Students’ Engagement

Research Question (2): To what extent do higher education students in Saudi Arabia believe that they engage in online learning based on SLTs?

An understanding of students’ overall learning experiences helps gauge the quality of the learning environment (Kuh, 2004). The Survey of Student Engagement (SSE) was administered to examine the second research question to establish the extent to which higher education students in Saudi Arabia engage in online learning based on SLTs. The SSE was administered at the end of week 2 of commencement of the project and at the end of project on week 15. This approach aimed to examine the final perceived engagement, as well as examining the change in students' perceived engagement over the project. The SSE was developed by Ahlfeldt et al. (2005), which comprises 14 items or statements selected and adapted from the USA National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) with a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for never/very little to 4 for very much/very often (Ahlfeldt et al., 2005). This survey seeks to ascertain the extent to which students are engaged in effective educational activities or practices, and focuses on what they gain from their learning experience. It has been also adopted in other studies (e.g., Carter, 2009; Fang, 2013). In this survey, participants are asked to reflect and respond about behaviours and activities in the online learning.

143

This was drawn through their responses across the following three subscales of Collaboration (item 1-4), Cognitive development (items 5-9), and Skills development (items 10-14) (refer to Chapter 3 for the detailed description, for the full lists of the 14 items, refer to Appendix A Descriptive Statistics for the student responses to the Survey of Student Engagement (SSE)). Mean scores and standard deviations were obtained for each subscale and the overall engagement score (see Table 4.9 below).

Table 4.9 shows the number of items, means and standard deviations of the final SSE subscales. The results showed that, on average, the students believed that, overall, they were engaged in the project at least often (M = 3.09, SD = 0.39).

Table 4.9

Number of Items, Means and Standard Deviations of SSE Subscales

Subscale No. of items M SD

Collaboration 4 2.94 0.49

Cognitive development 5 2.92 0.59

Personal skills development 5 3.39 0.42

Overall Engagement 14 3.09 0.39

The following section examines the results in detail in order to identify students’ level of engagement for each subscale. Table 4.10 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for the SSE subscale items.

Table 4.10

Means and Standard Deviations of the final SSE Subscale Items

B. During your participation in this project, about how often have you done each of the following?

M (SD) 1. Asked questions or contributed to online course activities or discussions 3.30 (0.56) 2. Worked with other students on projects/tasks during course activities or

discussions

3.07 (0.74)

3. Worked with classmates outside of class or online discussions to complete course assignments

3.23 (0.75)

4. Tutored or taught the course materials to other students 2.14 (0.74)

Overall collaboration 2.94 (0.49)

C. To what extent has this course emphasised the mental activities listed below?

5. Memorising facts, ideas or methods from your course and readings so you can repeat them in almost the same form

3.05 (0.82)

6. Analysing the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory such as examining a specific case or situation in depth and considering its components

2.88 (0.73)

7. Synthesising and organising ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complicated interpretations and relationships

2.91 (0.78)

8. Evaluating the value of information, arguments, or methods such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing and accuracy of their conclusions

3.00 (0.87)

9. Applying theories and/or concepts to practical problems or in new situations 2.74 (0.82)

Overall cognitive development 2.92 (0.59)

D. To what extent has this course contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following ways?

10. Acquiring skills or knowledge related to your experience 3.51 (0.55)

11. Writing clearly, accurately, and effectively 3.37 (0.62)

12. Thinking critically and/or analytically 3.26 (0.73)

13. Learning effectively on your own, so you can identify, research, and complete a given task

3.40 (0.69)

14. Working effectively with other individuals 3.40 (0.62)

Overall personal skills development 3.39 (0.42)

145

The overall results of the collaboration subscale indicated that the students believed that they at least often (M = 2.94, SD = 0.49) interacted and collaborated with each other. The students believed that they contributed to their course's activities quite often, at least often worked together on given projects during the online course activities, as well as outside online activities to complete their course tasks, and occasionally engaged in some form of peer tutoring. The low mean score on the peer tutoring item (M = 2.14, SD = 0.74) suggested that some participants believed that they were less engaged in the peer tutoring activities. This could be attributed to some issues or challenges, such as technical difficulties that may have reduced the efficiency of group activities, or problems relating to group work in the online learning environment (no face-to-face meeting, unlike this being offered in other courses) may have negatively affected the quality of the online learning.

The overall mean score of M = 2.92 (SD = 0.59) on the cognitive development subscale indicated that students believed they, to some extent, often engaged in mental and cognitive-related activities. They also believed that their online learning experiences, at least often helped them in memorising and evaluating activities, while they often helped in other mental activities related to analysing, synthesising, and applying knowledge at slightly lower. Overall, the results suggested that the students, to some extent, often engaged in cognitive-related activities.

The overall mean score for the subscale of personal skills development (M = 3.39, SD = 0.42) was the highest of all three subscales. This indicated that respondents overall believed that their online learning experiences, often helped them acquire skills or knowledge related to their experience, improved their writing skills, critical and analytical thinking, and improved their ability to learn and work with others effectively.

Changes in Students’ Engagement

As stated, the SSE was administered at the end of week 2 of commencement of the project and at the end of project on week 15. This helped to examine the extent to which students' engagement change in online learning based on SLTs. The paired samples t-test procedure was used to determine the significance of the difference between the pre- and post- scores and whether the differences are meaningful (Pallant, 2011). The paired samples t-test was conducted to determine if differences in the means scores of student engagement scales are found after participating in an online learning course using SLTs. It was conducted to determine whether there are significant differences for measures of student engagement between the data gathered at the beginning and the end of the project. The results of the measures of student engagement are presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11

SSE Overall and Subscale Means, Standard Deviations and Paired Sample t-test Scores for the Beginning and End of the Course

Subscale Pre Post t df Difference

M (SD) M (SD)

Collaboration 2.57 0.47 2.94 0.50 4.03 42 .37**

Cognitive development

2.67 0.39 2.92 0.59 4.75 42 .25**

Personal skills development

3.21 0.35 3.39 0.42 4.46 42 .18**

Overall Engagement 2.84 0.34 3.09 0.39 6.48 42 .25**

** p < .01, 2-tailed.

147

The results indicated that the difference in overall engagement between the end of the project (M = 3.09, SD = .39) and the beginning (M = 2.84, SD = .34), was statistically significant, t(42) = 6.48, p < .01. For the collaboration subscale, the students scored higher at the end of the

project (M = 2.94, SD = .5) than at the beginning (M = 2.57, SD = .47), t(42) = 4.03, p < .01. In addition, for cognitive development subscale, the students scored higher at the end of the project (M = 2.92, SD = .59) than at the beginning (M = 2.67, SD = .39), t(42) = 4.75, p < .01.

Furthermore, for personal skills subscale, the students scored higher at the end of the project (M

= 3.39, SD = .42) than at the beginning (M = 3.21, SD = .35), t(42) = 4.46, p < .01.

The results indicated that for overall engagement score, the differences were statistically significant between the end of the project and the beginning. The differences could indicate that the use of SLTs in online course contributed in improving students’ engagement of three areas:

collaboration with each other, development of mental and cognitive activities, and development of personal skills.

In summary, these results of Research Question 2 showed that the use of SLTs positively contributed to improving students' engagement in their learning activities throughout the project.

While the students, overall, believed that they were engaged in their learning activities to a medium to high level, some participants were occasionally or less engaged, particularly in peer tutoring and some cognitive-related activities. The students overall believed that their online learning experiences using SLTs helped them interact and collaborate with each other, contributed to their mental and cognitive-related activities development, as well as to their personal skills development at least often.