed significantly higher levels of perceived effectiveness and of

engagement with MOOC contents than non-completers (Charo Reparaz, 2020)49.

The study of Ye (2006), entitled “An Examination of Acculturative Stress,

Interpersonal Social Support, and Use of Online Ethnic Social Groups among Chinese

International Students” explored relationships between acculturative stress,

interpersonal social support, and use of online ethnic social groups. The study findings

showed that students who were more satisfied with their interpersonal support

networks had less perceived discrimination, perceived hatred, and negative feelings

caused by change, but not less fear. Among the students who had used online ethnic

social groups, who received higher amounts of online informational support from those

groups experienced lower level of acculturative stress. Students who reported

obtaining higher amounts of online emotional support also experienced lower level of

acculturative stress associated with perceived hatred (Ye, 2006)50.

The study of Li, Jiang, Yong, and Zhou (2018) entitled “College Students’

Interpersonal Relationship and Empathy Level Predict Internet Altruistic Behavior—

21
Empathy Level and Online Social Support as Mediators” investigated the relationship

among college students’ interpersonal relationship, level of empathy, social support,

and altruistic behavior in the online environment. Their study findings showed that

interpersonal relationship was positively correlated with empathy and online altruistic

behavior, and there was a significant positive correlation between social support and

online altruism. (Ruiying Li, 2018)51.

The study of Bolliger and Halupa (2018) entitled “Online student perceptions of

engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes” This study explores student

perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes in online courses.

Researchers also investigated linkages between these elements. Their findings

indicate students experienced a relatively high level of engagement and a moderate

level of transactional distance. Respondents perceived outcomes such as satisfaction,

progression, and learning very positively52.

The study Gunuc and Kuzu (2014) entitled “Student engagement scale:

development, reliability and validity” they investigated what are the purpose to develop

a student engagement scale for higher education. Their findings stated that higher

student engagement score was regarded as an indicator that the student had a high

level of engagement with the university, campus and class, while a lower score

demonstrated that the student’s engagement with the campus and class was weak or

that disengagement could occur53.

The study of Rovai and Baker (2005), entitled “Gender differences in Online

Learning: Sense of Community, Perceived Learning, and Interpersonal Interactions”

determined if there were differences in social community, learning community, and

22
perceived learning between male and female students in 12 online graduate education

courses. Their findings stated that females felt more connected to other students in

their course, felt that their online learning experiences were more aligned to their

educational values, goals, and perceived they learned more than their male peers.

(Alfred P. Rovai J. D., 2005)54.

The study of Cole, Shelley, and Swartz (2014), entitled “Online instruction, e-

learning, and student satisfaction: A three-year study”. Expanded on earlier research

into student satisfaction with e-learning through series of surveys over eight academic

terms with Five hundred and fifty-three students’ participants. The responses were

consistent throughout, although there were some differences noted in the level of

student satisfaction with their experience. Their findings stated that there were no

statistically significant differences in the level of satisfaction based on gender, age, or

level of study. Overall, students rated their online instruction as moderately

satisfactory, with hybrid or partially online courses rated as somewhat more

satisfactory than fully online courses with “Convenience”, as the most cited reason for

satisfaction and “Lack of interaction” (Michele T. Cole, 2014)55.

The study of Arzy, Deveci, Topal (2016), entitled “Examination of University

Students' Level of Satisfaction and Readiness for E-Courses and the Relationship

between them” determined both the relationship between e-course satisfaction and

online learning readiness by ascertaining student levels, and the effect of the materials

used in e-learning on student satisfaction using the E-Course Satisfaction Scale

(ECSS) and the Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS). The researchers stated

their findings that the satisfaction level of the students is moderate, when the sub-

23
dimensions were examined, satisfaction was high in the instructor-student interaction

and environment design sub-dimensions-while it was moderate in the course content

and teaching process, materials used and communication tools, and attitude towards

e-learning sub-dimensions. When interaction and communication tools and

questionnaire as assessment tool were used, there was a difference in student

satisfaction. It also stated that there was no significant difference in the students'

satisfaction with the exams and homework as assessment tools but .pdf-text

documents and exams were among the most-used tools in the courses. The levels of

students' readiness for online learning were high in all sub-dimensions in total, and

there was a positive significant relationship between students' levels of readiness and

their satisfaction level. Moreover, the satisfaction levels of learners who were self-

directed, had high motivation and could control their own learning appeared to be

affected positively (Topal, 2016)56.

The study of Wade, Cameron, Morgan, and Williams (2011), entitled “Are

interpersonal relationships necessary for developing trust in online group projects?”

explored how online students’ perceptions on the importance of interpersonal

relationships in an online group affected their perceptions of trust and experiences

through survey about their experiences with online group projects. Their results

indicated that participants did not find interpersonal relationships as necessary in trust

development. However, student gender and type (i.e., distance versus on-campus)

were important factors in determining the type of experiences students had within their

online groups. Males reported more negative experiences than females, and distance

24
education students desired relationships with group members more than on-campus

students (Christine E. Wade, 2011)57.

Synthesis of the Art

Online learning was initially remarked in the 1840s, by Sir Isaac Pitman who

practiced distanced way of learning in the modern sense. Online learning is a synergy

that does not require physical interaction, only synergize through internet sphere. It is

often associated to other forms of distance learning—which is an umbrella term that

conducts distanced way of learning, and it is no longer a trend in this modern time.

Student engagement is a crucial discussion that aims to support the panacea

of student disengagement, such as alienation, boredom, and dropout, regardless the

context of learning. Student engagement is vague, on which definition should accord

on the focus, context, and scope of study. However, scholars agree that it should be

based on either all or one of the constructed three (3) dimensions of student

engagement: behavior, emotional, and cognitive. In this study, there are six (6)

identified focus or “subcomponent” of student engagement: learning management,

interactions with instructors, psychological motivation, community support, Peer

collaboration, and Cognitive problem solving, which are extended from the three (3)

main dimensions of student engagement.

In defining, studying, or measuring the students’ engagement in a conclusive

form, it is either done through: student self-report, experience sampling, rating scale,

qualitative observations, and interviews. Rating scale is the most sensible way to

analyze student engagement because it gives numerical result and can monopolize

25
(include/use) the other methods of investigating student engagement. The result of

studying student engagement is a multitudinous report. This means that it can report

a specific purpose, or “one size fits all” report. The diagnosed report can give a small

fraction of cure to reduce student disengagement present in all school.

Most of the related studies presented and reviewed was found similar with the

present study since level of engagement was assessed to explain the differences and

significant relationship between the student's profile (course & year) and engagement

in online learning context. Majority of the studies focused on the learning motivation

of the students like the study of Lim, Huang and Hew, Chaw and Tang, Rovai, et. al,

Saeed, et. al, Barak, et. al, Genc and Kulusakli, and Zakarian, et. al. However, the

differences were in the profile of the respondents and focus of the study.

Gap to be Bridged by the Study

The studies of Frye, Reparaz, and colleagues, Bolliger and Halupa, and Gunuk

and Kuzu was found to be closely related to the present study since they assessed

the differences in self-regulated learning strategies and other variables related to

MOOC retention (perceived effectiveness, MOOC interaction, motivation and socio-

demographic characteristics) between course completers and non-completers, and

studied the sense and level of engagement of the students. In addition, the study of

Li, and colleagues was also closely related to the present study as it investigated the

relationship among college students’ interpersonal relationship, level of empathy,

social support, and altruistic behavior in the online environment. Likewise, this study

will also collect and analyze through correlating the result of respondents and will

26
determine there is significant relationship between the profile of the students and level

of engagement. Moreover, this study will present a result to further understand the

students' engagement in online learning.

Theoretical Framework

This study on the technical-vocational teacher education student’s engagement

to online learning is based on three theories supportive of reliability and validity of this

research. These are (1) Online Collaborative Learning, (2) Community of Inquiry, (3)

Garrison’s Three-dimensional Model.

The first theory, Online Collaboration Learning proposed by Linda Harasim

focuses on the facilities of the Internet to provide learning environments that foster

collaboration and knowledge building. In OCL, there are existing three phases of

knowledge construction through discourse in a group namely: Idea Generating, Idea

Organizing and Intellectual Convergence. The Phase one, Idea Generating refers to

divergent thinking within a group; brainstorming, verbalization, generating information,

and thus sharing of ideas and positions on a particular topic or problem. The Phase

two, Idea Organizing, is the beginning of conceptual change. As participants confront

the new or different ideas which had been generated by their peers or encountered in

the course readings, they begin to discuss in a more focused way to clarify and cluster

these many ideas according to their relationship and similarities to one another. The

third phase, Intellectual Convergence, is typically reflected in shared understanding,

a shared position (including agreeing to disagree), or a mutual contribution to and

construction of shared knowledge58.

27
 This OCL theory focuses on building knowledge through collaboration of

student with the help of internet restructuring the formal, non-formal and informal

education for the knowledge age. However, the theory stated that encouragement of

students to be engaged doesn’t consider that learning is sufficient that is why the

teacher plays a key role for the highest level of general development. With this theory,

this will help the study to determine the level of TVTED student engagement to online

learning in terms of peer collaboration and cognitive problem solving59.

The second theory, Community of Inquiry model for online learning

environments was developed by Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000). The

Community of Inquiry model supports the design of online and blended courses as

active learning environments or communities dependent on instructors and students

sharing ideas, information, and opinions. The theory is based on the concept of three

distinct “presences”: cognitive, social, and teaching. Cognitive Presence: is the extent

to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained

reflection and discourse (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001, 2004). Social

Presence: is the ability of participants to project their individual personalities in order

to identify and communicate with the community and develop inter-personal

relationships (Garrison, 2009). Teaching Presence is the design, facilitation, and

direction of the social and cognitive processes for the purpose of realizing the relevant

learning outcomes (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001)60.

This COL model is the optimal design for online learning environments focuses

on the process of generating meaningful and deep learning experiences through

collaborative engagement that support critical thinking, critical inquiry and discourse

28
among students and teachers61. The Research from the model found that teacher’s

engagement and companionship with students during online teaching and learning is

the most significant variable to attain effectiveness and satisfaction. This framework

is one of the most used and researched educational framework relevant in today’s

learning environment. With this theory, this will help the study to determine the level

of TVTED student engagement to online learning in terms community support,

interaction with instructor, and peer collaboration.

The third theory, Three-dimensional Model of Self-directed Learning was

proposed by Garrison (1997). Garrison’s (1997) comprehensive model of SDL

denotes SDL as a process in which the individual takes responsibility and control to

monitor and manage learning tasks and activities, going beyond external task control

and integrating cognitive monitoring and motivational processing. These relationships

are described in his model, which attempts to integrate the dimensions of

management (contextual-external task control), monitoring (cognitive responsibility),

and motivation (conative-cognitive responsibility). Management focuses on external

task control while monitoring and motivation address cognitive and meta-cognitive

concepts. Garrison defines Self-directed Learning as a central concept in the study

and practice of adult education, with three overlapping dimensions: Self-management,

Self-monitoring and motivation (Garrison, 1997). The term Self-management is used

in this paper to indicate an aspect of external task control specific to the management

of learning activities, which are intimately linked with goal setting and meta-cognitive

strategies. In the same context “Garrison” indicates that Self-monitoring (cognitive

responsibility) is monitoring the repertoire of learning strategies as well as an

29
awareness of and an ability to think about our thinking. According to “Garrison”

motivation is the process of selecting goals and intentions and deciding to participate

to academic tasks. It’s worth to mention that, these factors associated with learning in

an educational context, emphasize Garrison’s definition to SDL as an approach where

learners are motivated to assume personal responsibility, and control of the cognitive

(Self-monitoring) and contextual (Self-management) processes in constructing and

confirming meaningful for learning outcomes (motivation)62-65.

The model focuses on the self-directed learning requires an individual to take

responsibility and initiative for own learning while integrating motivational and

monitoring processes. The literature states that demonstrating great awareness helps

the self-directed learners to make meaningful learning and able to monitor

themselves. In addition, Garisson stated that self-directed learning in formal learning

situation should be seen as a collaborative process between a learner and teacher.

With this theory, this will help the study to determine the level of TVTED student

engagement to online learning in terms psychological motivation and learning

management66.

30
Figure 1. Theoretical Paradigm

31
Conceptual Framework

The Researchers sought to determine the: profile of respondents in terms of

Age, Gender, Specialization, and Learning modality; the level of student engagement

in Online learning in terms of: psychological motivation, peer collaboration, cognitive

problem solving, interaction with instructors, Community support, and Learning

management24; the Significant relationship between the profile of the respondents to

the level of student engagement; and the recommendations to be forwarded to

strengthen the level of student engagement. The Independent variable of this study is

the TVTED Students’ profile and the Dependent variable of this study is the Level of

student’s engagement in terms of: psychological motivation, peer collaboration,

cognitive problem solving, interaction with instructors, community support, and

learning management by Lee, Hong, and Song (2019)24.

The sources of data are obtained from the previous researches, and published

articles/thesis that has a bearing to the present study. The data primarily consists of

Respondent’s Personal Information, and Student Engagement tool in online learning

adapted from the Researcher. At the end of this study may show the relevance and

recommendation of TVTED Students’ Level of Engagement to Online learning based

to their Age, Gender, Specialization, and Learning modality.

32
Figure 2. Conceptual Paradigm

33
Definition of Terms

Online Learning- also called as “E-learning”7,8. A form of education that

connects students and teacher though online tools and with electronic devices that

uses internet6-8.The key difference to identify the two is that E-learning uses electronic

device that connects to Internet, and Online learning uses online tool with electronic

device that connects to the Internet7,8. Both variations uses Internet to access

learning. This is the learning context of this study, which started on August 2020.

Student engagement- can refer to student’s willingness, motivation, academic

interest, and other forms of engagement45. It has no perfect definition but scholars

identified the main dimensions of student engagement (Behavioral, Cognitive, and

Emotional by Blumenfeld et’al) an individual can define10,37. This study focuses on

actual learning situations in the e-learning environment, and the intuitive learner’s

specific engagement behavior, cognitive process, or learner’s psychology extending

from the existing three engagement factors24.

Student engagement measurement tool- or “student engagement scale” or “student

engagement instrument” used in determining the size or level of students engagement

based on the engagement focus, posited by various authors10,37. It is not a Numerical

list, but a list of indicators that defines the focus of students engagement10. There are

various student engagement measurement the researchers can be used37. For

example: Dixon’s framework is “Online Student engagement scale” measures

student’s engagement from online learning experience; Lee, hong, and Song’s

framework “Measurement for students engagement in e-learning” measures student’s

34
academic participation in Online learning24,37. These are the extension of three main

factors of student engagement (Behavioral, Cognitive, and Emotional)37.

35
 Notes
1
. Tun Nguyen (2015). The Effectiveness of Online Learning: Beyond No
Significant Difference and Future Horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf.
2
. Jeremiah Joven B. Joaquin, Hazel T. Biana, Mark Anthony Dacela (2020).
The Philippine Higher Education Sector in the Time of COVID-19. Frontiers of
Education, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.576371/full.
3
. UNESCO (n.d). Education: From disruption to recovery, accessed March 3,
2021 from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse.
4
. Cathy Li, Farah Lalani (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed
education forever. This is how. World Health Forum, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-
online-digital-learning/.
5
. Tony Bates (2016). Who are the founding fathers of distance education?
Online Learning and Distance Education Resources, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.tonybates.ca/2016/09/17/who-are-the-founding-fathers-of-distance-
education/.
6
. Joshua Stern (n.d). Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning, accessed
March 3, 2021 from http://www.wlac.edu/online/documents/otl.pdf.
7
. Jenni Parker (2017). Online learning / elearning. Technology Toolbox for
Educators, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://sites.google.com/site/technologytoolboxforeducators/about-learning/online-
blended.
8
. Susanna Tsai, Paulo Machado (n.d). E-learning, Online Learning, Web-
based Learning, or Distance Learning: Unveiling the Ambiguity in Current
Terminology, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://campus.fundec.org.ar/admin/archivos/2%20elearning%20essay%20.pdf.
9
. ViewSonic (2020). Understanding the Distance Education Types, accessed
March 3,2021 from https://www.viewsonic.com/library/education/understanding-the-
distance-education-types-2/.
10
. Jennifer A. Fredricks, Wendy McColskey (2012). The Measurement of
Student Engagement: A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-
report Instruments. Springer. pp.763-777, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.lcsc.org/cms/lib6/MN01001004/Centricity/Domain/108/The%20Measure
ment%20of%20Student%20Engagement-
%20A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Various%20Methods.pdf
11
. Papia Bawa (2016). Retention in Online Courses: Exploring Issues and
Solutions—A Literature Review. Sage Journals, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244015621777.
12
. Bonz Magsambol (2020). 44,000 college students won't enroll during
pandemic, says group. Rappler, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.rappler.com/nation/college-students-wont-enroll-pandemic-pasuc.

36
 13
. Western GovernorsUniversity (2020). What is humanistic learning theory in
education? Accessed March 3,2021 from https://www.wgu.edu/blog/what-humanistic-
learning-theory-education2007.html
14
. Paolo Romeron (2020). College Enrollment May Plunge By Up To 70
Percent, Officials Warn. One newsPH, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.onenews.ph/college-enrollment-may-plunge-by-up-to-70-percent-
officials-warn.
15
. CHED (n.d.) 2019 Higher Education Facts and Figures, accessed March
3,2021 from https://ched.gov.ph/2019-higher-education-facts-and-figures/.
16
. Ronnie E. Baticulon, Jinno Jenkin Sy, Nicole Rose I. Alberto, Maria Beatriz
C. Baron, Robert Earl C. Mabulay, Lloyd Gabriel T. Rizada, Christl Jan S. Tiu, Charlie
A. Clarion, John Carlo B. Reyes MD (2020). Barriers to Online Learning in the Time
of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines. SpringerLink,
accessed March 3,2021 from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40670-021-
01231-z.
17
. Bernie S. Fabito, Arlene O. Trillanes, Jeshnile R. Sarmiento (2020). Barriers
and Challenges of Computing Students in an Online Learning Environment: Insights
from One Private University in the Philippines. Cornell University, accessed March
3,2021 from https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02121.
18
. Ashwin P.,McVitty D. (2015) The Meanings of Student Engagement:
Implications for Policies and Practices. In: Curaj A., Matei L., Pricopie R., Salmi J.,
Scott P. (eds) The European Higher Education Area. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_23
19
. The Glossary of Education Reform (n.d.). Student Engagement, accessed
March 3,2021 from https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement/.
20
. Oqab Alrashidi, Huy P. Phan, Bing H. Ngu (2016). Academic Engagement: An
Overview of Its Definitions, Dimensions, and Major Conceptualisations. International
Education Studies, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1121524.pdf.
21
. Maria DeVito (2016). Factors Influencing Student Engagement. Sacred
Heart University DigitalCommons@SHU pp. 10-16, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&a
rticle=1010&context=edl.
22
. Tasha Seneca Keyes (n.d). A Qualitative Inquiry: Factors That Promote
Classroom Belonging and Engagement Among High School Students p. 171,
accessed March 3,2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1219861.pdf.
23
. Marina Sandoval (n.d). Student Engagement Literature review, accessed
March 3,2021 from http://marinasandoval.weebly.com/literature-review.html.
24
. Jeongju Lee, Hae-Deok Song, Ah Jeong Hong (2019). Exploring Factors,
and Indicators for Measuring Students’ Sustainable Engagement in e-Learning.
Sustainability, accessed March 3,2021 from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/11/4/985/htm.
25
. Serpil Kocdar, Abdulkadir Karadeniz, Aras Bozkurt, Koksal Buyuk (2018).
Measuring Self-Regulation in Self-Paced Open and Distance Learning Environments.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Volume 19,

37
Number 1, accessed Marchh 3, 2021 from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1174050.pdf.
26
. Yeonji Jung, Jeongmin Lee (2018). Learning Engagement and Persistence
in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). Computer Education, pp. 9-22, accessed
March 3,2021 from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131518300526?via%3Di
hub.
27
. Laura McNeill, Margaret Rice, Vivian Wright (2019). A Confirmatory Factor
Analysis of a Teaching Presence Instrument in an Online Computer Applications
Course. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume XXII, Number 4,
accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter224/mcneillricewright224.html.
28
. Laura Kassner, Deborah Jonas, Steve Klein (2020). Dropout Prevention in
the Time of COVID-19, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/appalachia/blogs/blog29_dropout-prevention-
in-COVID-19.asp
29
. Cari Gillen-O'Neel (2021). Sense of Belonging and Student Engagement: A
Daily Study of First- and Continuing-Generation College Students. Springer. Research
in Higher Education 62(4), accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335454728_Sense_of_Belonging_and_Stu
dent_Engagement_A_Daily_Study_of_First-_and_Continuing-
Generation_College_Students.
30
. Russell W. Rumberger, Sun Ah Lim (2008). Why Students Drop Out of
School: A Review of 25 Years of Research. California Dropout Research Project
Report #15, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/11658/11658.pdf.
31
. The Washington post (n.d.) What can be done to keep students from
skipping class?, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1989/11/16/what-can-be-done-to-
keep-students-from-skipping-class/4dc38ad6-a5a8-4836-8f04-aa3aabe17a5f/.
32
. Kurt Reusser, Christine Pauli (2015) Collaborative Learning: Co-
constructivism in Educational Theory and Practice. International Encyclopedia of the
Social & Behavioral Sciences 2nd edition, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/collaborative-learning.
33
. Nicolás Pino-James (2015). Golden Rules for Engaging Students in
Learning Activities. Edutopia, accessed march 3, 2021 from
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/golden-rules-for-engaging-students-nicolas-pino-
james.
34
. Nick Gehl (2019). How to Brainstorm and Collaborate with Students Online.
The Art of education University, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://theartofeducation.edu/2020/09/02/how-to-brainstorm-and-collaborate-with-
students-online/
35
. Anu V. (2021). Online Learning Challenges & How to Overcome These
Problems, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.embibe.com/exams/online-learning-challenges-and-solutions/

38
 36
. Maja Lebeničnik, Ian Pitt, Andreja Istenič Starčič (2015). Use of Online
Learning Resources in the Development of Learning Environments at the Intersection
of Formal and Informal Learning: The Student as Autonomous Designer. C E P S
Journal Vol.5, accessed march 3,2021 from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1128946.pdf
37
. Jennifer Fredricks, Jane Meli, Bianca Montrosse, Joy Mordica, Kathleen
Mooney (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high
school: a description of 21 instruments. Regional Educational Laboratory No. 098,
accessed March 3, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514996.pdf
38
. Jean B. Mandernach (2015). Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher
Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools. International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1-14, accessed
March 3, 2021 from
39
. Feliciano H. Veiga, John marshall Reeve, Kathryn Wentzel, Viorel Robu
(201). Assessing students’ engagement: A review of instruments with psychometric
qualities. International Perspectives of Psychology and Education, accessed March 3,
2021 from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/32332897.pdf
40
. Lee Yen Chaw, Chun Meng Tang (2019). Driving High Inclination to
Complete Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Motivation and Engagement
Factors for LearnersThe Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(2), pp. 118- 130,
accessed march 3, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1221333.pdf
41
. Biyun Huang and Khe Foon Hew (2016). Measuring Learners’ Motivation
Level in Massive Open. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, Vol. 6, No. 10, accessed march 3, 2021 from
http://www.ijiet.org/vol6/788-A001.pdf
42
. Philip Little, Beth Jones (n.d.) A comparison of student performance in face
to face classes versus online classes versus hybrid classes using open educational
resources. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies Volume 24, accessed March 3, 2021
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1263878.pdf
43
. Chiung-Sui Chang, Eric Zhi-Feng Liu, Hung-Yen Sung, Chun-Hung Lin,
Nian-Shing Chen, Shan-Shan Cheng (2013). Effects of online college student’s
Internet self-efficacy on learning motivation and performance. Publication Cover
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Volume 51, 2014 - Issue 4,
accessed march 3, 2021 from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14703297.2013.771429
44
. Alfred P. Rovai, Michael K. Ponton, Mervyn J. Wighting, And Jason D. Baker
(2017). A Comparative Analysis of Student Motivation in Traditional Classroom and
E-Learning Courses. International Jl. on E-Learning (2007) 6(3), 413-432, accessed
March 3, 2021 from
http://www.anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/Rovai%20motiv%20online%20and%
20onground.pdf
45
. Sitwat Saeed, David Zyngier (2012). How Motivation Influences Student
Engagement: A Qualitative Case Study. Journal of Education and Learning; Vol. 1,
No. 2, accessed march 3, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081372.pdf

39
 46
. Miri Barak, Abeer Watted, Hossam Haick (2015). Motivation to Learn in
Massive Open Online Courses: Examining Aspects of Language and Social
Engagement. Computers & Education 94, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284797914_Motivation_to_Learn_in_Massi
ve_Open_Online_Courses_Examining_Aspects_of_Language_and_Social_Engage
ment
47
. Gulten Genc, Emine Kulusakli, Savas Aydin (2016). A Comparative Study
On The Motivation And Attitudes Of Language Learners Of Online Distance And
Traditional In-Classroom Education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-
TOJDE, Volume: 17 Number: 4 Article 4, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/229996
48
. Zulaika Zakariah, Raemah A Hashim, Nuruljannah Musa (2016). Motivation,
Experience and Satisfaction Among Adult Learners with Fully Online Web-Based
Courses. Pan-Commonwealth Forum 8 (PCF8), 2016 [172], accessed March 3, 2021
from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/258/PDF?sequence=4
49
. Charo Reparaz, Maite Aznárez-Sanado, Guillermo Mendoza (2020). Self-
regulation of learning and MOOC retention. Computers in Human Behavior, accessed
March 3, 2021 from https://www.x-mol.com/paper/1259931166514020352
50
. Yue Zhang (2012). An Examination of Acculturative Stress, Perceived Social
Support and Depression Among Chinese International Students. Child and Family
Studies - Theses. 3, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=cfs_thesis
51
. Ruiying Li, Tao Jiang, Jing Yong, Hongyu Zhou (2018). College Students’
Interpersonal Relationship and Empathy Level Predict Internet Altruistic Behavior—
Empathy Level and Online Social Support as Mediators. Psychology and Behavioral
Sciences Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2018, Pages: 1-7, accessed march 3, 2021
from
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=201&doi=10.11
648/j.pbs.20180701.11
52
. Doris U. Bolliger, Colleen Halupa (2017). Online student perceptions of
engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, Volume 39,
2018 - Issue 3, Pages 299-316, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
53
. Selim Gunuc, Abdullah Kuzu (2014). Student engagement scale:
development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Volume 40, 2015 - Issue 4, Pages 587-610, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2014.938019
54
. Alfred P. Rovai, Jason D. Baker (2005). Gender Differences in Online
Learning: Sense of Community, Perceived Learning, and Interpersonal Interactions.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, v6 n1 p31-44, accessed march 3, 2021 from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ874987
55
. Michele T. Cole, Daniel J. Shelley, Louis B. Swartz (2014). Online
instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), accessed March 3, 2021
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1748

40
 56
. Arzu Devecı̇ Topal (2016). Examination of University Students’ Level of
Satisfaction and Readiness for E-Courses and the Relationship between Them.
Russian Federation European Journal of Contemporary Education ISSN 2219-8229
E-ISSN 2224-0136 Vol. 15, Is. 1, pp. 7-23, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307690149_Examination_of_University_St
udents%27_Level_of_Satisfaction_and_Readiness_for_E-
Courses_and_the_Relationship_between_Them
57
. Christine E. Wade;, Bruce A. Cameron, Kari Morgan, Karen C. Williams
(2011). Are Interpersonal Relationships Necessary for Developing Trust in Online
Group Projects? Distance Education, v32 n3 p383-396 2011, accessed March 3, 2021
from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ953010
58
. Linda Harasim (2021). Online Collaborative Learning Theory
, accessed March 3, 2021 from https://www.lindaharasim.com/online-collaborative-
learning/ocl-theory/
59
. Josie Misk (2008). Combining formal, non-formal and informal learning for
workforce skill development. NCVER Australian Industry Group, accessed March 3,
2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503360.pdf
60
. Lindita Bektashi (n.d.). Community Of Inquiry Framework In Online
Learning: Use Of Technology. Technology And The Curriculum, accessed march 3,
2021 from https://techandcurriculum.pressbooks.com/chapter/coi-and-online-
learning/
61
. Randy Garrison(2011). Teaching in Blended learning environments:
Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry. AU Press, Athabasca University
1200, 10011 – 109, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287556984_E-
Learning_in_the_21st_century_A_framework_for_research_and_practice_Second_e
dition
62
. Anthony G. Picciano (2017). Theories and Frameworks for Online
Education: Seeking an Integrated Model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190, accessed
March 3, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1154117.pdf
63
. Tony Bates (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for designing
teaching and learning. Education Resources Information Center, accessed march 3,
2021 from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/6-5-online-
collaborative-learning/
64
. Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, Walter Archer (2000). Critical inquiry in a
text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 87-105, accessed March 3, 2021
http://communitiesofinquiry.com/model
65
. Emad Shahrouri (2016). The Impact Of Garrison’s Model Of Self-Directed
Learning On Improving Academic Self- Concept For Undergraduate Students" “Aue
As A Model”. International Journal of Education, Learning and Development Vol.4,
No.10, pp.36-45, accessed March 3, 2021 from https://www.eajournals.org/wp-
content/uploads/The-impact-of-Garrison’s-Model-of-Self-directed-Learning-on-
Improving-Academic-Self-Concept-for-Undergraduate-Students.pdf
66
. Jane Pilling-Cormick, Randy Garrison (2007). Self-Directed and Self-
Regulated Learning: Conceptual Links. Canadian Journal of University Continuing

41
Education Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 13–33, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.914.7500&rep=rep1&typ
e=pdf
68. Bob Samuels (2014). Online education and the dangers of multitasking.
University World news, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20140129114437933

42
 Chapter III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes and discusses how the researchers will gather the

necessary data and information that will be used in the entire study. It describes who

will be the respondents and focus of the research. This also shows the procedure of

data collection and instruments used; this chapter also discusses the type of research

and method used on how the study will be conducted.

Research Method

The researchers will use Quantitative-Correlational approach towards the data

gathering procedure. Bhandari (2020) defined Quantitative method as the process of

collecting and analyzing numerical data1 and McCombes (2019) defined Correlational

approach as a design that measures a relationship between two variables without the

researcher controlling either of them2. The quantitative-correlational approach will be

used to collect numerical data from the respondent’s profile and the level of student

engagement, then correlate the two (student’s profile and level of engagement) from

the statistical result as a correlation between profile and level of engagement.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study will be the third year BTVTEd Students from Bicol

University-College of Industrial Technology (BU-CIT). The BTVTED program from BU-

CIT has four areas of specialization, which are the: Drafting (19), Garments, Fashion,

and Design (14), Food Service and Management (43), and Electrical (16) with a total

43
number of 92 third year BTVTED students (sample size). The researchers will use

Total enumeration sampling in choosing the number of participants. Total enumeration

sampling is the process where the researchers choose to examine the entire

population that have a particular set of characteristics3. In this study, the researchers

will choose all third year TVTEd students as respondents of the study since they meet

the set of characteristics or the “profile” indicators provided in the investigation, the

age, sex, area of specialization, and learning modality.

Sample size is the total number of population where the sample size will be

taken. Total enumeration will be used where all members of the whole population are

measured. Percentage of retrieval will be used to determine assessment of the

respondents from the total population of TVTEd third year students. The number of

respondents according to their Profile (Age, Sex, Area of Specialization, and Type of

Learner) will be expressed in Percentage derived from frequency distribution.

Sources of Data

The Primary sources of data the researchers will be the ninety-five (92) third

year Technical-Vocational Teacher education students of Bicol University College of

Industrial Technology in A.Y. 2020-2021. They will be the respondents of the study

who will answer the survey checklist prepared and distributed by the researchers. The

Instrumentation in this study in measuring the student’s level of engagement will be

obtained from a related study. The responses from the survey checklist will be used

in categorizing the results according to the profile: Age, Gender, Areas of

Specialization, and Learning modality, and to their level of engagement in Online

44
Learning. The secondary sources of data that the researchers will use are web-based

articles, literatures, news, and magazine to further understand the subject matter and

ameliorate the research study.

Data Gathering Procedure

To come up on a good output of the study, the Researchers will establish and

follow procedures before the data gathering to make the conduct of the study

systematic and orderly.

Before the data gathering, the researchers have worked and agreed on the

research title and the method to be used. In the following process, the Researchers

will prepare the research instruments for the data gathering, as well as the

communication letter before the testing proper. Upon approval, the researchers will

retrieve the request letter. In administering the test proper, the researchers will send

the prepared survey-checklist through electronic form: google form, email, and

messenger to the targeted respondents with attached letter above, explaining the

objectives of the study presented on it. After gathering of data, the researchers will

collect the result for tallying and will apply the statistical tool to be used in this study.

Research Instrument

The research instrument of this study will use survey checklist which consists

of two parts. Part I of the research instrument will be the respondent’s profile such as

their age, sex, areas of specialization, and learning modality. Part II of the research

instrument will be the rating sheet with 24 items that corresponds to the 6 parameters

45
of student engagement measurement tool (psychological motivation, peer

collaboration, cognitive problem solving, interaction with instructors, community

support, and learning management) which the researchers has adapted in measuring

the level of student engagement. The Respondents will rate their feeling or experience

on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (always). To gather the

respondent’s profile, the researchers will use checklist wherein the respondents will

be given options to be tapped with a “check”.

Since the adapted research instrument has no rubric in interpreting the level of

student engagement, the researchers will base their rubric from a review of literature

that has a bearing to the present study. The rating value and its interpretation are

shown below 4,5:

Table 1. Likert scale interpretation

Value Verbal Interpretation Range

1 Never 1.00-1.80
2 Rarely 1.81-2.60
3 Sometimes 2.61-3.40
4 Often 3.41-4.20
5 Always 4.21-5.00

Statistical Tool

Statistical tool gives meaning and interpretations of the data. To analyze and

interpret the data gathered in this study, frequency count, percentage formula,

average weighted mean, likert scale, and pearson correlation were used in

determining their level of engagement in online learning. Both descriptive and

correlational statistics (Pearson r) will be utilized. After gathering all the needed

data/information, the responses to the questionnaires will be converted into tables for

46
easy interpretation and analysis to quantify and precisely analyze and interpret the

data.

Frequency. Frequency count is a method by which the number of respondents from

the responses to the subject of the study is determined6.

Percentage. The percentage formula will be used to describe the data and to

determine the percentage over the total number of respondents; It is termed as a

number represented as a fraction of 1007.

Percentage Formula7: P=f/n x 100

Where:

P= percentage

f= frequency

n= total no. Of respondents

100=constant value

Weighted Mean. Average weighted mean will be used to determine total assessment

of the respondents base on their profiles8,9.

Average Weighted Mean Formula8,9: X=Fx/N

Where:

X= weighted mean

F= frequency

x= weight of each item

N= number of cases

47
Likert Scale. A Likert Scale is a rating scale used to assess opinions, attitudes, or

behaviors10.

The format of a typical five-level Likert item, for example, could be:

1.Never

2.Rarely

3.Sometimes

4.Often

5. Always

Pearson Correlation. The Pearson correlation coefficient (also known as Pearson

product-moment correlation coefficient) r is a measure to determine the relationship

(instead of difference) between two quantitative variables (interval/ratio) and the

degree to which the two variables coincide with one another—that is, the extent to

which two variables are linearly related: changes in one variable correspond to

changes in another variable11.

Table 2. Pearson R correlational test value

Range of Correlation Interpretation

± .00 - ± .30 Very low correlation
± .30 - ± .50 Low correlation
± .50 - ± .70 Moderate correlation
± .70 - ± .90 High correlation
± .90 - ± 1.00 Very High correlation

48
 In the treatment of data, the Researchers expect that the result may not match the

expected number of results. Since the respondents of this study will be the third year

TVTEd students, there may be some students who will not take the survey-checklist.

From this, the researchers will include the Margin of errors to tell how many percentage

points of the result differs from the real population value, according to the google source.

To explain the process, the researchers will base their treatment of error with the formula

below.

Formula12: z×σ/(√n)

Where:

z= z-score

σ= population standard deviation

n= sample size

49
 Notes
1
. Pritha Bhandari (2021). An introduction to quantitative research. Scribbr,
accessed March 3, 2021 from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-
research/
2
. Shona McCombes (2020). A quick guide to proofreading. Scribbr, accessed
March 3, 2021 from https://www.scribbr.com/author/shona/page/3/
3
. Laerd Dissertation (n.d.). Total population sampling, accessed March 3, 2021
from https://dissertation.laerd.com/total-population-sampling.php
4
. Saul Mcleod, 2019. Likert Scale Definition, Examples and Analysis: Frequency.
Simply Psychology, accessed March 15, 2021 from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html.
5
. Erol Sözen and Ufuk Guven, 2019. The Effect of Online Assessments on
Students’ Attitudes Towards Undergraduate-Level Geography Courses, accessed March
15, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scoring-range-of-likert-scale-of-the-
survey_tbl1_335752203.
6
. Statistics Dictionary (n.d.). Frequency count definition. Stat Trek, accessed
March 3, 2021 from
https://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=frequency%20count
7
. Byuju Classes (n.d.). Percentage Formula. Byuju’s, accessed March 3, 2021
from https://byjus.com/percentage-formula/
8
. Bailey Rodriguez (2017). What is a Weighted Average. Sciencing, accessed
march 3, 2021 from https://sciencing.com/weighted-averages-survey-analysis-
8633297.html
9
. Statistics how to (n.d.) Weighted Mean: Formula: How to Find Weighted Mean,
accessed March 3, 2021 from https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-
statistics/statistics-definitions/weighted-mean/
10
. Bhandari, Pritha. “Designing and Analyzing a Likert Scale: What, Why and
How.” Scribbr, October 12, 2020 from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/likert-
scale/?fbclid=IwAR1TNtDgwpbsgHMtWAuGb5GcjgR5FM0U-3-
g2wQWFvA1s3klUHIsVqEsJlA.
11
. “Correlation, Pearson.” Sage Research Methods. Accessed June 18, 2021from
http://methods.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-
research-
methods/i3422.xml?fbclid=IwAR0u66bG0A2ABvNLY4Egtz6oGiVgq_QxCZQOppOvmJT
6rw8Gvx5rWR2Me3k.
12
. Statistics how to (n.d.). Margin of Error: Definition, How to Calculate in Easy
Steps, accessed March 3, 2021 from https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-
statistics/hypothesis-testing/margin-of-error/

50
 Chapter IV

TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT IN

ONLINE LEARNING

This chapter shows the presentation, interpretation, and analysis of data gathered

relevant to this study. The discussion includes the profile of the respondents, their level

of engagement to online learning, significant relationship between profile and level of

engagement among the respondents, and the recommendations to be forwarded by the

researchers. The data gathered is presented using tables and figures to show a clearer

interpretation.

I. PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

This shows the profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, area of

specialization, and learning modality. The researchers used frequency count and

percentage to interpret the results.

1.1. Age

Figure 1.1 shows the age of the respondents (N=92). Most of the respondents are

21 years old (57 or 62%) while the least are the 26 and 36 years old (1 or 1.1%). This

shows that most of the respondents are 21 years old.

51
 Figure 1.1 Age of the respondents

Prior the addition of 2 years in high school, typical age among Filipino college

students is 17 to 20 years old1. Students who were the first batch of the modified

educational years in the Philippines are currently third year college at this time of writing

(2020), leaving the Higher education statistics on process. However, a 15-year combined

statistic from Canada found that 19 to 24 years old are the 'typical' university student

which makes the median age at 21 years old, conforming the result of this study2.

The researchers have considered age in the profile variable of this study as it was

supposed that age influences students’ engagement level. Some scholars have included

age as a control parameter in the context of their study because they associated that a

certain age shows consistent emotions, behavior, and cognitive, as cited by Charles and

Carstensen (2010)3,4. The theories related to education like Skinner’s Behaviorism and

Piaget’s Cognitivism implied that a certain behavior, motivation and the thinking level of

an individual are associated to age3,4. However, these theories are not tied closely to

52
specific age periods but rather suggests how individuals in a certain age-range functions

in learning3,4. Anyhow, this section is implied as a “discrete variable” since the result have

shown exact age among the respondents. Hence, it is believed that age difference affects

students’ level of engagement in online learning.

1.2. Gender

Figure 1.2 shows the gender of the respondents. Out of 92 respondents, 62 are

female (67.4%) while 30 are male (32.6%). This reveals that most of the respondents are

Female.

32.60%

Female
Male

67.40%

Figure 1.2 Gender of the respondents

Based on the results, Females outnumbered males in frequency. This result

conforms with the Commission on Higher Education statistics, finding out that Females

really outnumbered males enrolled in higher education from a 2020 survey6. This result

is also similar from the study of Baticulon and colleagues (2020) where they conducted a

53
nationwide survey on medical program and found out that Females outnumbered males

in frequency on their study7.

Long research has been including gender as a control variable in a certain context

of study185. It has been posited by scholars that gender differences whether male and

female could affect their presence in learning185. For instance, it was known that females

are emotionally expressive in learning whereas males are aggressive and assertive8.

These consistent patterns therefore have supported the norm that ‘females are feminine’

and ‘males are masculine’8. The researchers have used the term “gender” instead of

‘biological sex’ because gender encompasses the major identities of male and female,

whereas “sex” encompasses biological features9. Gender and sex are used

interchangeably, yet they have different features4. Anyhow, gender will be included as

profile variable since previous studies have investigated their relation to learning9,10.

1.3. Area of specialization

Figure 1.3 shows the Area of specialization of the respondents. Out of 92

respondents, 43 or 46.7% are Food Service and Management students and the least are

the 14 or 15.2% Garments, Fashion and Design students. This shows that most of the

respondents surveyed are Food Service and management students.

54
 Food Servince and Management

Area of Specializa3on
Electrical Technology

Garments, Fashion andDesign

Dra3ing Technology

0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency

Figure 1.3 Area of specialization of the respondents

Based on the results, most of the respondents are from Food service management

(FSM) program. This result could also affirm that this area of specialization is the most

populated program in the context of this study since it conforms with the Higher

Education’s list of most populated college programs in the Philippines. According to the

CHEd’s year 2019 statistics, Hotel and Restaurant Management (HRM) program is one

of the populated college programs in the Philippines, ranking 4th in the statistics11, on

which Food and service management program is identical to12. HRM and FSM are

different programs, but the courses offered are acquainted especially in hospitality

courses, Schweitzer (2021) explained12.

There were some studies found whether the program was a matter to students’

engagement13. For example, it was found that students were present in their problem-

solving work as the vocational course they are enrolled to have urged them to think well

in complex problems, sourced from Soden and Pithers (2001)14. The differing instructions,

55
coursework, and career fields in a certain specialization14 have encouraged the

researchers to include and suppose whether the specialized instruction or disciplinary

fields14 in a particular specialization influences the students’ online learning presence.

1.4. Learning modality

The table 1.4 shows the learning modality of the respondents. Out of 92

respondents, 81 are in poor-fair connectivity (88%), 10 are in strong connectivity (10.9%),

and 1 has no connectivity (1.1%). This shows that most of the respondents are in poor-

fair connectivity.

90
80
70
60
Frequency

50
40
30
20
10
0
Strong ConnecHvity Poor-Fair ConnecHvity NoConnecHvity
Learning Modality

Figure 1.4 Learning modality of the respondents

Based on the result, most of the respondents are under poor-fair connectivity. The

Philippines was known to be one of the countries that has weak connectivity, ranking 2nd

among the Southeast Asian Nations and 111th among 139 countries15. This conforms

with the nationwide poll in the Philippines last November 2020, indicating that 50% of

online learners have poor-fair connection, 40% are under strong connectivity, and 10%

56
on a very weak spot16, similar to the result of this study. A similar case from Fabito and

colleagues (2020) found that most of their students have unreliable internet connection17.

However, the internet speed increase by 4.10%, but other areas has remained no access

to internet18.

The concept of Learning modality extends from the Bicol University’s academic

year 2020-2021 online learning modality, where it refers to the type of learner in terms of

connectivity and access to online learning. It is perceivable that internet connectivity could

impact students’ engagement to online learning. Fully, online learning is reliant in the

internet and there were studies that have shown the implication of connectivity (mainly

synchronous and asynchronous) to engagement19. In particular, Swan (2017) found out

that students tend to withdraw and disengage from class since the online learning have

fully separated the students20. From this, the researchers hypothesized that learning

modality could affect students’ engagement since learning goes over the internet. There

is multitudinous reason that could inhibit students’ learning presence but internet

connection was a notable factor found from most of the studies, as cited by Varre and

colleagues (2014) in their discussion20,21.

II. LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT

This chapter has determined the Technical-Vocational Teacher Education

students’ level of engagement of Bicol University, College of Industrial Technology in

terms of: Psychological motivation, Peer collaboration, Cognitive problem solving,

Interaction with Instructors, Community support, and Learning management. A 24-item

five-point Likert scale questionnaire was used to determine the level of engagement of

the respondents to online learning.

57
2.1. Psychological Motivation

Table 2.1 shows the level of students’ engagement in terms of psychological

motivation. It shows that students perceive most the “Online classes are very useful to

me” and less on “I am satisfied with the online class I am taking”. However, each indicator

under the psychological motivation has close range of weighted mean and yielded an

average weighted mean of 2.71 with a verbal interpretation of “sometimes”. This shows

that the respondents are psychologically motivated “sometimes” in online learning.

Table 2.1
Level of engagement to online learning in terms of psychological motivation

INDICATORS WM Description
1 Online classes enhance my interest in learning. 2.91 Sometimes
2 I am motivated to study when I take an online class. 2.71 Sometimes
3 Online classes are very useful to me. 3.03 Sometimes
4 It is very interesting to take online classes. 2.71 Sometimes
5 After taking an online lesson, I look forward to the 2.66 Sometimes
next one.
6 I am satisfied with the online class I am taking. 2.61 Sometimes
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 2.77 Sometimes

Based on the result, respondents are occasionally motivated in Online learning.

The convenience and flexibility of online learning have a paramount influence on the

learner’s motivation for online learning22. McCall (2002) found that flexibility, convenience,

and control were the primary factors that influenced level of motivation in online courses23.

However, it is also important to consider factors that may affect learner motivation. As

cited by Kim and Frick (2011), Cognitive load theory suggests that cognitive overload can

interfere with students’ motivation to learn by inhibiting their attention to the instructional

material24. This is consistent with the contention that motivation is adversely affected

when students feel overwhelmed by the mental effort necessary to learn25. For instance,

58
studies have shown that cognitive overload tones down high attrition rates in the first few

weeks of an online course, especially among first-time online learners26. In addition to

cognitive overload, the perceived difficulty of course learning tasks can increase student

anxiety and adversely affect students’ psychological motivation to learn in online

settings27.

2.2. Peer collaboration

Table 2.2 shows the level of students’ engagement in terms of Peer collaboration.

It shows that students “often ask other students for help in times of difficulty” and “often

try to answer the questions that other students ask”, and less on the perception that “I

study the lesson contents with other students”. However, the average weighted mean

(3.21) still indicates that students collaborate with their peers “sometimes”.

Table 2.2
Level of the respondents’ engagement to online learning in terms of peer collaboration.

INDICATORS WM DESCRIPTION
1 I study the lesson contents with other students. 2.76 Sometimes
2 I try to solve difficult problems with other students when 3 Sometimes
I encounter them.
3 I work with other students on online projects or 3.23 Sometimes
assignments.
4 I ask other students for help when I can’t understand a 3.57 Often
concept taught in my online class.
5 I try to answer the questions that other students ask. 3.51 Often
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.21 Sometimes

Among the 5 indicators, it was shown that students often ask other students for

help, and often try to answer questions that other students ask. Students in online class

are self-paced, vulnerable to cognitive shortage29. Students could experience cognitive

59
crisis from rigorous coursework tasks30, which stimulates them to share their struggles in

coursework with peers31.

However, not all students collaborate with peers. Due to a multitudinous reason,

the most cited factor is the negative interdependence. In a negative interdependence

(from social interdependence theory), there are amongst students who prefer

individualistic manner and are competitive among peers31. But in a positive factor,

students do not collaborate often due to convenience, flexibility, and control of online

learning, that no longer seek help from other peers32. In other words, there are some

students who either prefer working alone or with a group. Nevertheless, collaboration is

imperative to students to fill the learning gaps and able to thrive complex problems32. Low

levels of collaboration will end up individualism or isolation among peers32.

2.3. Cognitive problem solving

Table 2.3 shows the level of students’ engagement in terms of Cognitive problem

solving. It shows that students perceive most that “I can derive new interpretations and

ideas from the knowledge I have learned in my online classes” and least perceive the “I

can deeply analyze thoughts, experiences, and theories about the knowledge I have

learned in my online classes”. However, it shows that each indicator under the cognitive

problem-solving have a close range of weighted mean each and yielded an average

weighted mean of 3.13 with a verbal interpretation of “sometimes”. This shows that the

respondents occasionally utilize their Cognitive problem-solving.

60
 Table 2.3
Level of the respondents’ engagement to online learning in terms of cognitive problem
solving.

INDICATORS WM DESCRIPTION
1 I can derive new interpretations and ideas from the 3.22 Sometimes
knowledge I have learned in my online classes.
2 I can deeply analyze thoughts, experiences, and 3.07 Sometimes
theories about the knowledge I have learned in my
online classes.
3 I can judge the value of the information related to the 3.21 Sometimes
knowledge learned in online classes.
4 I tend to apply the knowledge I have learned in online 3.10 Sometimes
classes to real problems or new situations.
5 I try to approach the subject of my online class with a 3.08 Sometimes
new perspective.
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.13 Sometimes

Based on the result, the respondents occasionally engage in their cognitive

problem solving. In online learning, discussion platform is majority a text-based and video-

based that challenged students to expand their cognitive abilities and imaginative

thinking33. Sometimes, the way students analyze information depends on their

preference34. A similar case to this study from Alavi & Taghizade (2013) reported that

online learners did not have a high level of cognitive problem-solving presence that may

be due to the lacking of: effective instructional activities and strategies, time, interaction,

and cognitive and problem-solving skills35. In contrast to this, they added that students

with a strong level of cognitive problem-solving is a result of having a highly structured

activities and properly designed online learning environment35.

However, one cannot only rely on these factors because it will still depend on the

students’ level of understanding the content, construction of knowledge, and

management of learning resources, according to Ju Kang, Park, and Shin (n.d)36. This

claim is similar to the monograph of Dunlosky and colleagues (2013) when they codified

61
students’ intellectual quality, stating that they differ in tapping memory, problem solving,

comprehension, and even their level of prior knowledge37. For students’, researchers like

Garrison & Kanuka (2004)38, and Wang & Kang (2006)7 construed that stronger level of

cognitive problem-solving among online learners could lead to a higher order thinking and

effective or successful learning -which is an indicator that he or she is on path to learning

and could facilitate knowledge construction38,39. It is also believed that it has a relevance

to students’ academic performance regardless of the varying levels of manifestation a

student has, Almasi and Zhu (2020) posited40.

When students have stronger cognitive-problem solving presence, they are likely

to succeed on their academics41. In a contrast view, low levels of cognitive problem-

solving presence could lead to lack of prompts for feedback, lack of confidence, and time

constraints in students’ learning40. In other words, level of cognitive problem-solving

presence affects students’ academic performance.

2.4. Interactions with Instructors.

Table 2.4 shows the level of students’ engagement in terms of Interactions with

their instructors. It shows that students perceive more the “I communicate with the

instructor privately for extra help”. However, it shows that each indicator under the

Interactions with Instructors have a close range of weighted mean each and garnered an

average weighted mean of 2.81 with a verbal interpretation of “sometimes”. This shows

that the respondents interact with their instructors “sometimes”

62
 Table 2.4
Level of the respondents’ engagement to online learning in terms of Interactions with
instructors.

INDICATORS WM VI
1 I communicate with the instructor privately for extra help. 2.88 Sometimes
2 I often ask the instructor about the contents of the lesson. 2.74 Sometimes
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 2.81 Sometimes

Based on the result, students occasionally interact with their instructors in Online

class. This type of behavior is present depending on the quality of the student, instructor,

and environment, cited by Alhih and colleagues (2017)42. In online learning, students tend

to initiate communication to their teachers especially when seeking for academic help42.

One aspect of online learning is that it lacks body language43 that is why students tend to

direct communicate to their teachers regarding clarification with the lesson concern43,44, -

which is an indicator of a strong interaction with instructors. Another, quality of the

instructor affects the level of interaction a student perceive45. A similar hypothesis cited

by Galusha (1998) found out that students are likely to synergize with their teacher

depending on how approachable he or she is and how good he or she teaches in online

learning45. Also, environmental factors matter on the interaction level of students with

instructors, considering that these participants have an unparallel time and setting45.

In a different perspective from Turley & Graham (2019), they opposed that the level

of interaction could also vary in each online course depending on the types of learners,

the personality and philosophy of the teacher, and the course design46. For instance,

course design and instructor have their house rules which effects on how should student

communicate with them46.

63
 Another, there are some students who are embarrassed to connect with their

professors, thinking that their initiatives would be ignored or be invalidated in the online

context48. Anyhow, a view from Akhtar and colleagues. (2019) homogenously believed

that student-teacher interaction affects students’ academic achievement, similar to other

researchers49. If students pose a stronger sense of synergy (Interaction with instructors),

they tend to be clamped on the lesson, inhibiting them to withdraw from class, and

inhibiting them to drop their concentration50.

In an opposite perspective, they also posited that low level of student-to-teacher

interaction could lead to the probability of dropping out from the class or failure is high49.

Learners who perceived that their teacher is not cooperative towards them have low

concentration in knowledge and are less participative in the learning environment49. This

certainly points out the significance of communication between students and teachers,

“Verbal student-teacher interactions and student characteristics are meaningful for

student learning and motivation”49.

2.5. Community support.

Table 2.5 shows the level of students’ engagement in terms of Community support.

It shows that students perceive more the “I frequently interact with other students in online

classes”. However, it shows that each indicator under the community support have a

close range of weighted mean and garnered an average weighted mean of 3.07 with a

verbal interpretation of “sometimes”. This shows that the respondents have mid-level of

community support, or the “emotional sense of belongingness” and “sense of community”.

64
 Table 2.5
Level of the respondents’ engagement to online learning in terms of Community
support.

ITEMS WM DESCRIPTION
1 I feel a connection with the students who are in online 3.09 Sometimes
classes.
2 I feel a sense of belonging to the online class 3.03 Sometimes
community.
3 I frequently interact with other students in online 3.10 Sometimes
classes.
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.07 Sometimes

Based on the result, students “occasionally” have community-support presence, or

the “sense of belongingness”. In online learning, physical separation is a notable factor

that could affect the level of students’ sense of attachment, Kerka (1998) posited51. A

similar case to this study from Gopalan & Brady52 found out that their respondents

reported a “somewhat-agree” level of sense of belonging perceived at the context of their

study52; and, another result from Alawamleh and colleagues found out that sense of

isolation was among the notable problems conceived among online learners53. Both of

them have a homogenous conclusion, stating that physical separation was a factor

impeding students’ level of belongingness52,53.

This assertion extends from the investigation of Kerka where she hypothesized

that separation in the class has the tendency to reduce sense belongingness among

learners, which has been proven by other researcher upon Kerka’s assumption51,52.

Following the footprints of this concept, researchers have specified the factors affecting

the level of students’ belongingness in online learning. In particular, the absence of visual

meaning (such as gesture, voice tone, and immediate interaction), decrease in

communication level, physical distancing, and lack of socialization among participants

65
can frustrate students’ feelings, making them exhibit sense of isolation, rejection,

exclusion, and disconnectedness in online learning -which is a sign of becoming dropouts,

Rovai and Jordan (2004) cited53. This statement is proven from the study of Varre and

colleagues (2014) where they found out that feelings of isolation was one of the reasons

of student disconnection and dropout from online class aside from financial constraints

and geological separation186. In an opposite perspective, some of the researchers stated

that students with stronger sense of community is persistent to the class and have a

stronger sense of social acceptance54. It is observed on the students with high

interactivity, positive relationship, and completion of the learning activities54.

Sense of belongingness will always be part of student attribute. This is true as it

accords on Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy of needs, where “sense of belonging” is part of

human needs that should be fulfilled55. In particular, it was shown that students interact

with their peers as students could be more comfortable with their peers than teachers,

Kiener and colleagues (2014) said187. Kiener and colleagues implied that “students

perceived they were connected with each other when students are enrolled in similar

courses and tend to engage in ideas discussed in the course”187. The feeling of

companionship between peers is already a reflection of satisfying one’s need, they added.

Some researchers have concluded that sense of belonging is directly linked to

academic success, progress, and social acceptance, which can facilitate positive

retention rates and “persistence” in the program according to Rovai (2002), cited by

Hausmann (2009)56. Students who lack a sense of belonging are more likely to drop out

of learning environments57.

66
2.6. Learning management.

Table 2.6 shows the level of students’ engagement in terms of Learning

management. It shows that students perceive more the “I manage my own learning using

the online system” than “When I take an online course, I plan a learning schedule”.

However, it shows that each indicator under the learning management have a close range

of weighted mean each and yielded an average weighted mean of 3.10, with a verbal

interpretation of “sometimes”. This shows that the respondents manage their learning

“sometimes”.

Table 2.6
Level of the respondents’ engagement to online learning in terms of Learning
management.

INDICATORS WM VI
1 I study related learning contents by myself after the 3.11 Sometimes
online lesson.
2 I remove all distracting environmental factors when 3.08 Sometimes
taking online classes.
3 I manage my own learning using the online system. 3.23 Sometimes
4 When I take an online course, I plan a learning schedule. 2.99 Sometimes
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN 3.10 Sometimes

Based on the result, students occasionally manage their learning in online class.

In the online learning scenarios where the structure of an online curriculum is mostly

automatic, students have more flexibility in deciding when, how, and with what content

and activities they engage58. This particular behavior is in connection with Knowles’ Adult

learning theory that students are aware of their learning responsibility in themselves

instead of an external source, as cited by Demir (2015)59. This is true since adult learners

are noted as “Autonomous” on his learnings, meaning that they possess self-concept

towards learning, or a “self-directed learner”59.

67
 In the online learning process, students may lose their self-control and have a

problem focusing on learning61. Cho & Shen found the factors impeding the students’

learning management in online: the lack of immediate support, feeling of being lost or

socially isolated, absence of goal commitment, shortage of coping strategies,

underestimation of the time required to complete tasks, and inability to self-regulate one’s

learning62. Suppositions were made that those who have a stronger learning

management serves as a predictor for both academic success and the amount of time

engaged in an online course63. For instance, those with a strong level of learning

management presence will have higher levels of learning achievement63. In an opposite

view, lacking of those positive attributes are an indicator of increased dropout rates in

online course63,64.

2.7. Overall level of the students’ engagement in Online learning

Table 2.7 shows the students’ overall level of engagement to Online learning with

a grand weighted mean of 3.02 and a verbal interpretation of “sometimes”. It shows that

students have more presence in “peer collaboration” than “psychological motivation” in

online learning. However, each parameter has a close range of average weighted mean

and shown similar interpretation of “sometimes”. This shows that respondents’ total level

of engagement in online learning is still considered as “sometimes”.

68
 Table 2.7
Overall level of the students’ engagement in online learning

ITEMS AWM VI
Psychological motivation 2.78 Sometimes
Peer collaboration 3.21 Sometimes
Cognitive problem solving 3.13 Sometimes
Interaction with Instructors 2.81 Sometimes
Community support 3.07 Sometimes
Learning management 3.10 Sometimes
GRAND WEIGHTED MEAN 3.02 Sometimes

The socially distant concept of online learning among learners have stimulated

peer collaboration than face to face22. In online learning, students are more individualistic

in the task compared to the normal norm65. Through given coursework, some students

seek help to bear difficulties in understanding the content and fill the gaps the students

lack67. In online class, students tend to socialize with peer to satisfy the needs22. There

are instances that requires group collaboration and voluntary collaboration for personal

query purposes22. This is in consonance with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where he

suggested that “before individuals meet their full potential, they need to satisfy a series of

needs”69.

Another assumption to this is the integration of the concept “student-centeredness”

and “collaboration skill” under the 21st century facet in learning. Through student-

centered process, students merge their capabilities with their co-learners whom they are

comfortable; and then they collaborate since most of the task requires brainstorming of

more than 2 heads70,68. This justifies the well-known quotation that “no man is an island”.

As seen on the least result, students are least psychologically motivated. This is

due to cognitive overload that inhibits their attention to learning tasks27. Students become

less motivated when students feel overwhelmed by the mental effort necessary to learn27.

69
III. SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ PROFILE AND
LEVEL OF STUDENS’ ENGAGEMENT.

This part aims to find if there is significant relationship between respondents’ profile

and their level of student engagement in online learning. The independent variable is the

respondents’ profile (age, gender, area of specialization and learning modality) and the

dependent variable is the level of student engagement. The researchers used the

Pearson’s R correlational test to spot the relationship between the variables. The

researchers set the level of significance at 0.05 with the null hypothesis of “no significant

relationship”.

3.1. Psychological motivation

Table 3.1 shows the significant relationship result between respondents’ profile

and level of psychological motivation. It shows that the null hypothesis on the age

(r=0.069; p=0.257), gender (r=0.011; p=0.459), and specialization (r=-0.080; p=0.223)

was accepted and revealed a very low correlation, while the null hypothesis on the

learning modality (r=-0.187; p=0.037) was rejected and shown very low correlation.

Therefore, the results indicate that the respondent’s learning modality and psychological

motivation are related. This conveys that the learning modality have a slight effect on

students’ psychological motivation presence.

70
 Table 3.1
The significant relationship between profile and psychological motivation

Profile R`-value p-value Verbal Decision, Ho

Interpretation
Age 0.069 0.257 Very Low Accept
Gender 0.011 0.459 Very Low Accept
Specialization -0.080 0.223 Very Low Accept
Modality -0.187 0.037 Very Low Reject

Age. Apparently, age affects the interest of learner71. In the aging process, level

of motivation is influenced by natural and inevitable change met across the life span of

an individual and how an individual pursues his goals72. Opposite to the null hypothesis

of this study, age should not always similar to this norm. This is in support with Kathleen

Cushman’s article “Eight Conditions of Motivated Learning” where she probed that age

does not always matter on the motivation of an individual74. “Regardless of the age,

motivation depends on how a learner perceives the value of the activity, expectations of

success, and self-pressure”74. Related or unrelated, psychological motivation will always

reflect on their engagement and will contribute to student’s persistence no matter the

learning circumstance would be, cited by Gopalan and colleagues (2017)75.

Gender. Based on the result, it is was shown that there is no significant relationship

between gender and psychological motivation. Initially, males and females differ in

general academic motivation76,77. In particular, most of the findings indicate that females

are motivated to learn language arts and writings and males are driven to learn

mathematics and science76. Also, it is often known that females experience more

emotions than males77. Therefore, females are more enthusiastic than males to overcome

such fears and nervousness77.

71
 However, gender and psychological motivation could be unlinked. This assumption

is in support with Leonard and colleagues’ (1999)77 findings. In their monograph, he noted

that individuals have a dominant and different source of motivation caused by subjective

situations and identities77. Another evidence to this assumption is that motivation is a

complicated mix of social and biological processes, resulting to a varied internal

motivation not predicted by gender norms78. These common motivational attributes

regarding gender differences are not a strong predictor to margin the concept of being a

female and male in terms of internal motivation77,78.

Specialization. Some of the studies stressed that there is significant relationship

between specialization and psychological motivation. In particular, Ogunjinmi (2016) cited

on his study that students are intrinsically motivated to learn when the courses offered

are aligned to their career aspirations to succeed and do well in their chosen field79. The

course design in a certain specialization is also an indicator to students’ level of

motivation, whether poorly and strongly designed80.

However, it could be unrelated as hypothesized in this result. In an educational

perspective, Course specialization is designed to aid students in their choice of fields and

building one’s field, not solely for personal satisfaction80. Satisfaction is under intrinsic

motivation while the purpose of granting a degree is under extrinsic motivation, a

“behavior and reinforcement” from Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory81. Student’s

come to school not just to learn, but to get a degree as they outlook for life81. In other

words, providing a degree reflects on a motivation that is extrinsic in nature81.

Learning modality. Based on the result, the hypothesis indicates that there is

significant relationship between learning modality and psychological motivation. The self-

72
paced nature of online courses allows students to fit the work time into their schedule82.

Students who frequently experience presence of classroom through online medium are

likely to be intrinsically productive and those who are in less connectivity may have

deterred interest in learning83. This is in consonance with the self-determination theory

where students who met their expectation aligned to their needs stimulate their interest

in partaking study84.

However, there are findings indicating that students are motivated in an

asynchronous than synchronous connectivity. Cited by Anthony and Thomas (2020) on

their article that students are more productive with less interaction online, since strong

connectivity is inclined with more activity and more student presence83. Nonetheless

these suppositions, motivation to learn is a construct that covers a broad range of skills

needed for study, including self-efficacy, intrinsic value, learning strategy, and self-

regulation, according to Pintrich & DeGroot, (1990)85.

3.2. Peer collaboration

Table 3.2 shows the significant relationship result between respondents’ profile

and level of peer collaboration. It shows that the null hypothesis on the age (r=0.045;

p=0.329), gender (r=-0.036; p=0.367), specialization (r=-0.061; p=0.283), and learning

modality (r=-0.147; p=0.081) was accepted and revealed a very low correlation.

Therefore, the results indicate that the respondent’s profile and peer collaboration are not

related. This conveys that age, gender, specialization, and learning modality have no

effect on students’ peer collaboration presence.

73
 Table 3.2

The significant relationship between profile and peer collaboration

Profile R`-value p-value Verbal Decision, Ho

Interpretation
Age 0.045 0.329 Very Low Accept
Gender -0.036 0.367 Very Low Accept
Specialization -0.061 0.283 Very Low Accept
Modality -0.147 0.081 Very Low Accept

Age. Initially, age can be related with peer collaboration. Socialization among

varying age range has shown a certain degree of similarities in patterns of behavior, which

is similar to the concept of developmental phases on legal determinations of life Stages86.

For example, Erik Erikson on his monograph “Psychosocial development theory” stated

that ages 18 to 40 years old are investing on interpersonal for a strong social support

network and social development due to complex phenomenon experienced, the “Intimacy

vs. Isolation” level87.

However, the hypothesis posits that there is no relationship between age and peer

collaboration to this. Some student might look and age the same but it doesn’t mean that

they have the similar capacities to showcase, Wnuk (2021) said88. Scientifically, the brain

begins to mature even before birth and at adolescence, affecting the mental states and

behavior of an individual88. Also, individuals could be raised unparallel to their age and

some are raised socially or unsocially inclined depending on the environment they have

grown up with, in connection to Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological theory4. In connection to

this, age may not matter on the collaboration level among students as always. Students

come with different expectations and backgrounds90. As a result, there are often major

74
differences in students with regard to participating in discussion-based collaborative

learning that reflect deep differences90.

Anyhow, peer collaboration assists students to develop higher order thinking skills

and achieve richer knowledge generation through shared goals, shared exploration, and

a shared process of meaning making, as stated by Brindley and colleagues (2009) on

their monograph91.

Gender. Some scholars stressed that gender and peer collaboration are

related92,93,99. It was found that gender identities affect peer collaboration presence. In a

gender diverse group for instance, it was found that groups with only one male or female

puts either one in minority or at a disadvantage, whereas balanced group enhances male

or female influence and weakens the inequality of influence between the genders in a

particular collaboration92. This consequently leads to a change of the nature of the group

members’ interaction, creating mutual support and agreeableness within the groups92.

Another, differences observed in problem-solving strategies during collaboration on

various cognitive tasks have suggested that working with peers can either facilitate or

deter learning depending on the context of the problem and the gender of the

collaborators93. In other words, differing gender either elicits or reduce level of

collaboration among peers since males and females were known to have distinct

attributes93.

However, it could be construed that gender was a no factor to peer collaboration

as hypothesized since the observed commonalities in collaboration among gender arise

from complex gender-related issues, including gender stereotypes, and student gender

ratios in class99 according to Geerlings and colleagues (2016). They added that a certain

75
gender could show inconsistent pattern in collaboration99.This is also eminent since

gender attributes do not yield consistent behaviors and capacities in most of the context

of learning100.

Specialization. Technical vocations are increasingly required to function in

multidisciplinary teams and to work on complex multifaceted problems in which

collaboration is essential for successful problem-solving100. For instance, such

technicians are expected to be not only experts in their field, but also to be efficient and

effective collaborators100,102. However, specialization does not always matter on peer

collaboration as hypothesized. Student may synergize or be required to synergize as part

of the four critical 21st Century skills needed to surmount103, but the concept of peer

collaboration is not solely perceived from the type of specialization. Regardless of field, it

is imperative that peer collaboration occurs on all courses since it accords with the 21st

century skill movement103 that a 21st century learner must develop.

Learning Modality. It was found on this result that learning modality and peer

collaboration are not significantly related, which is opposite to other scholars. The

richness of communication under the synchronous mode provides more immediacy in

communication and influences learner’s ability to engage in solving problems during

collaboration, whereas asynchronous modality takes a longer time to convey

understanding, affecting the cognitive discourse among participants104.

However, it could be construed that learning modality was a no factor to peer

collaboration as hypothesized. There was no study found supporting this hypothesis,

hence students will collaborate depending on the degree of shared responsibility and

willingness regardless of the learning context105.

76
3.3. Cognitive problem solving

Table 3.3 shows the significant relationship result between respondents’ profile

and level of cognitive problem solving. It shows that the null hypothesis on the age

(r=0.067; p=0.263), gender (r=-0.023; p=0.414), and specialization (r=-0.077; p=0.234)

was accepted and revealed a very low correlation, while the learning modality (r=-0.235;

p=0.012) was rejected and shown a very low correlation. Therefore, the results indicate

that the respondent’s learning modality and cognitive problem-solving are related. This

conveys that the learning modality have a slight effect on students’ cognitive problem-

solving presence.

Table 3.3
The significant relationship between profile and cognitive problem solving

Profile R`-value p-value Verbal Decision, Ho

Interpretation
Age 0.067 0.263 Very Low Accept
Gender -0.023 0.414 Very Low Accept
Specialization -0.077 0.234 Very Low Accept
Modality -0.235 0.012 Very Low Reject

Age. Initially, age matters on the cognitive problem solving of an individual.

Scientifically, it was found that differing age range shows certain similarities in their

cognitive capacity97,110. For instance, it was shown that younger adults have higher

metacognitive capacity while older adults demonstrated a lower performance97,110. This

is due to the fact that aging creates small decrements in the sensitivity of the senses,

affecting some brain areas to process information107,108. However, this is not always the

case.

Following the result, there is a slight disconnection between age and cognitive

problem solving. Some cognitive functions become weaker with age, while others actually

77
improve106. This shows that cognitive abilities of an individual not always correspond to

the age as determined in the developmental stage97,110. Cognitive abilities also reflect

from the accumulated developments an individual has and the exposure he has in the

environment, a “nature-nurture” aspect108,110. This is in consonance with the cognitive

development theory, where Jean Piaget (the author) posited that “an individual undergoes

the same sequence of development, but vary at different rates”108. This is why some

students vary in the depth of thinking and problem solving109. In connection to this, there

is an existing finding from Siegel & Castel (2019) supporting the null hypothesis where

they found out that older adults reported similar cognitive capacity as young adults, and

they suggested that the cognitive ability is largely unaffected by aging110. Anyhow,

Cognitive abilities helps students understand and effectively process new information110.

Gender. Some of the studies posited that gender matters on the cognitive

problem-solving presence. In particular, it has shown some differences between male and

females in terms of genetic and hormonal affects brain function112. These differences are

a consequence of gender evolutionary processes that determined genders roles in human

societies112.

However, there are some studies stressed that gender was not a matter in

cognitive problem-solving presence. Fernandi and colleagues (2018) found no significant

relationship between gender and cognitive problem-solving presence, “Gender did not

play role in enhancing and declining the cognitive problem-solving among learners”115.

This is also similar on the meta-analysis from American psychological association where

they found no large overall differences between male and female in cognitive problem-

problem presence, specifically in math performance114. For the verbal ability, Hyde and

78
colleagues reported from 165 studies found that there was no evidence of substantial

gender differences in any component of verbal processing114. According to Pancheri

(1999) as cited by Lenzo and colleagues (2016), scientifically, “the brain of the two

genders are substantially equal, but that men and women differ in the model of cerebral

organization and thus the procedure of elaboration and response to information”113. In

addition, cognitive problem-solving is under the 21st century movement which is classified

as a general skill94 unaffected by gender norms. In other words, gender could not matter

on cognitive problem-solving presence as hypothesized in this result.

Specialization. Some scholars found interdependence of specialization to

cognitive problem solving. In vocational education, it is imperative to equip students to

think well needed in the spheres of work through complex discipline-related tasks116. For

instance, Sandra (1992) cited on their work about the connection of vocational courses

and cognitive problem solving98. Sandra added that vocational education includes

cognitive problem solving to learners as occupations are becoming more reliant on

cognitive capacities and the changing nature of work requires flexibility and adaptability

to changing conditions98,116. Such specialization employs metacognition to be capable of

doing more than routine tasks, which will soon be delegated to machines98,116.

However, some argued the extent to which cognitive problem-solving thinking is a

general skill. For instance, Paris (2016) noted that cognitive problem skill can be

transferred whole into any context as being opposed to being context dependent skill95.

This means that it could not be entirely be affected by the specialization alone since there

are areas of life that stimulates someone’s to generate their cognitive problem-solving

79
skill95. Anyhow, cognitive problem among learners and area of specialization is imperative

on student’s level of learning participation.

Learning modality. Based on the table result, it was shown that learning modality

and cognitive problem solving have significant relationship. It was said that synchronous

learning impacts the cognitive problem-solving among students than asynchronous since

real time interaction fosters students to resolve any problems they encounter in learning

from an instant and direct feedback and answers from the internet on which asynchronous

lacked116. In an opposite view, it was found that asynchronous impacts cognitive problem-

solving presence more because learners are not time bound and can respond at their

leisure than a real time encounter116. “The opportunity of delayed response allows them

to use their higher order learning skills as they can keep thinking about a problem for an

extended time period and may develop divergent thinking”116. In other words, they

understood the problem quicker and were able to more efficiently move toward solving

the problem.

However, Perveen (2016)116 disclosed that a carefully devised instructional design

is required as pedagogy is more important than technologically facilitated media. “Online

learning can be challenging as only a carefully devised set of strategies can keep students

engaged and interested in learning environment to facilitate motivation, confidence,

participation, problem solving, analytical and higher order thinking skills”. In others words,

it could be unrelated opposite to the result.

80
3.4. Interaction With Instructors

Table 3.4 shows the significant relationship result between respondents’ profile

and Level of interaction with instructors. It shows that the null hypothesis on the age

(r=0.074; p=0.243), gender (r=0.062; p=0.279), specialization (r=-0.101; p=0.169), and

the learning modality learning modality (r=-0.008; p=0.468) was accepted and revealed a

very low correlation. Therefore, the results indicate that the respondent’s profile and

Interaction with instructors are not related. This conveys that the age, gender,

specialization, and learning modality have no effect on students’ Interaction with

instructors’ presence.

Table 3.2
The significant relationship between profile and interaction with instructors
Profile R`-value p-value Verbal Decision, Ho
Interpretation
Age 0.074 0.243 Very Low Accept
Gender 0.062 0.279 Very Low Accept
Specialization -0.101 0.169 Very Low Accept
Modality -0.008 0.468 Very Low Accept

Age. Apparently, age is a factor on how an interaction is regulated according to

some scholars118. With the expectations regarding age-appropriate aspect, it governs

one’s behavior and interaction118. For example, it is seen among Asian people on how

young individuals behave when interacting with adults119. This behavior could be affiliated

with the Operant conditioning by Skinner, where the reinforcement is to ‘pay respect’ and

the punishment is ‘either be praised positively’ or be ‘regarded as a negative person’119,120

on which if behavior is projected outside the age span, it is regarded as inappropriate and

is negatively sanctioned1.

81
 But with the result, Age and Interaction with Instructors could be unlinked as

hypothesized. Mathematically, Age can be viewed as a no discrete number since it is

attributed as an integer in units of years with no decimal to indicate days, hours, minutes,

and seconds according to Andrade (2017)121. This means that some may age the same

but still has specific differences on behavior. In support to this, Celtan and colleagues

(2015) stated on their dissertation that students interact with their instructor who

demonstrates positive qualities regardless of its age122. They added that “when there exist

good relations between students and instructors, respect would undoubtedly be

mutual”122. This justifies the statement of Neugarten and colleagues (1965) that Age is

psychological than chronological, equal in the sense that for some events is appropriate,

and a narrow one in some aspect118. However, the implications of this depends culture to

culture on how they perceive age norms and interaction122.

Gender. Based on the result, it is hypothesized that there is no significant

relationship between gender and interaction with instructors. Most of the findings

stressed that gender matters on the interaction with instructors123-125. For example,

Leraas and collegues (2018)123 stated on their monograph that females were known to

participate less than males. They revealed that female students report unsupportive

behaviors from both male and female professors such as discouragement, invisibility, and

questioning of competence, whereas male students reported a “chilly climate”123,124.

These are shaped by the common ideologies on both genders, entailing that female are

“feminine” -known to have more emotions, and males are “masculine” -known to be

aggressive124,125.

82
 Whether these are scientifically proven, it could be unlinked as hypothesized125. In

an anthropological and sociological view like West and Zimmerman (1987), they posited

that these are conceptualized as taboo since interactive behaviors are socially

constructed, not by anatomy126. In other words, the connection of gender and interaction

behaviors could be a taboo.

Specialization. Initially, field of specialization and interaction with instructors are

related according to some scholars. For instance, the concept of student centeredness

and teacher facilitator have encouraged students to communicate to their instructors,

especially that they undertake the actions and initiate to direct their own career

development, cited by Schaap and colleagues (2016)127,128. In a skill related

specialization in online learning, self-directed learning among students is jeopardized,

leading to ask assistance from the instructors whom they trust in skill development128.

This scenario is similar to John Dewey’s theory of inquiry where students ask teacher in

state of uncertainty and the teacher acts as a facilitator who challenges the learners, helps

them to identify questions and problems, and guide the inquiry to be done129,130.

However, specialization and interaction with instructor could be unrelated as

hypothesized in this result. There was no specific supposition to support the hypothesis,

however, the interaction with instructors is not solely bounded by a certain context of

learning since the students’ level of communication varies and the intention is not only

about one, explicated by Santandreu and colleagues (n.d.) in “complexity of

communication in a course environment”131.

Learning modality. Based on the result, the hypothesis indicates that there is

significant relationship between learning modality and Interaction with Instructors. Online

83
learning environments provide a room for multiliteracy because of multiple ways of

communication connected to a multiple world in a multiple way116. A synchronous virtual

classroom allows instructors and students to interact and collaborate in real time than

asynchronous116. Using webcams and class discussion features, it resembles the

traditional classroom116. Students who are shy by nature and therefore feel more

comfortable interacting in this type of environment versus a face-to-face class132. Direct

interaction with teachers and students in real time is no more a barrier and by connectivity

via the Internet, no time is wasted in traveling, which is not often a feature of

asynchronous learning116.

However, asynchronous learning is the most adopted method for online education

because learners are not time bounded and can respond at their leisure132,133. This allows

students to interact with their instructors often133. In other words, it could be unlinked as

it shows inconsistent patterns in a certain connectivity.

3.5. Community support

Table 3.5 shows the significant relationship result between respondents’ profile

and level of community support. It shows that the null hypothesis on the age (r=0.093;

p=0.190), gender (r=0.032; p=0.382), and specialization (r=0.011; p=0.460) was

accepted and revealed a very low correlation, while the learning modality (r=-0.311;

p=0.001) was rejected and shown a low correlation. Therefore, the results indicate that

the respondent’s learning modality and level of community support are related. This

conveys that the learning modality have a slight effect on students’ community support

presence.

84
 Table 3.5
The significant relationship between profile and community support

Profile R`-value p-value Verbal Decision, Ho

Interpretation
Age 0.093 0.190 Very Low Accept
Gender 0.032 0.382 Very Low Accept
Specialization 0.011 0.460 Very Low Accept
Modality -0.311 0.001 Low Reject

Age. Primarily, age and sense of belongingness (community support) are linked.

Emotions are central to daily functioning, so aging affects perception, memory,

experience, regulation of emotions due to the increasing optimization of positive mood

states and increased skill at understanding cues to emotional meaning134. Magai (2001)

suggests that with increasing age, people develop better ability to understand, anticipate,

and react to the emotional responses of other people because of accumulated

interpersonal experience across the life span134,135.

However, the result indicates that there is no significant relationship between age

and community support. Community support, or regarded as “emotional value” shows that

emotion is relatively unaffected by aging as hypothesized. Involvement of brain regions

in emotion processing may not be interdependent on the age4. Some have fewer cognitive

control mechanisms available to regulate their emotions, making them more vulnerable

to emotional crises134,136. Emotion socialization among individuals affect how they self-

regulate their emotions in social context, not governed by age norms137.

Gender. Based on the result, it is hypothesized that there is no significant

relationship between gender and community support. Most of the findings hypothesize

that gender matters on the sense of belongingness73,101. For example, females are more

likely to define themselves in terms of relationships with others, whereas males have less

85
emotional relationships; and females were posited to show a greater tendency to form

emotionally close, mutually self-disclosing and supportive relationships110.

These attributes were proven by some scholars but is considered in some ways

as “stereotyping”101,110. Macarthur (2019) stressed on his monograph that gender norms

could be violated101. He sampled on his assertion that such context can buffer men from

the negative consequences and could do so on females101. Another supposition-support

for this is that emotions were said to be socially constructed101,110. This means that they

differ in the extent to which they are determined by biological, psychological and social

factors, but no sufficient condition is enough to cater the emotional state of an individual4.

In other words, gender identity in terms of emotion was a no predictor to their level of

sense of belongingness.

Specialization. Apparently, specialization and community support are related.

Regardless of the field, it is imperative that individuals share their knowledge and skills

for a better learning. McConnell (2006) emphasizes that learning is a social process

carried out in communities, where knowledge is developed and negotiated between

members, cited by Herbert and Teräs (2014) in their study98. From sharing of dialogues,

it gives a sense of inclusion among participants especially if most of the students share

similar interest and beliefs in a certain area of specialization98.

However, it could be unlinked as hypothesized in this result. Students are

separated based on their specialization but it does not mean that the course have

impacted their sense of belongingness over the period of time97. According to Shea

(2006), “It may be that community develops, not as the result of longer courses, but

through the strength of ties developed throughout an entire program”.

86
 Learning modality. Based on the result, the hypothesis indicates that there is

significant relationship between learning modality and Community support. Scholars

posited that synchrony modality elicits high sense of belongingness. In a synchronous

manner, students are able to interact with peers as consistent as face-to-face, giving them

the feeling of being accepted and valued in class; whereas asynchrony limits student

interaction, prohibiting them to express and interpret their emotions due to lack

sessions97,98. In other words, sense of belongingness reflects from positive

interdependence97.

However, learning modality seldom affects students’ sense of belongingness.

Worschel and colleagues (2008) stated on their analysis that there are some competitive

and individualistic participants present in synchrony manner that could tone down positive

interdependence, affecting sense of belongingness31,96. “Even when participants view

others as being outside their group, those in cooperative situations view others more

positively than those in competitive or individualistic situations”, they added96. This

extends from Hagerty and colleague’s (1996) point that sense of belongingness is

sociological and psychological66.

3.6. Learning Management

Table 3.6 shows the significant relationship result between respondents’ profile

and level of learning management. It shows that the null hypothesis on the age (r=0.112;

p=0.145), gender (r=-0.034; p=0.373), and specialization (r=-0.020; p=0.427) was

accepted and revealed a very low correlation, while the learning modality (r=-0.195;

p=0.031) was rejected and shown a low correlation. Therefore, the results indicate that

87
the respondent’s learning modality and level of learning management are related. This

conveys that the learning modality have a slight effect on students’ learning management

presence.

Table 3.6
The significant relationship between profile and learning management

Profile R`-value p-value Verbal Decision, Ho

Interpretation
Age 0.112 0.145 Very Low Accept
Gender -0.034 0.373 Very Low Accept
Specialization -0.020 0.427 Very Low Accept
Modality -0.195 0.031 Very Low Reject

Age. Rodin (2007) has discussed the impact of aging on the sense of control in

learning47. For example, Mirowsky (2010) indicated that low sense of control among older

adults is related to relatively low levels of educational attainment and vice versa to

younger adults47,135.

Outcome expectations, however, are an important element of a certain behavior

and may play a large role in motivations to adopt a particular learning behavior, Strecher

and colleagues note47,136. They stated that the confidence one will adopt is influenced by

the rewards associated with that behavior136. This is also in inclined with Ajzen and

Fishbein's (1980) theory of reasoned action where intention to engage in a behavior is

influenced by perceived outcomes regardless of the age137. Ajzen and Fishbein stressed

that actions or behavior are in line with the outcome expectation5,6. Self-control in learning

do not represent lock-step stages through which everyone must pass137,138. If students

attribute failure in learning, they will put forth on their actions and be committed139.

Gender. Some scholars posited that gender affects learning management.

Primarily, it was said that females have a strong learning management than males as

88
cited by Robinson and colleagues (1994) in their discussion140. In particular, it was said

that females are more manageable on their studies than males do -as females were

known as emotionally expressive in their behavior and males were known to have an

aggressive behavior, which affects their learning management presence8,140.

However, it is not imperative to think that gender a predictor of students’ learning

management. For instance, it was reported that female medical students were less apt to

focus on facts and logical analysis, or to play close attention to details than males140.

“There are some gender differences that are found relatively consistently, but the

differences go in both directions, and it is not clear where these differences originate”,

Robinson and colleagues added. “If females and male experience different environments

and expectations, different relations between gender type and study habits could be

expected”140. In other words, gender type does not yield consistent relations in learning

management. Grasha and Hicks (2000) explained that learning style is an individual’s

preference for how to learn141, that gender has no inclination to it.

Specialization. Apparently, specialization matters on the learning management of

the student. In an increasingly complex reality involving rapidly changing working

environments, students should be able to participate in by mastering meta-learning and

be able to absorb more advanced levels of theoretical knowledge needed to develop skills

and gain competency142. It is essential to improve students’ positions in future labor

markets, so it is imperative to adjust their learning process to address such learning

needs142.

However, a certain demand to learn skills does not necessarily stimulates learning

control to meet the desired outcome143. In particular, students’ level of learning

89
management will vary on his interest and aspirations to learn such skill. This is seen on

the citations of Tekkol and Demirel (2018) where they integrated that “if students are

willing to learn, they can use various learning strategies, and they know their own learning

styles, interests and talents”, not bounded by external reinforcements143.

Learning modality. It was shown that the learning modality and learning

management have a significant relationship as hypothesized in this result. In online

learning, Synchronous modality operate much like traditional classrooms, with set study

schedules and live discussions whereas asynchronous modality offers learners the

flexibility to study in a self-paced manner144. Both have submission deadlines, however,

asynchronous is more comfortable for many students as they can digest the instruction

and communicate with each other on their own time144. In other words, ease of modality

fosters students’ management or control over his learning.

However, inherent in these differences is the learning style that the student

naturally utilizes during their acquisition of content145. “Of large consequence is the

acknowledgment that students differ greatly in how they learn and that learners with

different learning styles will behave differently in the way they perceive, interact, and

respond to the learning environment”, according to Junko (1998) as cited by Goodridge

and colleagues (2017)145. In other words, learning modality could be a factor to student’s

learning management, but it is still the faculty of persistence of an individual matter.

90
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FORWARDED TO STRENGTHEN STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE LEARNING

This part shows the sourced recommendations in line with Technical-Vocational

Teacher Education students’ level of engagement to online learning.

4.1. Psychological motivation.

Educators want students to be intrinsically motivated to learn and the desire to

learn comes from within the student. For instance, Gamification was amongst the most

cited strategies to engage students146. “Gamification does not simply imply creating a

game, it is a pedagogy used to make the student more engaged without deflation of

educational credibility” Muntean (2011) stated147,148. By incentivizing of behavior through

badge and reward systems, students could be motivated to learn in new ways or enjoy

otherwise tedious tasks148,149. However, it is also important to examine potential

drawbacks as it may impede the motivation that educators are trying to cultivate148. Hanus

and Fox (2015) explicated that “if a reward provided for a task is seen as an informational,

then it will make one feel competent and in control, leading to higher intrinsic

motivation”149, but once the reward is removed then one will no longer have a reason to

perform a behavior. This is in connection to Cognitive evaluation theory by Ryan and

Deci, cited by Banfield and Wilkerson (2014) supposed that external events can shape

one's intrinsic motivation based on whether individuals process those events as

informational or controlling148,150.

4.2. Peer collaboration.

It was suggested that activities should be complex because the real reason to

collaborate should be difficult to complete alone151. Burns (2016) stressed that if the

assignment is too simple, they can easily do it alone151. For instance, it can be done

91
through rigorous projects that require students to identify a problem and agree on a

solution then propose together e.g., research and discussion151. McArdle and colleagues

(2016) added in their discussion that minimizing the free riding should also be

considered152. Due to a complex task, a certain member could let others do all the work

and then benefits from the group grade151,152; so, it is important to understand how faculty

members respond to free riders and the strategies they use to deal with this type of

behavior152. It was found that small groups tend to be an effective method of instruction

for adult learners and that students felt more confident and motivated from a small

groupwork compared to those who worked in a typical grouping, as cited by McArdle and

colleagues152. Another, Shalaway and Opitz (n.d) added that to form small groups and

that groups should match the type of work to be done153. For instance, it can be through

random grouping, interest grouping, student-choice grouping, and task grouping to

increase collaboration among students153.

In terms of specified medium, the researchers found Moodle (Modular Object-

Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) tool to enhance peer collaboration154. Moodle

is an open-source Learning Management System and a course management tool widely

known154. As for collaboration, it allows one to add an additional dynamic to interactive

activities: giving groups of students a private or shared space to discuss and

collaborate155. Many scholars have studied the efficacy of Moodle in peer collaboration.

In particular, Kim and colleagues (2019) found out that the features of Moodle were able

to enhance creative collaboration. Moodle is now deployed widely by the Universities and

private higher education providers in Australia157

92
4.3. Cognitive problem solving.

Cognitive learning activities are geared towards pushing students to work through

different problems and stimuli, Campos (n.d) said158. Among the strategies, the most cited

one is that context-based learning as it can heighten cognitive problem solving presence

among learners159. However, the reason for students’ inability to solve problems outside

of the classroom is that they lack appropriate problem-solving and knowledge application

opportunities in real-life contexts159. Instead, students primarily learn to solve only well-

structured subject matter problems159. Cited by Chao Yu and colleagues (2014), Wright

(2001) contended that these problems should be taught using real-life scenarios to

cultivate students’ problem-solving abilities on which will provide students opportunities

to become real-life problem solvers158,159.

In particular, individual brainwriting such as case study could be a strategy. Case

study asks to apply what one has learned to the facts of a specific situation and allows

one to analyze a real or hypothetical situation then suggest a solution or course of action.

It often appears in practical courses such as Engineering and Writing160.

Another inclined technique is Dyadic groupings. This is similar on the case study

but has 2 participants at a minimum. Participants under dyads are more responsible

contributors and are working together on which a typical grouping lacks161. In other words,

learning in real-life contexts using practical activities or “context simulation activities”

could help heighten students’ cognitive problem-solving presence. It will be a difficulty to

learn context-related problems in a self-paced manner, but the researchers believed that

through brainwriting can give changes to students.

93
 More (2015) also suggested that online instructors can use technology tools to

create activities that help students develop both lower-level and higher-level critical

thinking skills162. The use of technology also supports exploration, collaborative inquiry

and the development of the skills required for students moving into the modern world163.

4.4. Interaction with instructors

The researchers found potential commendations to increase student interaction

with instructors in online learning. There were no specific learning activities designed to

suffice the suggestion since teachers have a varying strategy and some strategies could

be incompatible to their personality as implied by Kim and colleagues (2019)164.

Some scholars implied that affective personality could increase student-teacher

rapport. In particular, strengthening relationship between student and teacher fosters

confidence among students to synergy49. “When good relationship has been constructed,

learners and educators enjoy with each other and the class, and learners feel more

inspired to do well”49. Another, behavior rather than mental processes, reigned supreme

in educational psychology165. This supports Prakash’s citation from Indian Education

Commission that "every teacher and educationist of experience knows that even the best

curriculum and the perfect syllabus remain dead unless quickened into life by the right

method of teaching and the right kind of teachers”166. Solely improving students'

relationships with their teachers will not produce gains in achievement, hence, those

students who have close, positive and supportive relationships with their teachers will

attain higher levels of achievement than those students with more conflict in their

relationships167. Higher levels of achievement is a reflection of strong rapport between

student and teacher167.

94
 In terms of specified medium to increase rapport, the researchers found related

activities that could strengthen interactivity. For instance, the “chatbot” can help bridge

the interaction between student and teacher in online environment6. This facilitates

student-teacher communication just like a classroom and establishes a two-way

communication. Mendoza and colleagues (2020) commend “chatbot” to strengthen

communication between students and teachers on which in this way, students could

express themselves more freely, since the chatbot acts as a bridge with their teachers

and other involved personnel168.

Teachers as variable in the learning interaction, Teachers should be rewarded by

the heads. According to sociologists, current school environments are a reward-scarce

setting for professional work and often seem to work against teachers’ best efforts to grow

professionally and improve student learning as cited by Peterson (1995)169. Much of

teachers’ work is carried out in self-contained therefore leading to the difficulty to

supervise the class169 and could impede response from students’ message.

4.5. Community support.

The researchers found relevant recommendations to increase community support

among learners. However, it is important first to identify the common drawback in

community support, the “isolation”. Anyhow, some scholars have supposed solutions that

will let the students feel like “they belong” in the class.

Fostering technological tools online could bear the risk of isolation. It is notable

that learning participants depend on connections170. Adams (2021) suggested to foster

connections online on which the use of video and audio for both teachers and students

may add a level of connection missing from written text alone170. The lack of non-verbal

95
feedback, absence of facial expressions and voice inflections can also generate

misunderstandings171.

Thomas and colleagues (2014) suggested that teacher’s presence impacts

students’ sense of belongingness172. Shea (2006) found out that her respondents have a

stronger sense of belongingness when her respondents reported that their instructors

exhibited stronger “teaching presence” behaviors173. In other words, teacher’s presence

could heighten sense of belonging (community support) of the students.

Building trust is also a notable factor in building a stronger community support

(sense of belonging) to learners174. This view is supported by preece (2020) in that sense

of community is made up of mutual trust, harmony, interdependence and respect among

the members of the community, as cited by Aydin and Gumus (2016)175. Lack of trust

between community members may reduce the harmony and the desire for

interdependence, thus negatively affecting the desire to interact, as it will render it difficult

for them to rely on each other175.

4.6. Learning management.

Becoming older however, many adults gradually seem to lose their sense of

intrinsic excitement to engage with learning176. In an environment where learners are

supposed to accurately demonstrate what they have learned through a single test or

where there is little room to guide what is important to learn, it is rather challenging to

engage someone in learning, implied by Wolter-Gustavson (2004)176,177. As cited by

Zeivots (2016), Olson (2009) warns that by continuing on this course, learning

environments might soon reach the level where learners do things only for external

reasons, numbing their internal curiosities and motivations176,178.

96
 The researchers found possible commendation to increase students’ learning

management presence. In particular, promoting self -assessment could be of effective179.

This encourages students to think about what they do and do not understand and helps

them see how they are getting smarter179. A study from Holmquist and Gable shown that

self-efficacy (self-directing students) have increased persistence of students in their

learning in remedial education. In this way, students can glimpse the gaps in his learning

process.

Another suggestion extracted from Stanford (2016) has specified to set up a

system for self-monitoring and progress-tracking. For instance, compiling their work in a

portfolio method allows them to track their own progression and reflect upon the learning

process. By tracking their progress, they become more aware of their own strengths and

weaknesses181. In other words, gaining awareness on one’s learning progress is an

indicator that he is managing his learnings.

A specified recommendation tool the researchers suggest is to utilize Learning

management system (LMS) software182,183. There are varying LMS a student can choose

but it has similar purpose: to plan, implement and assess a specific learning process183.

LMS can provide an instructor with a way to create and deliver content, monitor student

participation and assess student performance183. A particular researcher like Kim (2017)9

investigated the effectiveness of LMS to 113 college students and found a positive impact

on learner’s academic presence. Kim also cited the findings of Cavus (2007) which

implies the effectiveness of LMS at increasing academic presences184.

97
 Notes
1.
n.a. (2011) Philippines Educational System: An overview.
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1199/Philippines-EDUCATIONAL-
SYSTEM-AN-OVERVIEW.html
2.
Dale M.(2012). Trends in the Age Composition of College and University
Students and Graduates. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-
004-x/2010005/article/11386-eng.htm
3.
Wholwill, J. (1969). The Age Variable in Psychological Research. Educational
Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1969.tb00579.x
4.
Charles, S. & Carstensen, L. (2010). Social ang Emotional Changing. Annul Rev
Psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950961/
5.
Amin, Z. (2017). Learning Process-Behaviorism, Cognitivism and
Constructivism. Education. https://www.slideshare.net/zulfiquer732/learning-process-
behaviorism-cognitivism-and-Constructivism Amin
6.
Ched (2019). Higher Education Enrollment by Program Level and Sex: AY 2018-
19. https://ched.gov.ph/higher-education-enrollment-by-program-level-and-sex-ay-2018-
19/
7.
Baticulon R., Sy J., Alberto N., Baron M., Mabulay R., Rizada L., Tiu C., Clarion
M., and Reyes J.(2021). Barriers to Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19: A National
Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines. Medical Science educator.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z
8.
Chaplin, T. (2015). Gender and Emotion Expression: A Developmental
Contextual Perspective. Emot-Rev. 15-21.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469291/
9.
N/A. (2019). Gender terminology and definitions. UNESCO.
https://bangkok.unesco.org/sites/default/files/assets/article/Education/publications/GENI
A2019/19_Dec_GENIA_Toolkit_1.pdf
10.
Sutton, K. S. A. R. (2021). Gender differences in the classroom | Educational
Psychology. Educational Psychology. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-
educationalpsychology/chapter/gender-differences-in-the-classroom/.
11.
Ched, “Top 10 Most Populated Program (in terms of Enrollment) by Sex: AY
2018-19” August 8, 2019, https://ched.gov.ph/top-10-most-populated-program-in-terms-
of-enrollment-by-sex-ay-2018-19/
12.
Schweitzer, Karen. “What Does Hospitality Management Include?” CHRON,
2020.https://smallbusiness.chron.com/hospitality-management-include-79536.html
13.
Rebecca Soden & R. T. Pithers (2001) Knowledge matters in vocational
problem-solving: a cognitive view, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53:2,
205-222, DOI:10.1080/13636820100200163
14.
Irwanto, I. (2019). CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE VOCATIONAL
EDUCATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 4.0. VANOS Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Education.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337330187_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_EFFE
CTIVE_VOCATIONAL_EDUCATION_IN_THE_INDUSTRIAL_REVOLUTION_40
15.
Porcalla, D. “Philippines internet ‘second slowest’ in Asean, ranks 110th
worldwide,” Philstar global, 2020.

98
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/12/28/2066612/philippines-internet-second-
slowest-asean-ranks-110th-worldwide.
16.
Gonzales, C. “SWS: 31% of families with distance learners have weak internet
connection” INQUIRER.NET, 2021. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1403566/sws-31-of-
families-with-distance-learners-have-weak-internet-connection
17.
Fabito Bernie, Trillanes Arlene & Sarmiento Jeshnille.”Barriers and
Challenges of Computing Students in an Online Learning Environment: Insights from One
Private University in the Philippines”ArXiv, 2020. 123-130
18.
GOVPH. “PH moves up in mobile internet speed global rankings” February 20,
2021.https://dict.gov.ph/ph-moves-up-in-mobile-internet-speed-global-rankings/
19.
Yan, W. (1999). The Relationship of Bandwidth, Interaction, and Performance
in Online Courses: A Study. University of North Texas.
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring91/wu91.htm
20.
Swan, J. (2017). The Challenges of Online Learning Supporting and Engaging
the Isolated Learner. Journal of Learning Design.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127718.pdf
21.
Varre, C., et al., (2014). Reasons for student dropout in an online course in a
rural K–12 setting. Distance Education, Vol. 35, No. 3, 324–344,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955259
22.
Kim Kyong-Jee & Frick Theodore (2011). CHANGES IN STUDENT
MOTIVATION DURING ONLINE LEARNING.Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. 210-220.
http://www.anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/Kim2011%20changes%20in%20motivat
ion.Pdf
23.
McCall, D. E. (2002). Factors influencing participation and perseverance in
online distance learning courses: A case study in continuing professional education.
24.
Hartley, K. W. (1999). Media overload in instructional Web pages and the impact
on learning. Educational Media International, 36(2), 145-150.
25.
Pentrich, P. & Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning
Components of Classroom Academic Performance. American Psychological Association,
Inc, 33-40. http://rhartshorne.com/fall-2012/eme6507-rh/cdisturco/eme6507-
eportfolio/documents/pintrich%20and%20degroodt%201990.pdf
26.
Smith, K. (2006). Early Attrition among First Time eLearners: A Review of
Factors that Contribute to Drop-out, Withdrawal and Non-completion Rates of Adult
Learners undertaking eLearning Programmes. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 76-82. https://jolt.merlot.org/documents/Vol2_No2_TylerSmith_000.pdf
27.
Reinhart, J. (1999). Student motivation, self-efficacy and task difficulty in Web-
based instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
28.
Politis, J. & Politis D. (2016). The Relationship Between an Online
Synchronous Learning Environment and Knowledge Acquisition Skills and Traits: The
Blackboard Collaborate Experience. ACPIL.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107132.pdf
29.
Lodge. A., et al., (2018) ‘Understanding Difficulties and Resulting Confusion in
Learning: An Integrative Review. Creative Commons Attributes License. 33-35.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2018.00049/full

99
 30.
Poellhuber, B., et al., (2006). The Effect of Peer Collaboration and Collaborative
Learning on Self-Efficacy and Persistence in a Learner-Paced Continuous Intake Model.
JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ812561.pdf
31.
Patterson, A., et al., (2018). Synchronous and Asynchronous Discussions:
Effects on Cooperation, Belonging, and Affect. Online Learning Journal.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1202382.pdf
32.
French, L., et al., (2021). Do Gifted Students Really Prefer to Work Alone?.
Research Gate. 145-159.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233013326_Do_Gifted_Students_Really_Pref
er_to_Work_Alone
33.
Alawamleh, M. (2020). The effect of online learning on communication between
instructors and Students during Covid-19 pandemic. Asian Education and Development
Studies. 11-20.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343897561_The_effect_of_online_learning_on
_communication_between_instructors_and_students_during_Covid-19_pandemic
34.
Lawrence, K. (2021). 4 Different Learning Styles You Should Know: The VARK
Model. Education Online. https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/4-different-learning-
styles-to-know
35. Alavi, M., & Taghedazeh, M. (2013). Cognitive Presence in Virtual
Learning Community: An EFL Case. Research Gate. 65-73.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320191001_Cognitive_Presence_in_Virtual_L
earning_Community_An_EFL_Case
36.
Ju Kang, M., et al., (2002). Developing a Cognitive Presence Scale for
Measuring Students’ Involvement during the e-Learning Process. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 50(2), 23-38.
https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings07/2007/07_15.pdf
37
. Donlosky, J., et al., (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective
Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1) 4–58.
https://pcl.sitehost.iu.edu/rgoldsto/courses/dunloskyimprovinglearning.pdf
38.
Garrison, H. (2004) Cognitive Presence in Online Learning Heather. Journal of
Computing in Higher EducationSpring, Vol. 15(2), 30-.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225321397_Cognitive_presence_in_online_le
arning
39.
Wang, M., & Kang, M. (2003). Cybergogy for Engaged Learning: A
Framework for Creating Learner Engagement through Information and Communication
Technology. San Diego State University, USA. 20-35.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226493573_Cybergogy_for_Engaged_Learnin
g_A
_Framework_for_Creating_Learner_Engagement_through_Information_and_Communic
ation_Technology
40.
Almasi, M., and Chang, Zhu., 2020. Investigating Students’ Perceptions of
Cognitive Presence in Relation to Learner Performance in Blended Learning Courses: A
Mixed-Methods Approach. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(4), pp. 324-336
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1276367.pdf.

100
 41.
Pooja, P. (2017). “A STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVE
ABILITIES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS”. RVS College of Education, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Vol-3 Issue-3.
Pooja
42.
Mohammed, A., et al., (2017). Levels of Interaction Provided by Online Distance
Education Models. ISER Publications. 10-15. https://www.ejmste.com/download/levels-
of-interaction-provided-by-online-distance-education-models-4795.pdf
43.
Isman, A., et al., (2003). Communication Barriers in Distance Education. The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495703.pdf
44.
Mill, L. “Barriers to online learning (and how to overcome them!)” The Hub,
August 22, 2019. https://news.athabascau.ca/learners/barriers-to-online-learning-and-
how-to-overcome-them/
45.
Galusha, M. Jill. (2001). Barriers to Learning in Distance Education.
http://www.infrastruction.com/barriers.html
46. Turley, C. & Graham, C. (2019). Interaction, Student Satisfaction, and
Teacher Time Investment in Online High School Courses. Journal of Online Learning
Research (2019) 5(2), 169-198. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1229415.pdf
47.
Phillips, L., et al., (2002) Age and the Understanding of Emotions:
Neuropsychological and Sociocognitive Perspectives. Oxford Academic.
https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/57/6/P526/669626
48.
The 67 Worst Teaching Mistakes | Student Sucess | On Course. (2020, July 22).
College Educator Workshops & Conferences. https://oncourseworkshop.com/table-
contents/67-worst-teaching-mistakes/
49.
Student_Interaction_on_Student_Motivation_and_Achievement Afzal, M.
& Gilani, S. (2019). The Impact of Teacher-Student Interaction on Student Motivation
and Achievement. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333843059_The_Impact_of_Teacher-
50.
CNDLS: Top Qualities of an Effective Teacher. (2021). CNDLS.
https://cndls.georgetown.edu/atprogram/twl/effective-teacher/
51.
Kerka, S. (1996). Distance Learning, the Internet, and the WorldWide Web.
ERIC Digest. ERIC Development Team. 5-7.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED395214.pdf
52.
Gopalan, M. & Brady, S. (2019). College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A
National Perspective. Educational Researcher, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 134–137.
https://education.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/DEI/Gopalan%2C%20M.%2C%20%26%
20Brady%2C%20S.%20T.%20%282020%29.%20College%20students’%20sense%20o
f%20belonging-%20A%20national%20perspective..pdf
53.
Anderson, L., et al., (2020). Blended Learning in Teacher Education.
ResearchGate. 45-50.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281642242_Blended_Learning_in_Teacher_E
ducaTion
54.
Capps, M. (2003). CHARACTERISTICS OF A SENSE OF BELONGING AND
ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMICACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS IN SELECTED
MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN REGION IV AND VI EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS,
TEXAS. ResearchGate. 23-30. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147123656.pdf

101
 55.
Mcleod, S. (2020, December 29). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
56.
Hausmann, L. (2009). Sense of Belonging and Persistence in White and African
American First-Year Students. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 45-50.
https://uploads-
ssl.webflow.com/59faaf5b01b9500001e95457/5bc55a0236f9e465d23c7377_Hausmann
%2C%20L.%20R.%2C%20Ye%2C%20F.%2C%20Schofield%2C%20J.%20W.%2C%2
0%26%20Woods%2C%20R.%20L.%202009.pdf
57.
OECD (2017), "Students' sense of belonging at school and their relations with
teachers", in PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students' Well-Being, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-11-en.
58.
Geng, S. (2019, May 21). Investigating self-directed learning and technology
readiness in blending learning environment. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education.
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-019-
0147-0
59.
Bilim, Egitim., et al., (2014) Examination of the Relationship between Students’
Attitudes towards Computer and Self-Directed Learning with Technology. ResearchGate.
67-73.
60.
Wandler, J., & Imbriale, W. (2017). Promoting undergraduate student self-
regulation in online learning environments. Online Learning 21:2. doi:
10.24059/olj.v21i2.881
61
. Gilbert & Brittany(2015). Online Learning Revealing the Benefits and
Challenges; Education Masters. Paper 303.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48619313.pdf
62.
Baran, E. (2019, December 1). Cho and Shen, “Self-regulation in online
learning” – Online Learning Toolbox. Pressbooks.
https://iastate.pressbooks.pub/onlinelearningtoolbox/chapter/cho-shen-self-regulation-
in-
online-learning/
63. Sharp, L. A., & Sharp, J. H. (2016). Enhancing student success in online
learning experiences through the use of self-regulation strategies. Journal on Excellence
in College Teaching, 27(2), 57-75.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304073173_Enhancing_student_success_in_
onlin
e_learning_experiences_through_the_use_of_self-regulation_strategies
64.
Christensen, S., & Spackman, J. (2014) DROPOUT RATES, STUDENT
MOMENTUM, AND COURSE WALLS: A NEW TOOL FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION
DESIGNERS. JOURNAL OF EDUCATORS ONLINE. 30-45.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150708.pdf
65.
EducationWorld. (2021, February 9). Impact of online learning on school
education. https://www.educationworld.in/impact-of-online-learning-on-school education/
66.
Hagerty, B., et al., (2004). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and
psychological functioning. Science Direct. 78-80
67.
Qayyum, A. Student help-seeking attitudes and behaviors in a digital era. Int J
Educ Technol High Educ 15, 17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0100-7

102
 68.
Socialization in Online Learning. (2021). Academy for Teaching and Learning |
Baylor University. https://www.baylor.edu/atl/index.php?id=965144
69.
Kline, T. (2011) Applying Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs In Our Classrooms.
Change kids lives. http://www.changekidslives.org/actions-4
70.
Poth, R. D. (2018, October 14). Collaboration: Bringing Students Together to
Promote Learning. Getting Smart. https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/10/collaboration-
bringing-students-together-to-promote-learning-can-move/
71.
Penningroth, S. L. (2019, June 3). Age-related differences in the goals and
concerns that motivate real-life prospective memory tasks. PLOS ONE.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216888
72.
Bonsteel, S. (2012). APA PsycNET. The Charleston Advisor, 14(1), 16–19.
https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.14.1.16
73.
Rollero, C., et al., (2004). A Gender Lens on Quality of Life: The Role of Sense
of Community, Perceived Social Support, Self-Reported Health and Income. Social
Indicator Research. 45-50.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257664451_A_Gender_Lens_on_Quality_of_L
ife_https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326071057_The_role_of_age_in_students
%27_motivation_and_achievement_in_learning_English_as_a_second_language
74.
Cushman, K. (2014). Conditions for Motivated Learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
95(8), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171409500805
75.
Gopalan, V., et al., (2017). A review of motivation theories in Learning. AIP
Conference Proceedings. 13-18.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320204050_A_review_of_the_motivation_theo
ries_in_learning
76.
Becirovic, S. (2017). The relationship between gender, motivation and
achievement in learning english as a foreign language. Slovak Republic European
Journal of Contemporary Education. 54-60.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318777886_The_relationship_between_gende
r_motivation_and_achievement_in_learning_english_as_a_foreign_language
77.
Kalkowski, K. & Fritz, S. (2004). A Survey of Gender-Related Motiv y of Gender-
Related Motivation Studies: Subor ation Studies: Subordinate. Faculty Publications:
Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/31
78.
Gove, W. (1994). Why We Do What We Do: A Biopsychosocial Theory of
Human Motivation. Oxford University Press. 76-80.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271776235_Why_We_Do_What_We_Do_A_B
iopsychosocial_Theory_of_Human_Motivation
79.
Ogunjinmi, A. A. (2016). Specialisation Preferences and Perceived Motivation
in Ecotourism and Wildlife Management Programme at the Federal University of
Technology, Akure, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 20(2), 59.
https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v20i2.5
80.
Keller JM. "Motivation and Performance." In Trends and
issues in instructional design and technology, edited by Reiser RA,
Dempsey JV, 82-92. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill
Prentice Hall, 2007.

103
 81.
Lumen Learning. (2021). Motivation | Introduction to Psychology. Lumen.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/introduction-motivation/
82. 1.https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/motivation.html
Karin, K. (2021). Student Motivation and Engagement. Online Teaching.
https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/motivation.html
83.
Jandrić, P. (2020, August 7). Teaching in the Age of Covid-19. Postdigital
Science and Education. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42438-020-00169-
6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=601ad2fe-faa1-49f5-8139-6dfd7a65fb80
84.
Cherry, K. (2021). How Does Self-Determination Theory Explain Motivation?
Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-self-determination-theory-
2795387
85.
Truzoli, R., Viganò, C., Galmozzi, P.G., & Reed, P. (2020). Problematic internet
use and study motivation in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
86.
B. (n.d.). Socialization Throughout the Life Span | Boundless Sociology.
Boundless Sociology. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/socialization-
throughout-the-life-span/
87.
N.A. Erikson’s 8 Stages of Psychosocial Development, from
https://gcwgandhinagar.com/econtent/document/1587961371UNIT-2.pdf
88.
Wnuk, A. (n.d.). When the Brain Starts Adulting. BrainFacts.Org. Retrieved June
22, 2021, from https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-
behaving/aging/2018/when-the-brain-starts-adulting-112018
89.
Oppenheimer, M. (2017) Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Theory Revision.
Association for Psychological Science.
Vol12(5).4.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321012999_Bronfenbrenner%27s_
Bioecological_Theory_Revision
90.
Bates, A. W. (2019, October 10). 4.4 Online collaborative learning – Teaching
in a Digital Age – Second Edition. sPressbooks.
https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/chapter/6-5-
onlinecollaborative-learning/
91.
Brindley, J. & Walti, C.(2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ847776.pdf
92.
Takeda, S., & Homberg, F. (2009). The effects of gender on group work process
and achievement: an analysis through self- and peer-assessment. British Educational
Research Journal. 45-53. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42142916.pdf
93.
Gloria, B. (2001). Gender differences in social reasoning during peer
collaboration. Texts Tech University Libraries. 67-70. https://ttu-
ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/16334
94.
Stauffer, B. (2020). What Are 21st Century Skills?. Applied Educational System.
https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/what-are-21st-century-skills
95.
Paris Ben (2016) Failing to Improve Critical Thinking. Inside Higher Ed, from
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/29/roadblocks-better-critical-thinking-
skills-are-embedded-college-experience-essay
96.
Worchel, S., et al., (2021). SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class
research journals. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/action/cookieAbsent

104
 97.
Peter, S. (2006) A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. University at Albany - State University of New. 5-10
98.
Thomas, L., Herbert,J. & Teras, M. (2014). A sense of belonging to
enhance participation, success and retention in online programs. The International
Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 5(2), 69-80. doi:
10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.233
99.
Geerlings, Peter M.; Cole, Helen; Batt, Sharryn; and Martin-Lynch, Pamela,
Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS): Does Gender Matter?, Journal of Peer Learning,
9, 2016, 10-25.3.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1115035.pdf
100.
Little, W. (2014, November 6). Chapter 12. Gender, Sex, and Sexuality –
Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition. Pressbooks.
https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter12-gender-sex-and-
sexuality/
101.
McCarthy, E. Doyle, "The Social Construction of Emotions: New Directions
from Culture Theory" (1994). Sociology Faculty Publications. 4.
https://fordham.bepress.com/soc_facultypubs/4
102.
Christoffels, I., & Baay, P. (2016). 21ste-eeuwse vaardigheden in het mbo.
'Vaardig' voor de toekomst. (21st century skills in middle vocational Education 'Skillful' for
the future). (pp. 1–8). 's Hertogenbosch (the Netherlands): Expertise centrum
Beroepsonderwijs.
103.
Child, S., & Shaw, S. (2016). Collaboration in the 21st century: Implications for
assessment. A Cambridge Assessment publication. 34-52.
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/374626-collaboration-in-the-21st-
century-implications-for-assessment.pdf
104.
Moallem, M. (2015). The Impact Of Synchronous And Asynchronous
Communication Tools On Learner Self-Regulation, Social Presence, Immediacy,
Intimacy And Satisfaction In Collaborative Online Learning. The Online Journal of
Distance Education and e-Learning.
https://www.tojdel.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v03i03/v03i03-08.pdf
105.
Laymon Med, Stephanie (2010) "Implications of Collaboration in Education,"
Academic Leadership: The Online Journal: Vol. 8 : Iss. 4 ,Article 35.
https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1535&context=alj
106.
Harvard Health. (2017, August 30). How memory and thinking ability change
with age. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/how-memory-and-thinking-
ability-change-with-age
107.
Lumen Learning. (n.d.). Cognitive Development in Late Adulthood | Lifespan
Development. Lumen. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-lifespandevelopment/chapter/cognitive-
development-in-late-adulthood/
108.
COGNITIVE_DEVELOPMENT_AN_EDUCATIONAL_IMPLICATIONS
Lefa, B. (2014) The piaget theory of cognitive development: An educational implications.
ResearchGate. 45-55.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265916960_THE_PIAGET_THEORY_OF_CO
GNITIVE_DEVELOPMENT_AN_EDUCATIONAL_IMPLICATIONS

105
 109.
Robinson, P. (2012). Abilities to Learn: Cognitive Abilities. SpringerLink.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-1428-
6_620?error=cookies_not_supported&code=65f5eb2a-aa15-41a1-939b-91c5850beed5
110.
Clark, R. (2015, August 28). Are There Age-Related Differences in the Ability
to Learn Configural Responses? Plos One.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137260
111.
Hyde, J., et al., (2000) The Gender Stereotyping of Emotions. Cambridge
University Press. 81-92. https://devinelab.psych.wisc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/1383/2020/04/The-gender-stereotyping-of-emotions.pdf
112.
Sex/gender differences in cognition, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy.
(2018). PubMed Central (PMC).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6013760/
113.
Lenzo, V., et al., (2016). Gender Differences In Anxiety, Depression And
Metacognition. Future Academy www.FutureAcademy.org.uk. 67-70.
114.
Lundstrom, J., et al., (2014). Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive
Skills. American Psychological Association. 35-40.
https://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/share
115.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 4th International Seminar of
Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education, from
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/011001/pdf
116.
Perveen, A. (2016) Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Language Learning: A
Case Study of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Praxis, vol. 8 issue 1, pp. 21–39.
117.
MateEchidna (n.d.). Online education and the academic performance among
the information communication students of ACLC College of Tagum. CourseHero, from
https://www.coursehero.com/file/pd9vbm/Hence-asynchronous-e-learning-can-scaffold-
students-previous-knowledge-with-new/
118.
Goldberg, L., et al., (1965) Age Norms, Age Constraints, and Adult
Socialization. The University of Chicago Press. Vol. 70, No 6.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2774397
119.
Kawamura, K. Y. (n.d.). Asian Cultures - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.
ScienceDirect. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/asian-cultures
120.
Cherry, K.(2020). What Is Operant Conditioning and How Does It Work?.
Verywellmind.https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863 [120]
121.
Andrade, C. (2018) Age as a variable: Continuous or categorical?. Indian
Journal of Psychiatry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5806344/#__ffn_sectitle
122.
Celkan, G., et al., (2016) Student Perceptions of Teacher Respect Toward
College Students. Elsevier Ltd. 33-35.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282536238_Student_Perceptions_of_Teacher
_Respect_Toward_College_Students
123.
Lerras, B., et al., (2018). Gender and Student Participation. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 18, No.4, pp. 65-70.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1200685.pdf

106
 124.
McNeill, S. & Kristie, J.R. (2015). Differences in Social Interaction Patterns
between Teachers and their Students Based on Gender. Journal of Undergraduate
Research. 43-50. http://jur.byu.edu/?p=19056
125.
Cislaghi, B. & Heise, A. (2019). Gender norms and social norms: differences,
similarities and why they matter in prevention science. Wiley Online Library. Volume 42,
issue 2. 101-110. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9566.13008
126.
Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (2009). Accounting for doing gender.
Sagepublication.com. 5-10.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.7011&rep=rep1&type=p
df
127.
Schaap, H., et al., (2016). Interactions in vocational education: negotiation of
meaning of students and teaching strategies. Studies in continuing education. 45-63.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1234451
128.
Ogawa, A. (2011). Facilitating Self-Regulated Learning: An Exploratory Case
of Teaching a University Course on Japanese Society. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education. Volume 23, Number 2, 166-174.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ946141.pdf
129.
Nurlaela, L., Suparji, S., Budi, K., Pratama, S., & Irawati, Y. (2018). Inquiry-
Based Learning to Studentsr Creative Thinking Skills in Vocational High School.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Indonesian Technical Vocational
Education and Association (APTEKINDO 2018). Published.
https://doi.org/10.2991/aptekindo-18.2018.19
130.
Nicholas, T.D. (2006). JOHN DEWEY’S THEORY OF INQUIRY: AN
INTERPRETATION OF A CLASSICAL AMERICAN APPROACH TO LOGIC. Texas A&M
University. 56-78. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4270815.pdf
131
. Santandreu, J., et al., (N/A). The complexity of communication in a course
environment: a case study. Journal of Case Studies in Education. 5-10
132
. Kemp, N., & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen?
Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning.
Frontiers in Psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228829
133
. Nwankwo, A.A. (2015). Students' Learning Experiences and Perceptions of
Online Course Content and Interactions. Walden University ScholarWorks.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=dissertatio
ns
134. Phillips, L., et al., (2002) Age and the Understanding of Emotions:
Neuropsychological and Sociocognitive Perspectives. Oxford Academic.
https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/57/6/P526/669626
135. Magai, C. (2001). Emotions over the life span. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie
(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 165–183). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
136. Mather, M. (2013). The emotion paradox in the aging brain. Ann N Y Acad
Sci. 34-49. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395773/#__ffn_sectitle
137. Kitmann, K. (2012). Learning about Emotion: cultural and family contexts of
emotion socialization. Global Studies Childhood. Vol. 2, 45-50.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/gsch.2012.2.2.82

107
 138
. Smith, J., et al., (2017) Sense of Belonging at School: Defining Attributes,
Determinants, and Sustaining Strategies. IAFOR Journal of Education. Volume 5 – Issue
2. 112-125. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1156289.pdf
139
. Robinsons, A., et al., (1994) Gender Roles and Study Habits. Eric.ed. gov. 34-
40. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED389998.pdf
140
. Robinsons, A., et al., (1994) Gender Roles and Study Habits. Eric.ed. gov. 34-
40. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED389998.pdf
141
. Halili, S., et al., (2015). Exploring the Link Between Learning Styles and
Gender Among Distance Learners. Elsevier ltd. 23-30.
142
. Bostrom, L. (2013). How Do Students in Vocational Programs Learn? A Study
of Similarities and Differences in Learning Strategies. International Journal of Sciences.
Volume 2, 45-56. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:638271/FULLTEXT01.pdf
143
. Tekol, I.A., & Demirel, M. (2018). An Investigation of Self-Directed Learning
Skills of Undergraduate Students. Educational Psychology. 12-15.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02324/full
144
. Wintemute, D. (2021). Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Classes: What’s the
Difference? https://thebestschools.org/resources/synchronous-vs-asynchronous-
programs-courses/
145
. Goodridge, W., et al., (2017). A Learning Style Comparison between
Synchronous Online and Face-to-Face Engineering Graphics Instruction. Canadian
Center of Science and Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1130382.pdf
146
. Dahlstrom, C. (2017) Impacts of gamification on intrinsic motivation. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
https://www.ntnu.edu/documents/139799/1279149990/04+Article+Final_camildah_forsø
k_2017-12-06-13-53-55_TPD4505.Camilla.Dahlstrøm.pdf
147
. Muntean, C. (2002). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification.
Babes-Bolyai University.
http://icvl.eu/2011/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologies_paper4
2.pdf
148
. Banfield, J., & Wilkerson, B. (2014). Increasing Student IntrinsicMotivationAnd
Self-EfficacyThrough Gamification Pedagogy. Contemporary Issues In Education
Research. Volume 7, number 4.
https://www.clutejournals.com/index.php/CIER/article/view/8843/8809
149
. Hanus, M., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the
classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction,
effort, and academic performance. Volume 80, Pages 152-161.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131514002000
150
. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist.
https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf
151
. Burns, M. (2016, November 22). 5 Strategies to Deepen Student Collaboration.
Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/5-strategies-deepen-student-collaboration-
mary-burns
152
. McArdle, G., et al., (2005). The Free Rider and Cooperative Learning Groups:
Perspectives from Faculty Members. Nova Southeastern University.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492459.pdf

108
 153
. Shalaway, L. (2021). Organizing Small Groups: Do You Know All the Options?
| Scholastic. Teacher Resources. https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-
content/organizing-small-groups-do-you-know-all-options/.
154
. N/A. (1989). Moodle for teachers, trainers and administrator. Free Software
Foundation, Inc. V.1.4.3
155
. Group Communication & Collaboration Spaces in Moodle | UMass Amherst
Information Technology | UMass Amherst. (2021). Information Technology.
https://www.umass.edu/it/support/moodle/group-communication-collaboration-spaces-
moodle
156
. Kim, P.J. (2019). Development of a Class Model for Improving Creative
Collaboration Based on The Online Learning System (Moodle) in Korea. Journal of Open
Innovation Technology Market and Complexity 5(3):67.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335696728_Development_of_a_Class_Model
_for_Improving_Creative_Collaboration_Based_on_The_Online_Learning_System_Mo
odle_in_Korea
157
. Gurung, M. (2018). Efficacy of Moodle Forums in Teaching and Learning. The
international Academic forum. https://papers.iafor.org/submission44046/
158
. Campos, E. (2021). Study.com | Take Online Courses. Earn College Credit.
Research Schools, Degrees & Careers. Study.Com.
https://study.com/academy/popular/cognitive-learning-activities-for-the-classroom.html.
159
. Yu, K-C., et al., (2014). Enhancing students’ problem-solving skills through
context-based learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267109315_Enhancing_students%27_proble
m-solving_skills_through_context-based_learning
160
. n.a. Writing about case problems: Key points, from
https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/involved/chapter14.pdf
161
. Baker, M. (2002). Forms of cooperation in dyadic problem-solving. Revue D
Intelligence Artificielle 16(4):587-620.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242934604_Forms_of_cooperation_in_dyadic
_problem-solving
162
. Mansbach, J. (2015). USING TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOP STUDENTS’
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Northwestern.
https://dl.sps.northwestern.edu/blog/2015/09/using-technology-to-develop-students-
critical-thinking-skills/.
163
. Green, J. (2018). THE INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN PROBLEM-
BASED LEARNING. Pressbooks.
https://techandcurriculum.pressbooks.com/chapter/tech_pbl/
164
. Kim, L., et al., (2019). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teacher Personality
on Teacher Effectiveness and Burnout. Educational Psychology Review. Volume 31,
pages163–195. 165. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in
learning to teach. Handbook of research on teacher education.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239666513_The_role_of_attitudes_and_belief
s_in_learning_to_teach
166
. Prakash, J. (1998). What are the most essential methods of Teaching History
to students?. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).
https://www.preservearticles.com/history/methods-of-teaching-history/5365

109
 167
. Rimm-Kaufman, Sara. (2021). Improving Students' Relationships with
Teachers to Provide Essential Supports for Learning. American Psychological
Association. https://www.apa.org/education/k12/relationships
168
. Mendoza S., Hernández-León M., Sánchez-Adame L.M., Rodríguez J.,
Decouchant D., Meneses-Viveros A. (2020) Supporting Student-Teacher Interaction
Through a Chatbot. In: Zaphiris P., Ioannou A. (eds) Learning and Collaboration
Technologies. Human and Technology Ecosystems. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol 12206. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
50506-6_8
169
. n.a. (1999). Motivating teachers to improve instruction. North American
Association of Educational Negotiators.
https://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Employee_Management/Motivating_Teachers_t
o_Improve_Instruction.aspx
170
. Adams, Kari. (2021). Developing a Sense of Community in Online Learning
Environments. National Association for Music Education. https://nafme.org/developing-a-
sense-of-community-in-online-learning-environments/
171
. Barnard-Brak, Lucy., & Shiu, William. (2010). Classroom Community Scale in
the blended learning environment: A psychometric review. International JL im e-learning.
172
. Thomas, Lisa; Herbert, James; and Teras, Marko: A sense of belonging to
enhance participation, success and retention in online programs 2014, 69-80.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1488&context=asdpapers
173
. Shea, Peter. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. Online Learning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255641218_A_study_of_students%27_sense_
of_learning_community_in_online_environments.
174
. Passfield, Ron. (2018). Developing Trust and Your Sense of Belonging. Grow
Mindful. https://growmindfulness.com/developing-trust-and-your-sense-of-belonging/
175
. Aydin, Iren., & Gumus, Salih. (2016). Sense of classroom community and team
development process in online learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-
TOJDE. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092816.pdf
176
. Zeivots, Sandris. (2016). Emotional highs in adult experiential learning.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning Volume 56, Number 3.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1120642.pdf
177
. Wolter-Gustafson, Melissa. (2004). Why I Will Not Become a Teacher. Teacher
Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795297.pdf
178
. Oslo, Kirsten. (N/A). Wounded by School: Recapturing the Joy in Learning and
Standing up to Old School Culture. Teachers College Press
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED527590
179
. N/A. (N/A). 6 strategies for promoting student self-efficacy in your teaching.
The Education Hub. https://www.theeducationhub.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/6-
strategies-for-promoting-student-self-efficacy.pdf
180
. Holmquist, Carol., & Gable, Robert. (2016). The Relationship Between
Academic-Efficacy and Persistence in Adult Remedial Education: A Replication Study.
Johnson and Wales University.
https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=k12_ed

110
 181
. Stanford, Daphne. (2016). How To Motivate Students Online: What Works And
What Doesn’t. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/motivate-students-
online-works-doesnt.
182.
Rosemary, Kim., et al., (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to improve
self-directed learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education
Volume 70, Pages 150-160.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131513002285.
183
. Brush, Kate. (2019). Learning management system (LMS). SearchCIO.
https://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/learning-management-system
184
. Donghyun, Kim. (2017). The impact of learning management systems on
academic performance: Virtual Competency and student Involvement. Journal of Higher
Education Theory and Practice Vol. 17(2). http://www.na-
businesspress.com/JHETP/KimD_Web17_2_.pdf
185
. Tannembaum, C., et al., (2016). Why sex and gender matter in implementation
research. BMC Med Res Methodology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5084413/
186
. Distance Education. Vol. 35, No. 3, 324–344,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955259
187
. Kiener M., Green P., Ahuna K. (2014). Using the Comfortability-in-Learning
Scale to Enhance Positive Classroom Learning Environments. InSight: A Journal of
Scholarly Teaching, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1035847.pdf

111
 Chapter V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Presented in this chapter are the summary of the findings, researchers’ conclusion

based on the discussion of the findings shown in the preceding chapter, and researchers’

recommendations for future researchers.

Summary

This study entitled “Technical-Vocational Teacher Education Students’

Engagement to Online learning” aims to know their level of engagement in online learning.

This focuses only on 92 Technical-Vocational Teacher Education students enrolled in

Bicol University College of Industrial Technology in academic year 2020-2021.

Specifically, this paper seeks to study the: [1] profile of the respondents in terms age, sex,

area of specialization, and learning modality (type of learner); [2] level of TVTED students’

engagement to online learning as perceived by the respondents in terms of psychological

motivation, peer collaboration, cognitive problem solving, interaction with instructors,

community support, and learning management; [3] if there is significant relationship

between the profile of the respondents to the level of student engagement; and 4.)

recommendations to be forwarded to strengthen the level of student engagement.

This study makes use of Quantitative-correlational design. There is only one set of

questionnaires that consist of 2 categories: profile, and level of Student. The Researchers

used Descriptive analysis (frequency, percentage, and mean) to identify the result from

the profile of the respondents and the level of student engagement (frequency and mean),

and Pearson’s R correlational test to determine the significant relationship between profile

112
and their level of student engagement. A survey questionnaire was utilized through

Google Form in gathering the data of the respondents.

Findings

1. In this study, it was found that most of the respondents are 21 years old (n=57; 67%)

and the least were 26 and 36 years old (n=1; 1.1%). It was found that most of the

respondents were female (n=62; 67.4%). In terms of specialization, it shows that most of

the respondents were from Food Service and Management (n=43; 46.7%) whereas the

least were from Garments, Fashion, and Design (n=14 or 15.2%). And it was found that

most of the respondents belonged to poor-fair connectivity (n=81; 88%).

2. The student engagement scale was based from Lee and colleagues’ student

engagement tool which has six parameters that is a 24-item Likert-scale. Each student

engagement parameter (psychological motivation, peer collaboration, cognitive problem-

solving, interaction with instructors, community support, and learning management)

garnered a close-range weighted mean with similar verbal interpretation of “sometimes”.

It was also revealed that Peer collaboration was the highest among the parameter.

However, the overall result yielded a “sometimes” interpretation.

3. In terms of significant relationship between profile and level of engagement, it was

shown that age, sex, and area of specialization have no significant relationship with the

parameters and revealed a very low correlation. The learning modality yielded four (4)

significant relationship with the parameters (psychological motivation, cognitive problem-

solving, community support, and learning management) and revealed a very low

correlation, except the ‘community support’ (low correlation); then the remaining two (2)

113
have shown no significant relationship with the parameter (peer collaboration and

interaction with instructors) and revealed a very low correlation.

4. The researchers found relevant commendations to heighten engagement. These are:

gamification (psychological motivation); maintaining the standard of activities, minimize

of free ride, encouragement of small groups, use of MOODLE (peer collaboration); us of

Moodle tool, promote context based learning, brainwriting like case study, context

simulation activities, dyadic groupings, encourage use of technology tool (cognitive

problem solving); strengthening relationship with students, chatbot tool, teacher reward

(interaction with instructors); use of video and audio, maintain teacher presence, trust

building (community support); self-assessment, self-monitoring progress, and

encouragement for Learning management system (LMS) (learning management).

Conclusions

1. Most of the TVTEd students are 21 by age, female by sex, Food and service

management by specialization, and under the poor-to-fair connectivity by learning

modality.

2. TVTEd students are occasionally engaged in online class and shown average

presence in terms of psychological motivation, peer collaboration, cognitive problem-

solving, interaction with instructors, community support, and learning management. The

researchers concluded too that it can affect their learning presence on which either

students engage or disengage.

3. Learning modality has something to do with students’ level of engagement in online

learning by average. Age, sex, and area of specialization has no significant relationship,

114
hence it could have affect students’ level of engagement due to very low correlation

garnered.

4. Recommendations to heighten student engagement is a context dependent aid. There

could be some ways that these recommendations effectuate and could not, but the

researchers believed that solutions revolve majorly between school, teachers, and

students -since they are the primary participants of educating students.

Recommendations

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the following recommendations are offered:

1. Further undertaking could include all students of a certain program as respondents of

the study regardless of the year level and can add respondents from a different program

for correlation variable.

2. Future researchers can just investigate only 2 parameters for a specified analysis.

3. The findings of the study investigated if there was a significant relationship between

the profile of the respondents and their perceived level of engagement in online class.

Therefore, the researchers suggest that future undertakings could study significant

difference between two respondents from differing institution if available so. Significant

relationship between profile and level of student engagement has been conducted by

other researchers, hence, correlating two differing respondents while investigating the

relationship between profile and level of student engagement could give a broader picture

to the recipients of the future undertakings.

4. The recommendations could be converted into real activities that can improve level of

engagement of the students.

115
 Bibliography

Adams, Kari. (2021). Developing a Sense of Community in Online Learning

Environments. National Association for Music Education.
https://nafme.org/developing-a-sense-of-community-in-online-learning-
environments/
Alavi, M., & Taghedazeh, M. (2013). Cognitive Presence in Virtual Learning
Community: An EFL Case. Research Gate. 65-73.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320191001_Cognitive_Presence_in
_Virtual_Learning_Community_An_EFL_Case
Alawamleh, M. (2020). The effect of online learning on communication between
instructors and Students during Covid-19 pandemic. Asian Education and
Development Studies.
1120.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343897561_The_effect_of_onl
ine_learning_on_communication_between_instructors_and_students_during_
Covid- 19_pandemic
Alfred P. Rovai, Jason D. Baker (2005). Gender Differences in Online Learning: Sense
of Community, Perceived Learning, and Interpersonal Interactions. Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, v6 n1 p31-44. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ874987
Alfred P. Rovai, Michael K. Ponton, Mervyn J. Wighting, And Jason D. Baker (2017).
A Comparative Analysis of Student Motivation in Traditional Classroom and E-
Learning Courses. International Jl. on E-Learning (2007) 6(3), 413-432.
http://www.anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/Rovai%20motiv%20online%2
0and%20onground.pdf
Almasi, M., and Chang, Zhu., 2020. Investigating Students’ Perceptions of Cognitive
Presence in Relation to Learner Performance in Blended Learning Courses: A
Mixed-Methods Approach. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(4), pp.
324-336s https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1276367.pdf.
Amin, Z. (2017). Learning Process-Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism.
Education. https://www.slideshare.net/zulfiquer732/learning-process-
behaviorism-cognitivism-and-Constructivism Amin
Anderson, L., et al., (2020). Blended Learning in Teacher Education. ResearchGate.
45-50.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281642242_Blended_Learning_in_T
eacher_EducaTion
Andrade, C. (2018) Age as a variable: Continuous or categorical?. Indian Journal of
Psychiatry.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5806344/#__ffn_se
ctitle
Anthony G. Picciano (2017). Theories and Frameworks for Online Education: Seeking
an Integrated Model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1154117.pdf
Anu V. (2021). Online Learning Challenges & How to Overcome These Problems.
https://www.embibe.com/exams/online-learning-challenges-and-solutions/
Armando P. Delfino (2017). Student Engagement And Academic Performance Of
Students Of Partido State University. Faculty of Education, Partido State
University, Philippines pp. 2-4. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1222588.pdf.

116
Arzu Devecı̇ Topal (2016). Examination of University Students’ Level of Satisfaction
and Readiness for E-Courses and the Relationship between Them. Russian
Federation European Journal of Contemporary Education ISSN 2219-8229 E-
ISSN 2224-0136 Vol. 15, Is. 1, pp. 7-23.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307690149_Examination_of_Univer
sity_Students%27_Level_of_Satisfaction_and_Readiness_for_ECourses_and
_the_Relationship_between_Them
Ashwin P.,McVitty D. (2015) The Meanings of Student Engagement: Implications for
Policies and Practices. In: Curaj A., Matei L., Pricopie R., Salmi J., Scott P.
(eds) The European Higher Education Area. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877- 0_23
Aydin, Iren., & Gumus, Salih. (2016). Sense of classroom community and team
development process in online learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education-TOJDE. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092816.pdf
B. (n.d.). Socialization Throughout the Life Span | Boundless Sociology. Boundless
Sociology.https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-
sociology/chapter/socialization-throughout-the-life-span/
Baker, M. (2002). Forms of cooperation in dyadic problem-solving. Revue D
Intelligence Artificielle 16(4):587-620.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242934604_Forms_of_cooperation_
in_dyadic_problem-solving
Banfield, J., & Wilkerson, B. (2014). Increasing Student IntrinsicMotivationAnd Self-
EfficacyThrough Gamification Pedagogy. Contemporary Issues In Education
Research. Volume 7, number 4.
https://www.clutejournals.com/index.php/CIER/article/view/8843/8809
Baran, E. (2019, December 1). “Self-regulation in online learning” – Online Learning
Toolbox. Pressbooks.
https://iastate.pressbooks.pub/onlinelearningtoolbox/chapter/cho-shen-self-
regulation-in-
Barnard-Brak, Lucy., & Shiu, William. (2010). Classroom Community Scale in the
blended learning environment: A psychometric review. International JL im
elearning.
Baron, Robert Earl C. Mabulay, Lloyd Gabriel T. Rizada, Christl Jan S. Tiu, Charlie A.
Clarion, John Carlo B. Reyes (2021). “Barriers to Online Learning in the Time
of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines”.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z.pdf.
Bates T. (2016). Who are the founding fathers of distance education? Online Learning
and Distance Education Resources.
https://www.tonybates.ca/2016/09/17/who-are-the-founding-fathers-of-
distance-education/.
Bates, A. W. (2019, October 10). 4.4 Online collaborative learning – Teaching in a
Digital Age. Second Edition. Pressbooks.
https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/chapter/6-5-
onlinecollaborative-learning/
Baticulon R., Sy J., Alberto N., Baron M., Mabulay R., Rizada L., Tiu C., Clarion M.,
and Reyes J.(2021). Barriers to Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19: A

117
 National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines. Medical Science
educator.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z
Becirovic, S. (2017). The relationship between gender, motivation and achievement
in learning english as a foreign language. Slovak Republic European Journal
of Contemporary Education. 54-60.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318777886_The_relationship_betwe
en_gender_motivation_and_achievement_in_learning_english_as_a_foreign_
langu
Bernie S. Fabito, Arlene O. Trillanes, Jeshnile R. Sarmiento (2020). Barriers and
Challenges of Computing Students in an Online Learning Environment:
Insights from One Private University in the Philippines. Cornell University.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02121.
Bhandari P. (2021). An introduction to quantitative research. Scribbr.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-research/
Bhandari P. (n.d.). “Designing and Analyzing a Likert Scale: What, Why and How.”
Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/likert-
scale/?fbclid=IwAR1TNtDgwpbsgHMtWAuGb5GcjgR5FM0U-3-
g2wQWFvA1s3klUHIsVqEsJlA.
Bilim, Egitim., et al., (2014) Examination of the Relationship between Students’
Attitudes towards Computer and Self-Directed Learning with Technology.
ResearchGate. 67-73.
Biyun Huang and Khe Foon Hew (2016). Measuring Learners’ Motivation Level in
Massive Open. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,
Vol. 6, No. 10. http://www.ijiet.org/vol6/788-A001.pdf
Bob Samuels (2014). Online education and the dangers of multitasking. University
World news.
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20140129114437933
Bonsteel, S. (2012). APA PsycNET. The Charleston Advisor, 14(1), 16–19.
Bonz Magsambol (2020). 44,000 college students won't enroll during pandemic, says
group. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/nation/college-students-wont-enroll-
pandemic-pasuc.
Bonz Magsambol (2020). Fast Facts: CHED's Flexible Learning. Rappler.
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/things-to-know-ched-flexible-learning.
Bostrom, L. (2013). How Do Students in Vocational Programs Learn? A Study of
Similarities and Differences in Learning Strategies. International Journal of
Sciences. Volume 2, 45-56. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:638271/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Brindley, J. & Walti, C.(2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ847776.pdf
Brush, Kate. (2019). Learning management system (LMS). SearchCIO.
https://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/learning-management-system
Burns, M. (2016). 5 Strategies to Deepen Student Collaboration.
Edutopia.https://www.edutopia.org/article/5-strategies-deepen-student-
collaboration-mary- burns
Byuju Classes (n.d.). Percentage Formula. Byuju’s. https://byjus.com/percentage-
formula/

118
Campos, E. (2021). Study.com | Take Online Courses. Earn College Credit. Research
Schools, Degrees & Careers. Study.Com.
https://study.com/academy/popular/cognitive- learning-activities-for-the-
classroom.html.
Capps, M. (2003). CHARACTERISTICS OF A SENSE OF BELONGING AND ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMICACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS IN
SELECTED MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN REGION IV AND VI
EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS, TEXAS. ResearchGate. 23-30.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147123656.pdf
Cari Gillen-O'Neel (2021). Sense of Belonging and Student Engagement: A Daily
Study of First- and Continuing-Generation College Students. Springer.
Research in Higher Education
62(4).https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335454728_Sense_of_Belong
ing_a nd_Student_Engagement_A_Daily_Study_of_First-_and_Continuing-
Generation_College_Students.
Cathrine Gonzales (2020). CHED: Only 20% of SUCs equipped to facilitate online
classes. Inquirer net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1269090/ched-only-20-of-
sucs-equipped-to-facilitate-online-classes.
Cathy Li, Farah Lalani (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education
forever. This is how. World Health Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-
covid19-online-digital-learning/.
Celkan, G., et al., (2016) Student Perceptions of Teacher Respect Toward College
Students. Elsevier Ltd. 33-35.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282536238_Student_Perceptions_o
f_Teacher_Respect_Toward_College_Students
Chaplin, T. (2015). Gender and Emotion Expression: A Developmental Contextual
Perspective. Emot-Rev. 15-21.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469291/
Charles, S. & Carstensen, L. (2010). Social ang Emotional Changing. Annul Rev
Psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950961/Charo
Reparaz, Maite Aznárez-Sanado, Guillermo Mendoza (2020). Self-regulation
of learning and MOOC retention. Computers in Human Behavior.
https://www.x-mol.com/paper/1259931166514020352
Ched (2019). Higher Education Enrollment by Program Level and Sex: AY 2018-19.
https://ched.gov.ph/higher-education-enrollment-by-program-level-and-sex-
ay-2018-19/
CHED (n.d.) 2019 Higher Education Facts and Figures. https://ched.gov.ph/2019-
higher-education-facts-and-figures/.
Ched, “Top 10 Most Populated Program (in terms of Enrollment) by Sex: AY 2018-19”
August 8, 2019, https://ched.gov.ph/top-10-most-populated-program-in-terms-
of-enrollment-by-sex-ay-2018-19/
Cherry, K. (2021). How Does Self-Determination Theory Explain Motivation? Verywell
Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-self-determination-theory-
2795387

119
Cherry, K.(2020). What Is Operant Conditioning and How Does It Work?.
Verywellmind.https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-
2794863 [120]
Child, S., & Shaw, S. (2016). Collaboration in the 21st century: Implications for
assessment. A Cambridge Assessment publication. 34-52.
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/374626-collaboration-in-
the-21st-century-implications-for-assessment.pdf
Chiung-Sui Chang, Eric Zhi-Feng Liu, Hung-Yen Sung, Chun-Hung Lin, Nian-Shing
Chen, Shan-Shan Cheng (2013). Effects of online college student’s Internet
self-efficacy on learning motivation and performance. Publication Cover
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Volume 51, 2014 - Issue
4. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14703297.2013.771429
Christensen, S., & Spackman, J. (2014) DROPOUT RATES, STUDENT
MOMENTUM, AND COURSE WALLS: A NEW TOOL FOR DISTANCE
EDUCATION DESIGNERS. JOURNAL OF EDUCATO`RS ONLINE. 30-45.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150708.pdf
Christine E. Wade;, Bruce A. Cameron, Kari Morgan, Karen C. Williams (2011). Are
Interpersonal Relationships Necessary for Developing Trust in Online Group
Projects? Distance Education, v32 n3 p383-396 2011.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ953010
Christoffels, I., & Baay, P. (2016). 21ste-eeuwse vaardigheden in het mbo. 'Vaardig'
voor de toekomst. (21st century skills in middle vocational Education 'Skillful'
for the future). (pp. 1–8). 's Hertogenbosch (the Netherlands): Expertise
centrum Beroepsonderwijs.
Cislaghi, B. & Heise, A. (2019). Gender Norms And Social Norms: Differences,
Similarities And Why They Matter In Prevention Science. Wiley Online Library.
Volume 42, issue 2. 101-110.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9566.13008
Clark, R. (2015, August 28). Are There Age-Related Differences in the Ability to Learn
Configural Responses? Plos One.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137260
CNDLS: Top Qualities of an Effective Teacher. (2021). CNDLS.
https://cndls.georgetown.edu/atprogram/twl/effective-teacher/
COGNITIVE_DEVELOPMENT_AN_EDUCATIONAL_IMPLICATIONS
“Correlation, Pearson.” Sage Research Methods.
http://methods.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-
communication-research-
methods/i3422.xml?fbclid=IwAR0u66bG0A2ABvNLY4Egtz6oGiVgq_QxCZQ
OppOvmJT6rw8Gvx5rWR2Me3k.
Cushman, K. (2014). Conditions for Motivated Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 18–
22. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171409500805
Dahlstrom, C. (2017) Impacts of gamification on intrinsic motivation. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
https://www.ntnu.edu/documents/139799/1279149990/04+Article+Final_camil
dah_forsøk_2017-12-06-13-53-55_TPD4505.Camilla.Dahlstrøm.pdf

120
Dale M.(2012). Trends in the Age Composition of College and University Students
and Graduates. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-
004-x/2010005/article/11386-eng.htm
Distance Education. Vol. 35, No. 3, 324–344,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955259
Donghyun, Kim. (2017). The impact of learning management systems on academic
performance: Virtual Competency and student Involvement. Journal of Higher
Education Theory and Practice Vol. 17(2). http://www.na-
businesspress.com/JHETP/KimD_Web17_2_.pdf
Donlosky, J., et al., (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning
Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1) 4–58.
https://pcl.sitehost.iu.edu/rgoldsto/courses/dunloskyimprovinglearning.pdf
Doris U. Bolliger, Colleen Halupa (2017). Online student perceptions of engagement,
transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, Volume 39, 2018 -
Issue 3, Pages 299-316.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
e_learning_experiences_through_the_use_of_self-regulation_strategies
Ed Glantz, Chris Gamrat, Lisa Lenze, Jeffrey Bardzell (2021). Improved Student
Engagement in Higher Education’s Next Normal. Education and Learning.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/3/improved-student-engagement-in-
higher-educations-next-normal
EducationWorld. (2021, February 9). Impact of online learning on school education.
https://www.educationworld.in/impact-of-online-learning-on-school education/
Emad Shahrouri (2016). The Impact Of Garrison’s Model Of Self-Directed Learning
On Improving Academic Self- Concept For Undergraduate Students" “Aue As
A Model”. International Journal of Education, Learning and Development Vol.4,
No.10, pp.36-45. https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-impact-
of-Garrison’s-Model-of-Self-directed-Learning-on-Improving-Academic-Self-
Concept-for-Undergraduate-Students.pdf
Fabito Bernie, Trillanes Arlene & Sarmiento Jeshnille.”Barriers and Challenges
of Computing Students in an Online Learning Environment: Insights from One
Private University in the Philippines”ArXiv, 2020. 123-130
Feliciano H. Veiga (2016). Assessing student Engagement in School: Development
and validation of a four-dimensional scale. Social and Behavioral Sciences. pp.
813 – 815.
Feliciano H. Veiga, John marshall Reeve, Kathryn Wentzel, Viorel Robu (201).
Assessing students’ engagement: A review of instruments with psychometric
qualities. International Perspectives of Psychology and Education,.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/32332897.pdf
Framework_for_Creating_Learner_Engagement_through_Information_and_Commu
nication_Technology
French, L., et al., (2021). Do Gifted Students Really Prefer to Work Alone?. Research
Gate. 145-159.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233013326_Do_Gifted_Students_R
eally_Prefer_to_Work_Alone

121
Galusha, M. Jill. (2001). Barriers to Learning in Distance Education.
http://www.infrastruction.com/barriers.html
Garrison, H. (2004) Cognitive Presence in Online Learning Heather. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education Spring, Vol. 15(2), 30-.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225321397_Cognitive_presence_in
_online_learning
Geerlings, Peter M.; Cole, Helen; Batt, Sharryn; and Martin-Lynch, Pamela, Peer
Assisted Study Sessions (PASS): Does Gender Matter?, Journal of Peer
Learning, 9, 2016, 10-25.3.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1115035.pdf
Geng, S. (2019, May 21). Investigating self-directed learning and technology
readiness in blending learning environment. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education.
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s412
39-019-0147-0
Gilbert & Brittany(2015). Online Learning Revealing the Benefits and Challenges;
Education Masters. Paper 303. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48619313.pdf
Gloria, B. (2001). Gender differences in social reasoning during peer collaboration.
Texts Tech University Libraries. 67-70. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/16334
Glossary of Education (2016). Student Engagement, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement/
Goldberg, L., et al., (1965) Age Norms, Age Constraints, and Adult Socialization. The
University of Chicago Press. Vol. 70, No 6.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2774397
Gonzales, C. “SWS: 31% of families with distance learners have weak internet
connection” INQUIRER.NET, 2021. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1403566/sws-31-of-
families-with-distance-learners-have-weak-internet-connection
Goodridge, W., et al., (2017). A Learning Style Comparison between Synchronous
Online and Face-to-Face Engineering Graphics Instruction. Canadian Center
of Science and Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1130382.pdf
Gopalan, M. & Brady, S. (2019). College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A
National Perspective. Educational Researcher, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 134–137.
https://education.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/DEI/Gopalan%2C%20M.%2C
%20%26%20Brady%2C%20S.%20T.%20%282020%29.%20College%20stud
ents’%20sense%20of%20belonging-%20A%20national%20perspective..pdf
Gopalan, V., et al., (2017). A review of motivation theories in Learning. AIP
Conference Proceedings. 13-18.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320204050_A_review_of_the_motiv
ation_theories_in_learning
Gove, W. (1994). Why We Do What We Do: A Biopsychosocial Theory of Human
Motivation. Oxford University Press. 76-80.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271776235_Why_We_Do_What_W
e_Do_A_Biopsychosocial_Theory_of_Human_Motivation
GOVPH. “PH moves up in mobile internet speed global rankings” February 20,
2021.https://dict.gov.ph/ph-moves-up-in-mobile-internet-speed-global-
rankings/

122
Green, J. (2018). THE INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN PROBLEM-BASED
LEARNING. Pressbooks.
https://techandcurriculum.pressbooks.com/chapter/tech_pbl/
Group Communication & Collaboration Spaces in Moodle | UMass Amherst
Information Technology | UMass Amherst. (2021). Information Technology.
https://www.umass.edu/it/support/moodle/group-communication-
collaboration-spaces-moodle
Gulten Genc, Emine Kulusakli, Savas Aydin (2016). A Comparative Study On The
Motivation And Attitudes Of Language Learners Of Online Distance And
Traditional In-Classroom Education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education-TOJDE, Volume: 17 Number: 4 Article 4.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/229996
Gurung, M. (2018). Efficacy of Moodle Forums in Teaching and Learning. The
international Academic forum. https://papers.iafor.org/submission44046/
Hagerty, B., et al., (2004). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and
psychological functioning. Science Direct. 78-80
Halili, S., et al., (2015). Exploring the Link Between Learning Styles and Gender
Among Distance Learners. Elsevier ltd. 23-30.
Hanus, M., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort,
and academic performance. Volume 80, Pages 152-161.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131514002000
Hartley, K. W. (1999). Media overload in instructional Web pages and the impact on
learning. Educational Media International, 36(2), 145-150.
Harvard Health. (2017, August 30). How memory and thinking ability change with age.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/how-memory-and-thinking-
ability-change-with-age
Hausmann, L. (2009). Sense of Belonging and Persistence in White and African
American First-Year Students. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 45-50.
https://uploads-
ssl.webflow.com/59faaf5b01b9500001e95457/5bc55a0236f9e465d23c7377_
Hausmann%2C%20L.%20R.%2C%20Ye%2C%20F.%2C%20Schofield%2C
%20J.%20W.%2C%20%26%20Woods%2C%20R.%20L.%202009.pdf
Holmquist, Carol., & Gable, Robert. (2016). The Relationship Between Academic-
Efficacy and Persistence in Adult Remedial Education: A Replication Study.
Johnson and Wales University.
https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=k12
_edhttps://doi.org/10.5260/chara.14.1.16
Hyde, J., et al., (2000) The Gender Stereotyping of Emotions. Cambridge
University Press. 81-92. https://devinelab.psych.wisc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/1383/2020/04/The-gender-stereotyping-of-emotions.pdf
Irwanto, I. (2019). CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 4.0. VANOS Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Education.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337330187_CHARACTERISTICS_

123
 OF_EFFECTIVE_VOCATIONAL_EDUCATION_IN_THE_INDUSTRIAL_REV
OLUTION_40
Isman, A., et al., (2003). Communication Barriers in Distance Education. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495703.pdf
Jandrić, P. (2020, August 7). Teaching in the Age of Covid-19. Postdigital Science
and Education. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42438-020-00169-
6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=601ad2fe-faa1-49f5-8139-
6dfd7a65fb80Jane Pilling-Cormick, Randy Garrison (2007). Self-Directed and
Self-Regulated Learning: Conceptual Links. Canadian Journal of University
Continuing Education Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 13–33.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.914.7500&rep=rep
1&type=pdf
Jean B. Mandernach (2015). Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher
Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools.
https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/367.
Jenni Parker (2017). Online learning / elearning. Technology Toolbox for Educators.
https://sites.google.com/site/technologytoolboxforeducators/about-
learning/online-blended.
Jennifer A. Fredricks, Phyllis Blumenfeld, Jeanne Friedel, Alison Paris (2004). School
of Engagement. https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/Child_Trends-2003_03_12_PD_PDConfFBFP.pdf.
Jennifer A. Fredricks, Wendy McColskey (2012). The Measurement of Student
Engagement: A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-
report Instruments. Springer. pp.763-777.
https://www.lcsc.org/cms/lib6/MN01001004/Centricity/Domain/108/The%20M
easurement%20of%20Student%20Engagement-
%20A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Various%20Methods.pdf
Jennifer Fredricks, Jane Meli, Bianca Montrosse, Joy Mordica, Kathleen Mooney
(2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high
school: a description of 21 instruments. Regional Educational Laboratory No.
098. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514996.pdf
Jennifer Fredricks, Wendy McColskey, Jane Meli, Bianca Montrosse, Joy Mordica
Kathleen Mooney, (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary
through high school: a description of 21 instruments.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514996.pdf.
Jeongju Lee, Hae-Deok Song, Ah Jeong Hong (2019). Exploring Factors, and
Indicators for Measuring Students’ Sustainable Engagement in e-Learning.
Sustainability. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/985.
Jeremiah Joven B. Joaquin, Hazel T. Biana, Mark Anthony Dacela (2020). The
Philippine Higher Education Sector in the Time of COVID-19. Frontiers of
Education.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.576371/full.
Jonathan Martin, Amada Torres (N.D). What Is Student Engagement And Why Is It
Important?https://www.nais.org/Articles/Documents/Member/2016%20HSSS
E%20Chapter-1.pdf

124
Joshua Stern (n.d). Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning.
http://www.wlac.edu/online/documents/otl.pdf.
Josie Misk (2008). Combining formal, non-formal and informal learning for workforce
skill development. NCVER Australian Industry Group.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503360.pdf
Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 4th International Seminar of Mathematics,
Science and Computer Science Education, from
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/011001/pdf
Ju Kang, M., et al., (2002). Developing a Cognitive Presence Scale for Measuring
Students’ Involvement during the e-Learning Process. Educational Technology,
Research and Development, 50(2), 23-38.
https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings07/2007/07_15.pdf
Kalkowski, K. & Fritz, S. (2004). A Survey of Gender-Related Motiv y of Gender-
Related Motivation Studies: Subor ation Studies: Subordinate. Faculty
Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/31
Karin, K. (2021). Student Motivation and Engagement. Online Teaching.
https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/motivation.html
Kawamura, K. Y. (n.d.). Asian Cultures - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.
ScienceDirect. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/asian-cultures
Keller JM. "Motivation and Performance." In Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology, edited by Reiser RA, Dempsey
JV, 82-92. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall,
2007.
Kemp, N., & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates'
opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Frontiers in
Psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228829
Kerka, S. (1996). Distance Learning, the Internet, and the WorldWide Web. ERIC
Digest. ERIC Development Team. 5-7.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED395214.pdf
Kiener M., Green P., Ahuna K. (2014). Using the Comfortability-in-Learning Scale to
Enhance Positive Classroom Learning Environments. InSight: A Journal of
Scholarly Teaching, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1035847.pdf
Kim Kyong-Jee & Frick Theodore (2011). CHANGES IN STUDENT
MOTIVATION DURING ONLINE LEARNING.Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
210-220.
http://www.anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/Kim2011%20changes%20in%
20motivation.Pdf
Kim, L., et al., (2019). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teacher Personality on
Teacher Effectiveness and Burnout. Educational Psychology Review. Volume
31, pages163–195. 165. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs
in learning to teach. Handbook of research on teacher education.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239666513_The_role_of_attitudes_
and_beliefs_in_learning_to_teach

125
Kim, P.J. (2019). Development of a Class Model for Improving Creative Collaboration
Based on The Online Learning System (Moodle) in Korea. Journal of Open
Innovation Technology Market and Complexity 5(3):67.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335696728_Development_of_a_Cla
ss_Model_for_Improving_Creative_Collaboration_Based_on_The_Online_Le
arning_System_Moodle_in_Korea
Kitmann, K. (2012). Learning about Emotion: cultural and family contexts of emotion
socialization. Global Studies Childhood. Vol. 2, 45-50.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/gsch.2012.2.2.82
Kline, T. (2011) Applying Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs In Our Classrooms. Change
kids lives. http://www.changekidslives.org/actions-4
Kurt Reusser, Christine Pauli (2015) Collaborative Learning: Co-constructivism in
Educational Theory and Practice. International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences 2nd edition, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/collaborative-learning.
Laerd Dissertation (n.d.). Total population sampling.
https://dissertation.laerd.com/total-population-sampling.php
Laura Kassner, Deborah Jonas, Steve Klein (2020). Dropout Prevention in the Time
of COVID-19.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/appalachia/blogs/blog29_dropout-
prevention-in-COVID-19.asp
Laura McNeill, Margaret Rice, Vivian Wright (2019). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis
of a Teaching Presence Instrument in an Online Computer Applications
Course. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume XXII,
Number 4.
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter224/mcneillricewright224.html.
Lawrence, K. (2021). 4 Different Learning Styles You Should Know: The VARK Model.
Education Online. https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/4-different-
learning-styles-to-know
Laymon Med, Stephanie (2010) "Implications of Collaboration in Education,"
Academic Leadership: The Online Journal: Vol. 8 : Iss. 4 ,Article 35.
https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1535&context=alj
Learners undertaking eLearning Programmes. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 76-82.
https://jolt.merlot.org/documents/Vol2_No2_TylerSmith_000.pdf
Lee Yen Chaw, Chun Meng Tang (2019). Driving High Inclination to Complete
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Motivation and Engagement Factors
for LearnersThe Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(2), pp. 118-
130,https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1221333.pdf
Lefa, B. (2014) The piaget theory of cognitive development: An educational
implications. ResearchGate. 45-55.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265916960_THE_PIAGET_THEOR
Y_OF_COGNITIVE_DEVELOPMENT_AN_EDUCATIONAL_IMPLICATIONS
Lenzo, V., et al., (2016). Gender Differences In Anxiety, Depression And
Metacognition. Future Academy www.FutureAcademy.org.uk. 67-70.

126
Lerras, B., et al., (2018). Gender and Student Participation. Journal of the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 18, No.4, pp. 65-70.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1200685.pdf
Linda Harasim (2021). Online Collaborative Learning Theory, accessed March 3, 2021
from https://www.lindaharasim.com/online-collaborative-learning/ocl- theory/
Lindita Bektashi (n.d.). Community Of Inquiry Framework In Online Learning: Use Of
Technology. Technology And The Curriculum, accessed march 3, 2021 from
https://techandcurriculum.pressbooks.com/chapter/coi-and-online-learning/
Little, W. (2014, November 6). Chapter 12. Gender, Sex, and Sexuality – Introduction
to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition. Pressbooks.
https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter12-gender-sex-
and-sexuality/
Lodge. A., et al., (2018) ‘Understanding Difficulties and Resulting Confusion in
Learning: An Integrative Review. Creative Commons Attributes License. 33-35.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2018.00049/full
Lumen Learning. (2021). Motivation | Introduction to Psychology. Lumen.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/introduction-
motivation/ 82.
1.https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/motivation.html
Lumen Learning. (n.d.). Cognitive Development in Late Adulthood | Lifespan
Development. Lumen. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-
lifespandevelopment/chapter/cognitive-development-in-late-adulthood/
LumenLearning (N.D). Student Engagement: Module 6: How Do We Differentiate
Instruction To Meet Our Students’ Needs.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationx92x1/chapter/94/
Lundstrom, J., et al., (2014). Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills.
American Psychological Association. 35-40.
Magai, C. (2001). Emotions over the life span. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.),
Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 165–183). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Maja Lebeničnik, Ian Pitt, Andreja Istenič Starčič (2015). Use of Online Learning
Resources in the Development of Learning Environments at the Intersection of
Formal and Informal Learning: The Student as Autonomous Designer. C E P S
Journal Vol.5. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1128946.pdf
Mansbach, J. (2015). USING TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOP STUDENTS’
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Northwestern.
https://dl.sps.northwestern.edu/blog/2015/09/using-technology-to-develop-
students-critical-thinking-skills/.
Maria DeVito (2016). Factors Influencing Student Engagement. Sacred Heart
University DigitalCommons@SHU pp. 10-16.
https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsre
dir=1&article=1010&context=edl.
Marina Sandoval (n.d). Student Engagement Literature review.
http://marinasandoval.weebly.com/literature-review.html.
MateEchidna (n.d.). Online education and the academic performance among the
information communication students of ACLC College of Tagum. CourseHero.

127
 https://www.coursehero.com/file/pd9vbm/Hence-asynchronous-e-learning- can-
scaffold-students-previous-knowledge-with-new/
Mather, M. (2013). The emotion paradox in the aging brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 34-49.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395773/#__ffn_sectitle
McArdle, G., et al., (2005). The Free Rider and Cooperative Learning Groups:
Perspectives from Faculty Members. Nova Southeastern University.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492459.pdf
McCall, D. E. (2002). Factors influencing participation and perseverance in online
distance learning courses: A case study in continuing professional education.
McCarthy, E. Doyle, "The Social Construction of Emotions: New Directions from
Culture Theory" (1994). Sociology Faculty Publications. 4.
https://fordham.bepress.com/soc_facultypubs/4
McCombes S. (2020). A quick guide to proofreading. Scribbr.
https://www.scribbr.com/author/shona/page/3/
Mcleod, S. (2020, December 29). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
McNeill, S. & Kristie, J.R. (2015). Differences in Social Interaction Patterns between
Teachers and their Students Based on Gender. Journal of Undergraduate
Research. 43-50. http://jur.byu.edu/?p=19056
Mehmet Kara, Fatih Erdoğdu, Mehmet Kokoç, Kursat Cagiltay, (2019). “Challenges
Faced by Adult Learners in Online, Distance Education: A Literature Review”.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213733.pdf.
Mendoza S., Hernández-León M., Sánchez-Adame L.M., Rodríguez J., Decouchant
D., Meneses-Viveros A. (2020) Supporting Student-Teacher Interaction
Through a Chatbot. In: Zaphiris P., Ioannou A. (eds) Learning and Collaboration
Technologies. Human and Technology Ecosystems. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol 12206. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-50506-6_8
Michele T. Cole, Daniel J. Shelley, Louis B. Swartz (2014). Online instruction, e-
learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), accessed March 3, 2021
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1748
Mill, L. “Barriers to online learning (and how to overcome them!)” The Hub, August 22,
2019. https://news.athabascau.ca/learners/barriers-to-online-learning-and- how-
to-overcome-them/
Miri Barak, Abeer Watted, Hossam Haick (2015). Motivation to Learn in Massive Open
Online Courses: Examining Aspects of Language and Social Engagement.
Computers & Education 94.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284797914_Motivation_to_Learn_in
_Massive_Open_Online_Courses_Examining_Aspects_of_Language_and_S
ocial_Engagement
Moallem, M. (2015). The Impact Of Synchronous And Asynchronous Communication
Tools On Learner Self-Regulation, Social Presence, Immediacy, Intimacy And
Satisfaction In Collaborative Online Learning. The Online Journal of Distance
Education and e-Learning.
https://www.tojdel.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v03i03/v03i03-08.pdf

128
Mohammed, A., et al., (2017). Levels of Interaction Provided by Online Distance
Education Models. ISER Publications. 10-15.
https://www.ejmste.com/download/levels-of-interaction-provided-by-online-
distance-education-models-4795.pdf
Muntean, C. (2002). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Babes-
Bolyai University.
http://icvl.eu/2011/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologi
es_paper42.pdf
n.a. (1989). Moodle for teachers, trainers and administrator. Free Software
Foundation, Inc. V.1.4.3
n.a. (1999). Motivating teachers to improve instruction. North American Association of
Educational Negotiators.
https://www.osba.org/Resources/Article/Employee_Management/Motivating_
Teachers_to_Improve_Instruction.aspx
n.a. (2011) Philippines Educational System: An overview.
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1199/Philippines-
EDUCATIONAL-SYSTEM-AN-OVERVIEW.html
n.a. (2019). Gender terminology and definitions. UNESCO.
https://bangkok.unesco.org/sites/default/files/assets/article/Education/publicati
ons/GENIA2019/19_Dec_GENIA_Toolkit_1.pdf
n.a. (n.d.). 6 strategies for promoting student self-efficacy in your teaching. The
Education Hub. https://www.theeducationhub.org.nz/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/6-strategies-for-promoting-student-self-efficacy.pdf
n.a. Erikson’s 8 Stages of Psychosocial Development, from
https://gcwgandhinagar.com/econtent/document/1587961371UNIT-2.pdf
n.a. Writing about case problems: Key points, from
https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/involved/chapter14.pdf
Nicholas, T.D. (2006). JOHN DEWEY’S THEORY OF INQUIRY: AN
INTERPRETATION OF A CLASSICAL AMERICAN APPROACH TO LOGIC.
Texas A&M University. 56-78. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4270815.pdf
Nick Gehl (2019). How to Brainstorm and Collaborate with Students Online. The Art
of education University, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://theartofeducation.edu/2020/09/02/how-to-brainstorm-and-collaborate-
with-students-online/
Nicolás Pino-James (2015). Golden Rules for Engaging Students in Learning
Activities. Edutopia, accessed march 3, 2021 from
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/golden-rules-for-engaging-students-nicolas- pino-
james.
Nurlaela, L., Suparji, S., Budi, K., Pratama, S., & Irawati, Y. (2018). Inquiry-Based
Learning to Studentsr Creative Thinking Skills in Vocational High School.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Indonesian Technical
Vocational Education and Association (APTEKINDO 2018). Published.
https://doi.org/10.2991/aptekindo-18.2018.19
Nwankwo, A.A. (2015). Students' Learning Experiences and Perceptions of Online
Course Content and Interactions. Walden University

129
 ScholarWorks.https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1
187&context=dissertations
OECD (2017), "Students' sense of belonging at school and their relations with
teachers", in PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students' Well-Being, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-11-en.
Ogawa, A. (2011). Facilitating Self-Regulated Learning: An Exploratory Case of
Teaching a University Course on Japanese Society. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Volume 23, Number 2, 166-174.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ946141.pdf
Ogunjinmi, A. A. (2016). Specialisation Preferences and Perceived Motivation in
Ecotourism and Wildlife Management Programme at the Federal University of
Technology, Akure, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 20(2), 59.
https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v20i2.5
online-learning/
Oppenheimer, M. (2017) Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Theory Revision.
Association for Psychological Science.
Vol12(5).4.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321012999_Bronfenbren
ner%27s_Bioecological_Theory_Revision
Oqab Alrashidi, Huy P. Phan, Bing H. Ngu (2016). Academic Engagement: An
Overview of Its Definitions, Dimensions, and Major Conceptualisations.
International Education Studies, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1121524.pdf.
Oslo, Kirsten. (n.d.). Wounded by School: Recapturing the Joy in Learning and
Standing up to Old School Culture. Teachers College Press
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED527590
Paolo Romeron (2020). College Enrollment May Plunge By Up To 70 Percent,
Officials Warn. One newsPH. https://www.onenews.ph/college-enrollment- may-
plunge-by-up-to-70-percent-officials-warn.
Papia Bawa (2016). Retention in Online Courses: Exploring Issues and Solutions—A
Literature Review. Sage Journals.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244015621777.
Paris Ben (2016) Failing to Improve Critical Thinking. Inside Higher Ed, from
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/29/roadblocks-better-critical-
thinking-skills-are-embedded-college-experience-essay
Passfield, Ron. (2018). Developing Trust and Your Sense of Belonging. Grow Mindful.
https://growmindfulness.com/developing-trust-and-your-sense-of-belonging/
Patterson, A., et al., (2018). Synchronous and Asynchronous Discussions: Effects on
Cooperation, Belonging, and Affect. Online Learning Journal.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1202382.pdf
Paul Ashwin, Debbie McVitty (2015). The Meanings of Student Engagement:
Implications for Policies and Practices, accessed March 3,2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312862857_The_Meanings_of_Stud
ent_Engagement_Implications_for_Policies_and_Practices.
Penningroth, S. L. (2019, June 3). Age-related differences in the goals and concerns
that motivate real-life prospective memory tasks. PLOS ONE.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216888

130
Pentrich, P. & Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning
Components of Classroom Academic Performance. American Psychological
Association, Inc, 33-40. http://rhartshorne.com/fall-2012/eme6507-
rh/cdisturco/eme6507-
eportfolio/documents/pintrich%20and%20degroodt%201990.pdf
Perveen, A. (2016) Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Language Learning: A Case
Study of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Praxis, vol. 8 issue 1, pp. 21–39.
Peter, S. (2006) A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. University at Albany - State University of New. 5-10
Philip Little, Beth Jones (n.d.) A comparison of student performance in face to face
classes versus online classes versus hybrid classes using open educational
resources. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies
Volume.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1263878.pdf
Phillips, L., et al., (2002) Age and the Understanding of Emotions: Neuropsychological
and Sociocognitive Perspectives. Oxford Academic.
https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/57/6/P526/669626
Poellhuber, B., et al., (2006). The Effect of Peer Collaboration and Collaborative
Learning on Self-Efficacy and Persistence in a Learner-Paced Continuous Intake
Model. JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ812561.pdf
Politis, J. & Politis D. (2016). The Relationship Between an Online Synchronous
Learning Environment and Knowledge Acquisition Skills and Traits: The
Blackboard Collaborate Experience. ACPIL.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107132.pdf
Pooja, P. (2017). “A STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVE
ABILITIES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS”. RVS College of Education, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu,
India. Vol-3 Issue-3. Pooja
Porcalla, D. “Philippines internet ‘second slowest’ in Asean, ranks 110th worldwide,”
Philstar global, 2020.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/12/28/2066612/philippines-internet-
second-slowest-asean-ranks-110th-worldwide.
Poth, R. D. (2018, October 14). Collaboration: Bringing Students Together to Promote
Learning. Getting Smart. https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/10/collaboration-
bringing-students-together-to-promote-learning-can-move/
Prakash, J. (1998). What are the most essential methods of Teaching History to
students?. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).
https://www.preservearticles.com/history/methods-of-teaching-history/5365
Qayyum, A. Student help-seeking attitudes and behaviors in a digital era. Int J Educ
Technol High Educ 15, 17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0100-7
Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, Walter Archer (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 87-105. http://communitiesofinquiry.com/model
Randy Garrison(2011). Teaching in Blended learning environments: Creating and
Sustaining Communities of Inquiry. AU Press, Athabasca University 1200, 10011
– 109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287556984_E-

131
 Learning_in_the_21st_century_A_framework_for_research_and_practice_Se
cond_edition
Rebecca Soden & R. T. Pithers (2001) Knowledge matters in vocational problem-
solving: a cognitive view, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53:2,
205-222, DOI:10.1080/13636820100200163
Reinhart, J. (1999). Student motivation, self-efficacy and task difficulty in Web-based
instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Rimm-Kaufman, Sara. (2021). Improving Students' Relationships with Teachers to
Provide Essential Supports for Learning. American Psychological Association.
https://www.apa.org/education/k12/relationships
Robinson, P. (2012). Abilities to Learn: Cognitive Abilities. SpringerLink.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-1428-
6_620?error=cookies_not_supported&code=65f5eb2a-aa15-41a1-939b-
91c5850beed5
Robinsons, A., et al., (1994) Gender Roles and Study Habits. Eric.ed. gov. 34-40.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED389998.pdf
Rodriguez B. (2017). What is a Weighted Average. Sciencing.
https://sciencing.com/weighted-averages-survey-analysis-8633297.html
Rollero, C., et al., (2004). A Gender Lens on Quality of Life: The Role of Sense of
Community, Perceived Social Support, Self-Reported Health and Income. Social
Indicator Research. 45-50.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257664451_A_Gender_Lens_on_Q
uality_of_Life_https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326071057_The_role
_of_age_in_students%27_motivation_and_achievement_in_learning_English
_as_a_second_language
Rosemary, Kim., et al., (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to improve self-
directed learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education
Ruiying Li, Tao Jiang, Jing Yong, Hongyu Zhou (2018). College Students’ Interpersonal
Relationship and Empathy Level Predict Internet Altruistic Behavior—Empathy Level
and Online Social Support as Mediators. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2018, Pages: 1-7.
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=201&doi=
10.11648/j.pbs.20180701.11
Russell W. Rumberger, Sun Ah Lim (2008). Why Students Drop Out of School: A
Review of 25 Years of Research. California Dropout Research Project Report
#15. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/11658/11658.pdf.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist.
https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf
Santandreu, J., et al., (N/A). The complexity of communication in a course environment:
a case study. Journal of Case Studies in Education. 5-10
Saul Mcleod, 2019. Likert Scale Definition, Examples and Analysis: Frequency.
Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html.
Schaap, H., et al., (2016). Interactions in vocational education: negotiation of meaning
of students and teaching strategies. Studies in continuing education. 45-63.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1234451

132
Schweitzer, Karen. “What Does Hospitality Management Include?” CHRON,
2020.https://smallbusiness.chron.com/hospitality-management-include-
79536.html
Selim Gunuc, Abdullah Kuzu (2014). Student engagement scale: development,
reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Volume
40, 2015 - Issue 4, Pages 587-610.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2014.938019
Serpil Kocdar, Abdulkadir Karadeniz, Aras Bozkurt, Koksal Buyuk (2018). Measuring
Self-Regulation in Self-Paced Open and Distance Learning Environments.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Volume 19,
Number 1. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1174050.pdf.
Sex/gender differences in cognition, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy. (2018).
PubMed Central (PMC).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6013760/
Shalaway, L. (2021). Organizing Small Groups: Do You Know All the Options? |
Scholastic. Teacher Resources.
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/organizing- small-
groups-do-you-know-all-options/.
Sharp, L. A., & Sharp, J. H. (2016). Enhancing student success in online learning
experiences through the use of self-regulation strategies. Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching, 27(2), 57-75.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304073173_Enhancing_student_su
ccess_in_onlin
Shea, Peter. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. Online Learning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255641218_A_study_of_students%
27_sense_of_learning_community_in_online_environments.
Shelley R. Hart, Kaitlyn Stewart, Shane R. Jimerson (2011). The Student Engagement
in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form-
New (TERF-N): Examining the Preliminary Evidence. Contemporary School
Psychology, Vol. 15, p.67.
https://casponline.org/pdfs/pdfs/2011_journal_individual/2011_student-
engagement_67-79.pdf
Sitwat Saeed, David Zyngier (2012). How Motivation Influences Student Engagement:
A Qualitative Case Study. Journal of Education and Learning; Vol. 1, No. 2.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081372.pdf
Smith, J., et al., (2017) Sense of Belonging at School: Defining Attributes,
Determinants, and Sustaining Strategies. IAFOR Journal of Education. Volume
5 – Issue 2. 112-125. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1156289.pdf
Smith, K. (2006). Early Attrition among First Time eLearners: A Review of Factors that
Contribute to Drop-out, Withdrawal and Non-completion Rates of Adult
Socialization in Online Learning. (2021). Academy for Teaching and Learning | Baylor
University. https://www.baylor.edu/atl/index.php?id=965144
Sözen E.and Guven U. (2019). The Effect of Online Assessments on Students’
Attitudes Towards Undergraduate-Level Geography Courses.

133
 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scoring-range-of-likert-scale-of-the-
survey_tbl1_335752203.
Stanford, Daphne. (2016). How To Motivate Students Online: What Works And
What Doesn’t. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/motivate-
students-online-works-doesnt.
Statistics Dictionary (n.d.). Frequency count definition. Stat Trek.
https://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=frequency%20count
Statistics how to (n.d.) Weighted Mean: Formula: How to Find Weighted Mean.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/statistics-
definitions/weighted-mean/
Statistics how to (n.d.). Margin of Error: Definition, How to Calculate in Easy Steps.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/hypothesis-
testing/margin-of-error/
Stauffer, B. (2020). What Are 21st Century Skills?. Applied Educational System.
https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/what-are-21st-century-skills
Student_Interaction_on_Student_Motivation_and_Achievement Afzal, M. &
Gilani, S. (2019). The Impact of Teacher-Student Interaction on Student Motivation
and Achievement. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333843059_The_Impact_of_Teache
r-
Susanna Tsai, Paulo Machado (n.d). E-learning, Online Learning, Web-based
Learning, or Distance Learning: Unveiling the Ambiguity in Current Terminology.
https://campus.fundec.org.ar/admin/archivos/2%20elearning%20essay%20.p
df.
Sutton, K. S. A. R. (2021). Gender differences in the classroom | Educational
Psychology. Educational Psychology. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-
educationalpsychology/chapter/gender-differences-in-the-classroom/.
Swan, J. (2017). The Challenges of Online Learning Supporting and Engaging the
Isolated Learner. Journal of Learning Design.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127718.pdf
Swapan K Haldar (2018). The Null hypothesis. Mineral Exploration (Second Edition).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/null-
hypothesis
Takeda, S., & Homberg, F. (2009). The effects of gender on group work process and
achievement: an analysis through self- and peer-assessment. British
Educational Research Journal. 45-53.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42142916.pdf
Tannembaum, C., et al., (2016). Why sex and gender matter in implementation
research. BMC Med Res Methodology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5084413/
Tasha Seneca Keyes (n.d). A Qualitative Inquiry: Factors That Promote Classroom
Belonging and Engagement Among High School Students p. 171.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1219861.pdf.
Tekol, I.A., & Demirel, M. (2018). An Investigation of Self-Directed Learning Skills of
Undergraduate Students. Educational Psychology. 12-15.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02324/full

134
The 67 Worst Teaching Mistakes | Student Sucess | On Course. (2020, July 22).
College Educator Workshops & Conferences.
https://oncourseworkshop.com/table-contents/67-worst-teaching-mistakes/
The Glossary of Education Reform (n.d.). Student Engagement.
https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement/.
The University of Arkansas (N.D). The Evolution of Distance Education in 2020.
https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/distance-education-evolution-in- 2020.
The Washington post (n.d.) What can be done to keep students from skipping class?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1989/11/16/what-can-be-done-
to-keep-students-from-skipping-class/4dc38ad6-a5a8-4836-8f04-
aa3aabe17a5f/.
Thomas, L., Herbert,J. & Teras, M. (2014). A sense of belonging to enhance
participation, success and retention in online programs. The International
Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 5(2), 69-80. doi:
10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.233
Tony Bates (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for designing teaching and
learning. Education Resources Information Center, accessed march 3, 2021
from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/6-5-online- collaborative-
learning/
Truzoli, R., Viganò, C., Galmozzi, P.G., & Reed, P. (2020). Problematic internet use
and study motivation in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Tun Nguyen (2015). The Effectiveness of Online Learning: Beyond No Significant
Difference and Future Horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
accessed March 3,2021 from https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf.
Turley, C. & Graham, C. (2019). Interaction, Student Satisfaction, and Teacher
Time Investment in Online High School Courses. Journal of Online Learning
Research (2019) 5(2), 169-198. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1229415.pdf
UNESCO (n.d). Education: From disruption to recovery, accessed March 3, 2021 from
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse.
Varre, C., et al., (2014). Reasons for student dropout in an online course in a rural K–
12 setting. Distance Education, Vol. 35, No. 3, 324–344,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955259
ViewSonic (2020). Understanding the Distance Education Types.
https://www.viewsonic.com/library/education/understanding-the-distance-
education-types-2/.Volume 70, Pages 150-160.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131513002285.
Wandler, J., & Imbriale, W. (2017). Promoting undergraduate student self-
regulation in online learning environments. Online Learning 21:2. doi:
10.24059/olj.v21i2.881
Wang, M., & Kang, M. (2003). Cybergogy for Engaged Learning: A Framework
for Creating Learner Engagement through Information and Communication
Technology. San Diego State University, USA. 20-35.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226493573_Cybergogy_for_Engage
Learning

135
AWestern GovernorsUniversity (2020). What is humanistic learning theory in
education? Accessed March 3,2021 from https://www.wgu.edu/blog/what-
humanistic-learning-theory- education2007.html
Wholwill, J. (1969). The Age Variable in Psychological Research. Educational Testing
Service Princeton, New Jersey.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1969.tb00579.x
Wintemute, D. (2021). Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Classes: What’s the
Difference? https://thebestschools.org/resources/synchronous-vs-
asynchronous-programs-courses/
Wnuk, A. (n.d.). When the Brain Starts Adulting. BrainFacts.Org. Retrieved June 22,
2021, from https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-
behaving/aging/2018/when-the-brain-starts-adulting-112018
Wolter-Gustafson, Melissa. (2004). Why I Will Not Become a Teacher. Teacher
Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795297.pdf
Worchel, S., et al., (2021). SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research
journals. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/action/cookieAbsent
Yan, W. (1999). The Relationship of Bandwidth, Interaction, and Performance in Online
Courses: A Study. University of North Texas.
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring91/wu91.htm
Yeonji Jung, Jeongmin Lee (2018). Learning Engagement and Persistence in Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOCS). Computer Education, pp. 9-22.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131518300526?vi
a%3Dihub.
Yu, K-C., et al., (2014). Enhancing students’ problem-solving skills through context-
based learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267109315_Enhancing_students%2
7_problem-solving_skills_through_context-based_learning
Yue Zhang (2012). An Examination of Acculturative Stress, Perceived Social Support
and Depression Among Chinese International Students. Child and Family
Studies - Theses. 3.
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=cfs_thesis
Zeivots, Sandris. (2016). Emotional highs in adult experiential learning. Australian
Journal of Adult Learning Volume 56, Number 3.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1120642.pdf
Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (2009). Accounting for doing gender.
Sagepublication.com. 5-10.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.7011&rep=rep
1&type=pdf
Zulaika Zakariah, Raemah A Hashim, Nuruljannah Musa (2016). Motivation,
Experience and Satisfaction Among Adult Learners with Fully Online Web- Based
Courses. Pan-Commonwealth Forum 8 (PCF8), 2016 [172].
http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/258/PDF?sequence=4

136
 APPENDICE A
Letter request Instrumentation

137
 APPENDICE B
Letter to conduct data gathering (approved)

138
 APPENDICE C
Letter Request to Validate Questionnaire

April 25, 2021

ROMNICK D. APIN, MAIE

Research Panel Chairman
Bicol University College of Industrial Technology
East Campus, Legazpi City

Good Day!

The undersigned Bachelor of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education (BTVTEd) student major in

Garments, Fashion, and Design, is undertaking their study entitled, “Technical-Vocational Teacher Education
Student’s Engagement in Online Learning”. This aims to know the level of 3rd year BTVTEd Students
engagement in Online Learning.

Knowing your experience in the field of research and education, we sincerely ask for your expertise to
validate the attached Questionnaire before administering it to the respondents of the study to qualify for data
conduction.

I have attached herewith the Questionnaire and Statement of the problem of our study. I will be glad to
hear your suggestions and comments for the improvement of the Questionnaire.

I am hoping for your favorable response to this request.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

JEZEL B. VENUS
Researcher’s Group Leader

Noted by:

ARLENE A. BALLERAS, MAEd

Research Adviser

CHRISTIAN C. CALLEJA, MAIE

Research Professor

Approved By:

ROMNICK D. APIN, MAIE

Research Panel Chairman

139
 APPENDICE C
Letter Request to Validate Questionnaire

April 25, 2021

KENGIE O. MERENCIANO, PhD

Research Panel Member
Bicol University College of Industrial Technology
East Campus, Legazpi City

Good Day!

The undersigned Bachelor of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education (BTVTEd) student major in Garments,
Fashion, and Design, is undertaking their study entitled, “Technical-Vocational Teacher Education Student’s
Engagement in Online Learning”. This aims to know the level of 3rd year BTVTEd Students engagement in
Online Learning.

Knowing your experience in the field of research and education, we sincerely ask for your expertise to
validate the attached Questionnaire before administering it to the respondents of the study to qualify for data
conduction.

I have attached herewith the Questionnaire and Statement of the problem of our study. I will be glad to
hear your suggestions and comments for the improvement of the Questionnaire.

I am hoping for your favorable response to this request.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

JEZEL B. VENUS
Researcher’s Group Leader

Noted by:

ARLENE A. BALLERAS, MAEd

Research Adviser

CHRISTIAN C. CALLEJA, MAIE

Research Professor

Approved By:

KENGIE O. MERENCIANO, PhD

Research Panel Member

140
 APPENDICE C
Letter Request to Validate Questionnaire

April 22, 2021

WILMA O. PAJAVERA, MAIE

Research Panel Member
Bicol University College of Industrial Technology
East Campus, Legazpi City

Good Day!

The undersigned Bachelor of Technical-Vocational Teacher Education (BTVTEd) student major in

Garments, Fashion, and Design, is undertaking their study entitled, “Technical-Vocational Teacher Education
Student’s Engagement in Online Learning”. This aims to know the level of 3rd year BTVTEd Student
engagement in Online Learning.

Knowing your experience in the field of research and education, we sincerely ask for your expertise to
validate the attached Questionnaire before administering it to the respondents of the study to qualify for data
conduction.

I have attached herewith the Questionnaire and Statement of the problem of our study. I will be glad to
hear your suggestions and comments for the improvement of the Questionnaire.

I am hoping for your favorable response to this request.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

JEZEL B. VENUS
Researcher’s Group Leader

Noted by:

ARLENE A. BALLERAS, MAEd

Research Adviser

CHRISTIAN C. CALLEJA, MAIE

Research Professor

Approved By:

WILMA O. PAJAVERA, MAIE

Research Panel Member

141
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

142
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

143
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

144
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

145
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

146
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

147
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

148
 APPENDICE D
E-form Questionnaire

149
 APPENDICE E
Profile of the Respondents

Table 1.1 Age

Categories: No. of Percentage Rank
respondents
18-24 90 97.8% 1
25-29 1 1.1% 2
30-39 1 1.1% 2
Total 92 100%

Table 1.2 Sex

Categories No. of Percentage Rank

respondents
Female 62 67.4% 1
Male 30 32.6% 2
Total 92 100%

Table 1.3 Area of Specialization

Categories No. of respondents Percentage Rank

Drafting Technology 19 20.7% 2
Garments Fashion and Design 14 15.2% 4
Electrical Technology 16 17.4% 3
Food service and management 43 46.7% 1
Total 92 100%

Table 1.4 Type of Learner

Categories No. of respondents Percentage Rank

Strong connectivity 10 10.9% 2
Poor-fair connectivity 81 88% 1
No connectivity 1 1.1% 3
Total 92 100%

150
 APPENDICE F
Level of Student Engagement

Table 2.1 Psychological Motivation

5 4 3 2 1 Total
INDICATORS
A. Psycholo f fx f fx f fx f fx f fx Ʃf Ʃfx WM Interpretation
gical
Motivatio
n
1 Online 1 5 20 80 45 135 22 44 4 4 92 268 2.91 Sometimes
classes
enhance my
interest in
learning.
2 I am 0 0 14 56 44 132 27 54 7 7 92 249 2.71 Sometimes
motivated to
study when I
take an
online class.
3 Online 3 15 28 112 36 108 19 38 6 6 92 279 3.03 Sometimes
classes are
very useful to
me.
4 It is very 1 5 13 52 46 138 22 44 1 1 92 249 2.71 Sometimes
interesting to 0 0
take online
classes.
5 2 10 15 60 38 114 24 48 1 1 92 245 2.66 Sometimes
3 3
After taking
an online
lesson, I
look
forward to
the next
one.
6 0 0 12 48 43 129 26 52 1 1 92 240 2.61 Sometimes
1 1
I am
satisfied

151
with the
online class
I am taking.
2.7 Sometimes
7
AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN

152
 APPENDICE F
Level of Student Engagement

Table 2.2 Peer Collaboration

5 4 3 2 1 Total

INDICATORS
B. Peer f fx f fx f fx f fx f fx Ʃf Ʃfx WM Interpretation
Collaboration
1 I study the lesson 1 5 16 64 38 114 34 68 3 3 92 254 2.76 Sometimes
contents with
other students.
2 I try to solve 5 25 21 84 38 114 25 50 3 3 92 276 3 Sometimes
difficult
problems with
other students
when I
encounter them
3 I work with other 7 35 21 84 51 153 12 24 1 1 92 279 3.23 Sometimes
students on
online projects
or assignments.
4 I ask other 14 70 33 132 36 108 9 18 0 0 92 328 3.57 Often
students for help
when I can’t
understand a
concept taught in
my online class.
5 17 85 26 104 36 108 13 26 0 0 92 323 3.51 Often

I try to answer
the questions
that other
students ask.
3.21 Sometimes

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN

153
 APPENDICE F
Level of Student Engagement

Table 2.3 Cognitive problem solving

5 4 3 2 1 Total

INDICATORS
C. Cognitive f fx f fx f fx f fx f fx Ʃf Ʃfx WM Interpretation
Problem
Solving
1 I can derive 7 35 25 100 43 129 15 30 2 2 92 296 3.22 Sometimes
new
interpretations
and ideas from
the knowledge
I have learned
in my online
classes.
2 I can deeply 1 5 24 96 50 150 14 28 3 3 92 283 3.07 Sometimes
analyze
thoughts,
experiences,
and theories
about the
knowledge I
have learned
in my online
classes.
3 I can judge the 4 20 32 128 39 117 13 26 4 4 92 295 3.21 Sometimes
value of the
information
related to the
knowledge
learned in my
online classes.
4 I tend to apply 6 30 26 108 36 108 19 38 5 5 92 289 3.10 Sometimes
the knowledge
I have learned
in online
classes to real
problems or

154
 new
situations.
5 5 25 24 96 40 120 19 38 4 4 92 283 3.08 Sometimes

I try to
approach
the subject
of my online
class with a
new
perspective.
3.13 Sometimes

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN

155
 APPENDICE F
Level of Student Engagement

Table 2.4 Interaction with Peers

5 4 3 2 1 Total

INDICATORS
D. Interactions f fx f fx f fx f fx f fx Ʃf Ʃfx WM Interpretati
with on
Instructors
1 I communicate 4 20 20 80 39 117 19 38 10 10 92 265 2.88 Sometimes
with the
instructor
privately for
extra help.
2 I often ask the 1 5 17 68 39 117 27 54 8 8 92 252 2.74 Sometimes
instructor
about the
contents of the
lesson.
2.81 Sometimes

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN

156
 APPENDICE F
Level of Student Engagement

Table 2.5 Community Support

5 4 3 2 1 Total

INDICATORS
f fx f fx f fx f fx f fx Ʃf Ʃfx WM Interpretation

E.
Community
Support
1 I feel a 7 35 22 88 39 117 20 40 4 4 92 284 3.09 Sometimes
connection
with the
students who
are in my
online
classes.
2 I feel a sense 6 30 18 72 45 135 19 38 4 4 92 279 3.03 Sometimes
of belonging
to the online
class
community.
3 I frequently 8 40 17 68 45 135 20 40 2 2 92 285 3.10 Sometimes
interact with
other
students in
my online
classes.
3.07 Sometimes

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN

157
 APPENDICE F
Level of Student Engagement

Table 2.6 Learning Management

5 4 3 2 1 Total

INDICATORS
f fx f fx f fx f fx f fx Ʃf Ʃfx WM Interpretation

F. Learning
Management
1 I study related 10 50 15 60 45 135 19 38 3 3 92 286 3.11 Sometimes
learning
contents by
myself after
the online
lesson.
2 I remove all 11 55 19 76 35 105 20 40 7 7 92 283 3.08 Sometimes
distracting
environmental
factors when
taking online
classes
3 I manage my 12 60 20 80 40 120 17 34 3 4 92 297 3.23 Sometimes
own learning
using the
online system.
4 When I take an 10 50 16 64 35 105 25 50 6 6 92 275 2.99 Sometimes
online course, I
plan a learning
schedule.
3.10 Sometimes

AVERAGE WEIGHTED MEAN

158
 APPENDICE F
Level of Student Engagement

Table 2.7 Overall Level of Student’s Engagement

ITEMS AWM VI
Psychological motivation 2.78 Sometimes
Peer collaboration 3.21 Sometimes
Cognitive problem solving 3.13 Sometimes
Interaction with Instructors 2.81 Sometimes
Community support 3.07 Sometimes
Learning management 3.10 Sometimes
GRAND WEIGHTED MEAN 3.02 Sometimes

159
 APPENDICE G
Significant Relationship between Respondent’s Profile and Level Student’s Engagement

Table 3.1 Relationship between Age and Level of Student’s Engagement

Profile Level of r- p-value Verbal Decision,

Engagement value Interpretation Ho
Psychological 0.069 0.257 Very Low Accept
motivation
Peer collaboration 0.045 0.329 Very Low Accept
Cognitive problem 0.067 0.263 Very Low Accept
Age solving
Interaction with 0.074 0.243 Very Low Accept
instructors
Community 0.093 0.190 Very Low Accept
support
Learning 0.112 0.145 Very Low Accept
management

Table 3.2 Relationship between Sex and Level of Student’s Engagement

Profile Level of r- p-value Verbal Decision,

Engagement value Interpretation Ho
Psychological 0.011 0.459 Very Low Accept
Motivation
Peer Collaboration -0.036 0.367 Very Low Accept
Cognitive Problem -0.023 0.414 Very Low Accept
Sex Solving
Interaction with 0.062 0.279 Very Low Accept
instructors
Community 0.032 0.382 Very Low Accept
Support
Learning -0.034 0.373 Very Low Accept
Management

160
 Table 3.3 Relationship between Area of Specialization and Level of Student’s Engagement

Profile Level of r- p-value Verbal Decision,

Engagement value Interpretation Ho
Psychological -0.080 0.223 Very Low Accept
Motivation
Peer Collaboration -0.061 0.283 Very Low Accept
Area of Cognitive Problem -0.077 0.234 Very Low Accept
Specialization Solving
Interaction with -0.101 0.169 Very Low Accept
instructors
Community 0.011 0.460 Very Low Accept
Support
Learning -0.020 0.427 Very Low Accept
Management

3.4 Relationship between Learning Modality and Level of Student’s Engagement

Profile Level of R`- p- Verbal Decision,

Engagement value value Interpretation Ho
Psychological -0.187 0.037 Very Low Reject
Motivation
Peer Collaboration -0.147 0.081 Very Low Accept
Learning Cognitive Problem -0.235 0.012 Very Low Reject
Modality Solving
Interaction with -0.008 0.468 Very Low Accept
instructors
Community Support -0.311 0.001 Low Reject
Learning -0.195 0.031 Very Low Reject
Management

161
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Name: Jezel Badrina Venus
Nickname: Venus
Age: 20
Gender: Female
Birthplace: Legazpi City, Albay
Address: Tupas, Donsol, Sorsogon
Religion: Roman Catholicism
Parents: Leny B. Venus/ Nelson B. Venus
Email Address: jezel_venus@yahoo.com
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Elementary: Donsol West Central School
Junior High School: Donsol Vocational High School
Senior High School: Donsol Vocational High School
College: Bicol University

162
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Name: Paul John B. Rivera
Nickname: Paul
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Birthplace: St. John Hospital, Naga City
Address: St. Philip Royals, Buluang, Baao, Camarines Sur
Religion: Roman Catholicism
Parents: Elvira B. Rivera/ Severino G. Rivera, Jr.
Email Address: pauljohnrivera26@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Elementary: Rosary School, Inc.
Junior High School: Rosary School, Inc.
Senior High School: University of Saint Anthony
College: Bicol University

163
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Name: Sheena Tuyo Briones
Nickname: Shen
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Birthplace: Donsol District Hospital
Address: Market Site, Donsol, Sorsogon
Religion: Iglesia Ni Cristo
Parents: Michelle T. Briones/ Roel M. Briones
Email Address: brionesshen54@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Elementary: Donsol East Central School
Junior High School: Donsol National Comprehensive High School
Senior High School: Donsol National Comprehensive High School
College: Bicol University

164
 CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Name: Vinel John Balictar Bandolin
Nickname: Nel
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Birthplace: Mauraro, Guinobatan, Albay
Address: Zone 6, 5th Street Our Lady’s Village Bitano, Legazpi City
Religion: Roman Catholicism
Parents: Nida B. Bandolin/ Nestor N. Bandolin
Email Address: vinelnhojb.b24@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Elementary: Mauraro Elementary School
Junior High School: Marcial O. Ranola Memorial School
Daraga National High School
Senior High School: Computer Arts and Technological College Inc.
College: Bicol University

165