An Exploration of the Relationships between Interactive Forms of Online Course Teaching and Students’ Learning Engagement

Wang Siyao

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.004

Volume 39 Issue 7

Jul. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2021 > 39(7): 38-49

Wang Siyao. An Exploration of the Relationships between Interactive Forms of Online Course Teaching and Students’ Learning Engagement[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(7): 38-49. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.004

Citation:

Wang Siyao. An Exploration of the Relationships between Interactive Forms of Online Course Teaching and Students’ Learning Engagement[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(7): 38-49. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.004

Citation:

PDF( 867 KB)

An Exploration of the Relationships between Interactive Forms of Online Course Teaching and Students’ Learning Engagement

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.004

Wang Siyao

Institute of Higher Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200062

Publish Date: 2021-07-01

Abstract

Abstract

Teaching interaction is not only the key to the re-integration of online teaching and learning, but also an important factor affecting students’ engagement in online learning. As one of the special interactive modes in synchronous classroom, video interaction also has an important influence on the relationship between teaching interaction and students’ online learning engagement. Based on the survey data of 15441 postgraduates from 30 universities, this study conducted structural equation model and hierarchical multiple regression model to analyze the relationship between online teaching interaction on learning engagement. The results showed that learner-learner interaction, learner-teacher interaction, and learner-content interaction of online courses can positively predict students’ behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement and emotional engagement, respectively. The results also indicated that learner-learner video interaction positively moderates the relationship between teaching interaction and behavioral engagement, teaching interaction and cognitive engagement, and teaching interaction and emotional engagement. However, learner-teacher video interaction had no significant influence on the relationship between teaching interaction and learning engagement. In the future of online education, students’ online learning engagement can be promoted by creating a social interaction environment, enriching interactive content, triggering interactive events, and ensuring the quality of video interaction.
- teaching interaction,
- online learning engagement,
- video interaction,
- moderating effect

FullText(HTML)

References(43)

References

[1]	崔佳, 刘冲. (2021). 协作式在线教学交互模型及动力研究. 重庆高教研究,9(02),1—14.
[2]	陈丽. (2004). 远程学习的教学交互模型和教学交互层次塔. 中国远程教育,(05),24—28+78.
[3]	陈丽, 王志军. (2016). 三代远程学习中的教学交互原理. 中国远程教育,(10),30—37+79-80.
[4]	程志, 周铁. (2008). 基于认知负荷理论的教学媒体设计. 现代教育技术,(11),50—52+41. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2008.11.011
[5]	黄庆双, 李玉斌, 任永功. (2018). 探究社区理论视域下学习者在线学习投入影响研究. 现代远距离教育,(06),73—81. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8700.2018.06.009
[6]	胡小平, 谢作栩. (2020). 疫情下高校在线教学的优势与挑战探析. 中国高教研究,(04),18—22+58.
[7]	贾义敏, 詹春青. (2011). 情境学习: 一种新的学习范式. 开放教育研究,17(05),29—39. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-2179.2011.05.006
[8]	穆肃, 王孝金. (2019). 参与和投入而非肤浅和简单—在线学习中的深层次学习. 中国远程教育,(02),17—25+92−93.
[9]	邬大光, 李文. (2020). 我国高校大规模线上教学的阶段性特征—基于对学生、教师、教务人员问卷调查的实证研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),38(07),1—30.
[10]	王志军. (2016). 远程教育中“教学交互”本质及相关概念再辨析. 电化教育研究,37(04),36—41.
[11]	王志军, 陈丽. (2015). 国际远程教育教学交互理论研究脉络及新进展. 开放教育研究,21(02),30—39.
[12]	夏娇. (2018). 远程教育中教学媒体的交互性研究. 中国成人教育,(02),105—108.
[13]	杨金勇, 裴文云, 刘胜峰. (2020). 疫情期间在线教学实践与经验. 中国电化教育,(04),29—41. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2020.04.008
[14]	翟雪松, 束永红. (2019). 在线学习社区中的知识隐藏行为及影响机制研究—基于专业承诺和变革型指导风格的视角分析. 远程教育杂志,37(05),85—94.
[15]	Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2), 1—14. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.1086
[16]	Bettinger, E., Liu, J., & Loeb, S. (2016). Connections matter: How interactive peers affect students in online college courses. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(4), 932—954. doi: 10.1002/pam.21932
[17]	Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102—110.
[18]	Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121—141.
[19]	Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Routledge.
[20]	Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1—13.
[21]	Fornell C, Larcker D F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39—50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
[22]	Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59—109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059
[23]	Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7—23. doi: 10.1080/08923640109527071
[24]	Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational researcher, 38(4), 246—259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671
[25]	Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30—42. doi: 10.1080/08923649409526853
[26]	Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in higher education, 38(5), 758—773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
[27]	Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). The social affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 01CH37193) (Vol. 1, pp. T1F-12). IEEE.
[28]	Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158—163. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.001
[29]	Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. (2013). Personality types and languages learning strategies: Chameleons changing colours. System, 41(3), 598—608. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.011
[30]	Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26—34. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.005
[31]	Meyer, K. A. (Ed.). (2014). Student Engagement Online: What Works and Why. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
[32]	Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(02), 1—6. doi: 10.1080/08923648909526659
[33]	Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical principles of distance education, 1, 22—38.
[34]	Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in higher education, 27(4), 405—417. doi: 10.1080/0307507022000011525
[35]	Paul, R. C., Swart, W., Zhang, A. M., & MacLeod, K. R. (2015). Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: Refinement and validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education, 36(3), 364—382. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1081741
[36]	Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1—28. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0046-1
[37]	Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543—553.
[38]	Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). A predictive model to evaluate students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4844—4853. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1036
[39]	Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22—36. doi: 10.1080/08923649909527033
[40]	Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2), 121—141.
[41]	Wei, C. W., & Chen, N. S. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529—545. doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9
[42]	Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 72—83. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.003
[43]	Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219—230.