1

Face to Face, Online or Something in Between:
Student Perceptions of Student Engagement in Different Learning Environments

Hongran Cui
Master of Education
KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
September 2021

Co-supervisor: Dr. Victoria Handford
Co-supervisor: Dr. Michelle Harrison
Committee Member: Dr. Laura K. Doan

2
Abstract
According to UNESCO (2020), the COVID-19 impact on education is global. There were more
than 1.5 billion learners and students worldwide, from children in early childhood education to
students at tertiary education affected by the global pandemic, which led most schools and
universities to pivot to online classes. Online teaching and learning became the primary model
for teaching, and we are calling this learning Emergency Remote Education (ERE) (Bozkurt et
al., 2020). Previous studies have accumulated rich theories in both face-to-face (F2F) and online.
However, the theoretical underpinnings of educational theory are weak relative to the global
scale of practical applications that have occurred in online education. Therefore, there is a great
need in the academic community for research on differences in student engagement in the
context of ERE. Using the Critical Incident Technique, this study interviewed ten students in a
Master of Education Program. The analysis of interviews produced three main themes: 1)
teaching practice; 2) learning behavior; and 3) supportive environment. The findings indicated
that there were differences in student engagement between F2F and ERE, and the main reasons
causing differences were course design and organization, student-faculty interaction, learning
with peers, and social interaction. Based on the literature and findings, the results were
discussed, and future study areas were recommended.
Keywords: student engagement, distance education, online education, Emergency
Remote Education, Critical Incident Technique, graduate student

3
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr.
Victoria (Tory) Handford and Dr. Michelle Harrison. Thank you for guiding me progressively
and patiently. I know that I am not the easiest student to supervise. I always had my own
opinions and insisted on them. I still remember, when I started my thesis proposal, how they
spent half an hour explaining the importance of neutrality in the literature review. They taught
me how to do research and the meaning of research. It is crucial to consider the scholarly
contribution because of the far-reaching and long-lasting impact. Whenever I went in the wrong
direction, they were there to pull me back to the right track. Moreover, they have always
evaluated my research and thesis papers with the highest standards, making me aware of my
strengths, shortcomings and being modest and prudent. They are more than supervisors to me;
they are my mentors. They taught me practical skills and shared their experiences without
reservation. How lucky I am to have them as my supervisors.
I am grateful to Dr. Laura K. Doan, the third committee member, who provided valuable
comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank the participants, who sacrificed their time,
shared their stories, experiences, and insights openly and authentically.
My special thanks go to my family, my backbone. They encouraged and supported me to
pursue my dream. No matter what I decided, they were there all the time. Whenever I needed
them, they were there. I thank them wholeheartedly.
I would like to list all the people I need to thank but the paper is limited. I thank all the
people who supported me in diverse aspects. I will keep your kindness in mind and be grateful
all the time. Sincerely thank you.

4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7
Distance Education ..................................................................................................................... 8
Student Engagement .................................................................................................................. 10
Significance of Study ................................................................................................................. 10
From Researcher’s Positionality ............................................................................................ 11
Chapter Two: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 13
Modern Education Model.......................................................................................................... 13
Modern Teaching ................................................................................................................... 13
Modern Learning ................................................................................................................... 15
Student Engagement .................................................................................................................. 16
Student Engagement in Face-to-Face Environment .............................................................. 16
Student Engagement in Online Environment ........................................................................ 20
The Importance and Significance of Student Engagement ................................................... 24
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................................... 31
Research Question..................................................................................................................... 31
Participants ............................................................................................................................... 31
Critical Incident Technique ....................................................................................................... 33
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 35
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 35
Positionality of the Researcher ................................................................................................. 37

5
Reliability and Validity.............................................................................................................. 37
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................ 40
Teaching Practice ..................................................................................................................... 41
Technology ............................................................................................................................ 41
Course Design and Organization ........................................................................................... 45
Student-Faculty Interaction ................................................................................................... 53
Learning Behavior..................................................................................................................... 57
Learning with Peers ............................................................................................................... 58
Cognitive Engagement .......................................................................................................... 64
Learning Intensity .................................................................................................................. 65
Learning Strategies ................................................................................................................ 67
Social Interaction ................................................................................................................... 68
Supportive Environment ............................................................................................................ 71
Campus Support .................................................................................................................... 71
Program Support .................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................... 73
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 75
Discussion of Teaching Practice ............................................................................................... 75
Discussion of Learning Behavior .............................................................................................. 80
Discussion of supportive environment ...................................................................................... 84
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................. 85
Recommendations for Future Study .......................................................................................... 86

6
Targeted Comparative Studies of Synchronous and Asynchronous Classrooms and
Interactions at Specific Times ............................................................................................... 86
Comparative Study on The Effectiveness of Different Interactive Forms ............................ 87
In-Depth Study about Fostering Social Interaction and Networking in Online Teaching .... 87
In-Depth Study about Culture Lens on Student Engagement................................................ 88
Chapter Six: Conclusion............................................................................................................. 89
Conclusions of Teaching Practice............................................................................................. 89
Conclusions of Learning Behavior ............................................................................................ 90
Conclusions of Supportive Environment ................................................................................... 90
Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 91
References .................................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix A Introduction Letter.............................................................................................. 112
Appendix B Research Ethics Board Approval ....................................................................... 113
Appendix C Participant Consent Form .................................................................................. 114
Appendix D Interview Questions ............................................................................................. 117
Appendix E Examples of Adjustment for Quotation from the Interviews .......................... 120

7
Chapter One: Introduction
The outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019 has affected most countries in the world,
including Canada. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that COVID-19
was a global pandemic (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Keeping people distanced in a recommended or
mandatory manner became the major way to prevent COVID-19 infection and transmission in
humans. In the absence of trustworthy long-range projections of the duration and the depth of
impact of a COVID-19 pandemic, online teaching has become the preferred option to ensure
educational continuity. The world changed. Education has also undergone a huge shift (Bozkurt
et al., 2020) and the proportion of face-to-face (F2F) learning post-outbreak has been very
limited, with the majority of educational offerings in post-secondary moving to remote and
online delivery. Universities in British Columbia all pivoted to online classes, since all
gatherings of 250 people or more were banned from March 12, 2020 (“B.C. Universities
Switching to Online Classes to Avoid COVID-19 Spread,” 2020; Ian, 2020), and Thompson
Rivers University (TRU) announced on March 15, 2020, that all on-campus courses would be
changed to online courses starting on March 16 (Thompson Rivers University, 2020).
As a result of this public health crisis, online teaching and learning has become the
primary model for teaching, and dependence on forms of online teaching and learning has never
been so important as today. Today we are calling this learning Emergency Remote Education
(ERE) (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Students and teachers have found themselves in great need of
learning online platforms such as BigBlueButton, Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, Moodle,
Schoology, Skooler, Zoom, and others. Research about the successes of online learning reveals
online learning is flexible, convenient, opens opportunities for creation, is innovation, and
provides opportunity for critical reflection (Crick et al., 2020; Huang, 2020; M. Jones & Ryan,

8
2014). Nevertheless, there were also research about the challenges of the online learning.
Students might feel lonely, be less motivated, and find it hard to engage in discussion because of
a lack of non-verbal cues (Aljaber, 2018; Huang, 2020; Romero-Hall & Vicentini, 2017). All
previous researchers have discovered there is much technological literacy that is needed. With
the increased use of these educational technologies, questions about the strengths and limits of
ERE delivery have arisen. This abrupt transition has revealed an extraordinary number of
challenges in terms of educational continuity, the quality of the curriculum, and the use of
technological tools.
Distance Education
The definition of distance education in the National Survey of Online and Digital
Learning 2019 is “those where no classes are held on campus — all instruction is conducted at a
distance” (Johnson, 2019, p. 4). Distance education is not a rare educational activity; the concept
and prototype of distance education emerged as early as the late seventeenth century (Bower &
Hardy, 2004; Bozkurt, 2019; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2018). The original purpose of distance
education was through providing educational opportunities beyond classrooms, to improve
egalitarian and reduce rates of illiteracy (Bozkurt, 2019; Casey, 2008). In the early 1990s, with
the development of technology, the digital age began. There was a transformation in the format,
focus, and research of distance education. Educational delivery modes became diverse, and
synchronous and asynchronous courses were introduced (Bozkurt, 2019). The focus of education
shifted from a teacher-centered to a student-centered system, with a greater emphasis on
interaction. Moreover, research on distance education has become more intensive, so qualitative
research has become more crucial. With the invention of the Internet, online courses became the
new favorite of distance learning. Jones International University, the world’s first fully online

9
university accredited by the Higher Learning Commission established in 1993, and since then,
online education has flourished (Casey, 2008; Jones International University, n.d.). According to
the National Center for Education Statistics (2018), the percentage of undergraduate students
enrolled in distance education or online classes in the United States increased gradually, from
15.6% in 2003-04 to 43.1% in 2015-16. In 2018, although the total percentage of the students’
enrolment had a slight increase compared to 2015-16, the percentage of students who took the
entire program online had substantially increased, from 10.8% to 16.6% (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019). According to the survey data of the Canadian National Survey of
Online and Digital Learning, online courses in post-secondary education institutions expanded
gradually. The number of institutions offering online courses developed rapidly from 68% in
2010 to 76% in 2011, and 79% in 2016 (Donovan et al., 2019). The increase from 2008 to 2016
was 14%, but 3% between 2011 to 2016. Student enrolment also increased steadily from 2011 to
2018, 18% of students were taking at least one online course for credit in 2016-2017, and 19% in
universities, 21% in colleges outside Québec. Students enrolled in fully online programs
accounted for 8%, which was 1,357,000 enrolments. On average, each student was taking three
or four online courses per year. In 2018 and 2019, over 85% of Canadian post-secondary
institutions offered online courses to attract students from outside institutions’ location; however,
the number of online learning students represented only a small percentage of the universities’
total student population (Johnson, 2019). Consequently, in 2019, although most post-secondary
institutions reported that online learning was significant, only 12% implemented their online
strategic plans (Donovan et al., 2019; Johnson, 2019). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
face-to-face (F2F) teaching was still the dominant way of teaching. Therefore, when the
pandemic broke out, all major universities faced stress during the transition process.

10
Student Engagement
The process of education involves two parties, the one who teaches the knowledge and
the one who receives it. The word pedagogy is of Greek origin and originally meant ‘to lead and
coach children’ (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). As adult education gradually developed, educational
practitioners began to call for changes in teaching; the traditional passive reception of knowledge
by the learner was not enough for the adult learner (Bozkurt, 2019). It is difficult to find a unified
concept about learning. Some learning theorists see learning as a process of changing, shaping,
or controlling behavior; other theorists prefer to define learning as the ability to grow, develop,
and discover and develop potential (Knowles, 1973). Regardless of the differences in theories,
learning is an active and refining process. For adult learners, Knowles’s Andragogy learning
theory “focuses on learner control, self-responsibility, and self-directed and self-regulated
learning processes” (Bozkurt, 2019, p. 264). Many pieces of literature suggest that student
engagement contributes to improving student learning outcomes (Trowler, 2010). Not only that,
but student engagement also contributes to improvements in persistence and retention,
egalitarianism, satisfaction, academic success, curricular relevance, and institutional reputation
(Filak & Sheldon, 2008; Hughes et al., 2008; Kuh et al., 2008; Skinner et al., 1990; Trowler,
2010). It is evident that the impact of student engagement is far reaching and crucial for students
in various aspects.
Significance of Study
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education and the resulting revolution will
require understanding and research by educational institutions, educational administrators,
researchers in educational theory, and participants in educational practice for many years. The
global scale of remote education resulting from this sudden and urgent transition is

11
unprecedented in the history of education and has no equivalent in the history of education
(Hodges et al., 2020). There were previous studies on student engagement in online
environments (Dixson, 2015; Garrison et al., 1999; Kent et al., 2016), studies on student
engagement in the F2F environment (Ahlfeldt et al., 2005; Connell & Wellborn, 1991), and
comparative studies on student engagement (Horspool & Lange, 2012; Summers et al., 2005;
Young & Duncan, 2014). Previous studies have accumulated rich theories in both F2F and
online. However, the theoretical underpinnings of educational theory are weak relative to the
global scale of practical applications that have occurred in online education, and “is far from
being a pedagogical concept in its own right” (Bozkurt et al., 2020, p. 2). Therefore, there is a
great need in the academic community for research on differences in student engagement in the
context of online education. The purpose of this thesis is: Through literature and research, to
identify students’ perceptions of differences in student engagement between F2F and ERE
environments.
From Researcher’s Positionality
I started my study at the Master of Education program in Canada in January 2020. Just as
I was beginning to understand more about the Canadian teaching modality and was in the
process of exploring appropriate learning strategies, COVID-19 exploded. When I initially
switched to the ERE, I was excited, confused, and overwhelmed at the same time. When I talked
with friends, I realized that I was not the only one, and we shared our experiences to help each
other. Before I came to Canada, I worked for over ten years in a large multinational corporation
in China and was in charge of the internship project; moreover, I worked many years as a
volunteer teacher to teach primary schools students Finance and English. I was aware of the

12
significance of student engagement and my early experiences in experiencing ERE led to my
interest in this topic.

13
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Modern Education Model
Interactionism is the mainstream of modern education, which refers to students learning
through autonomy, cooperation with teachers and classmates, and reflection (Kutbiddinova et al.,
2016). The teaching and learning process is a dynamically developing process of unified
teaching and learning with interactive influences and interactive activities. The main teaching
concepts and teaching ways are based on interaction. In this process, through the optimization of
teaching interaction, effective interaction of all factors in teaching combine to improve teaching
effectiveness. Optimizing teaching interaction includes the regulation of teacher-student relations
and their interactions, forming harmonious teacher-student interactions, student-student
interactions, and interactions between individual learners and teaching agencies. Interactionism
strengthens the interaction of humans and the environment.
Modern Teaching
The main teaching philosophies of modern education are based on interactive education.
Interactive educational philosophy can be traced back to the period of the Ancients and the early
Enlightenment. Plato, Confucius, Aristotle, Aquinas, and virtually all ancient philosophers,
identified mentoring, modelling, and questioning as of critical importance in teaching and
learning. The interaction between the teacher/mentor and learner was the medium for intellectual
growth and learning. Beyond the Ancients, one of the pioneers of contemporary education, the
early Enlightenment philosopher Rousseau, emphasized nature, advocating that people learn
through the interaction with “nature, men, and things” (Martin & Martin, 2010, p. 86). Nature
implied internal development; men meant interactions with other people; things referred to
interactions with natural surroundings. Rousseau was saying that people not only learn from the

14
environment and other people but also learn from themselves. Helvétius, who was a
contemporary of Rousseau’s, advocated materialism. He believed that states could form people
into people they need through education (Yang, 2011).
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Dewey proposed pragmatism. Dewey
recommended interaction among students; teachers should understand students and teach
corresponding knowledge according to the needs and interests of students at different stages of
learning (Dewey, 1897; Synytsia, 2020). Dewey criticized traditional education, stating that
school curriculum did not consider the nature of children, but was a curriculum designed with
adult logic fragmentation, separated from the children themselves and their natural environment.
His words were “The school curriculum is dead, mechanical, and formal” (Dewey, 1902, p. 9).
Dewey emphasized that learning was a dynamic process, continuous and interactive (Leshkovska
& Spaseva, 2016). Montessori, who was a contemporary of Dewey’s, paid particular attention to
the entire learner and the interaction between learners. As she mentioned: “The pedagogical
method of observation has for its base the liberty of the child; and liberty is activity”
(Montessori, 1912, p. 52). Schools and teachers should not teach curricula in a settled
environment; teachers should teach different subjects differently. Students learn best through
their interaction with their peers, and most importantly, they learn actively.
In the late twentieth century, Gardner (1983) proposed the theory of multiple
intelligences (MI). He advocated educational reform. He believed that education at the time was
not student-centered, but a one-way imparting of knowledge which students received passively
(Leshkovska & Spaseva, 2016). Gardner (1995) believed that
schools should ensure that differences among youngsters are taken seriously, knowledge
about differences is shared with children and parents, children gradually assume

15
responsibility for their own learning, and materials that are worth knowing are presented
in ways that afford each child the maximum opportunity to master those materials and to
show others (and themselves) what they have learned and understood (as cited in
Leshkovska & Spaseva, 2016, p. 60).
In other words, Gardner also emphasized interaction, the interaction between teachers
and students, as well as among students. Teachers should adjust the content of class according to
students’ personalities and learning preferences (styles), and that students learn and accumulate
experience in mutual exchanges.
Interactionism has gradually been emphasized and further studied since the early
twentieth century. The development of modern teaching and educational concepts is based on
interaction, whether in formal teacher/student relationships or mentor/mentee relationships.
Interaction is the basis and main component of teaching. The biggest difference between
interactive and traditional lecturing behaviour is that unilateral teaching has become ambilateral
behaviour between teachers and students. The teaching behaviour has been changed into an
interactive behaviour model in which both teachers and students participate. Interaction is the
core of interactive teaching. Without interaction or correct interaction, there is no interactive
teaching.
Modern Learning
Piaget’s theory of Cognitive development identifies learning as a process of students’
construction of meaning based on their knowledge when they are facing new opinions from
teachers or peers (Piaget, 1977; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Learning happens when learners
interact with the environment and this interaction has meaning for the learner (Sutton, 1978;

16
Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The learning is the result of interaction between learners and teachers,
learners and peers, learners, and environment.
Student Engagement
The primary object of education is engagement (Shulman, 2002). Student engagement
(SE) is one of the most important factors and constructs of academic activities (Kuh, 2009;
Shulman, 2002). SE contributes to student understanding of knowledge (Shulman, 2002). The
learning process starts when students engage themselves in learning, and by learning they
produce knowledge. SE is positively related to their achievement and learning abilities (Kuh,
2003; Vibert & Shields, 2003). Understanding SE is of positive significance to students and
schools; furthermore, it is also a necessary foundation for modern educational theoretical
research.
Student Engagement in Face-to-Face Environment
Teaching has existed for thousands or even millions of years; however, student
engagement has attracted interest in the research field mainly in the last 25 years (Christenson et
al., 2012). There are some open issues, and general agreements (Christenson et al., 2012), and
the definition of SE also has consensus and a certain degree of disagreement.
The Definition of Student Engagement.
There are different and contested definitions of Student Engagement (SE). It starts with
the definition of student involvement from Astin, which refers to “the amount of physical and
psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (Astin, 1985, p. 36;
Trowler, 2010). The interpretation of ‘physical and psychological energy’ from Astin is that how
students spend most of the time at schools, interact with instructors and peers more often, and are
actively involved in different kinds of activities. The best-known engagement indicators may be

17
the seven principles from Chickering and Gamson (Hu & Kuh, 2001). Chickering et al. (1987)
identified seven principles to improve undergraduate education, including student-faculty
interaction, student-student interaction, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high
expectations, and respect for diversity in talents and styles of learning. Skinner and Belmont
(1993) suggest a further engagement indicator, connecting SE with inspiration, arguing that the
more strongly motivated students are, the more positive the emotions expressed in learning are,
the higher the engagement of the learner becomes. Both ‘behavioral and emotional’
involvements are contained in the definition of ‘engagement’ (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Hu
and Kuh (2001) define engagement as “the quality of effort students themselves devote to
educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes” (p. 3).
Bowen (2005) connected engagement with four areas “engagement with the learning
process, with the object of study, with the contexts of the object of the study, and with the human
condition” (p. 4). Coates (2007) defined engagement as students participating in academic or
non-academic activities that contributed to academic achievement. Later, Groccia’s model gave a
six-dimensional definition of SE, which covers the most dimensions, “learners can be engaged
during their academic experience: in teaching, learning, research; with community, students, and
faculty” (Groccia, 2018, p. 14). When considering theories about student engagement we expect
to see definitions developed from one dimension leading to multiple dimensions, often including
overlaps that student engagement includes behaviour, cognition, and emotion dimensions (Kahu,
2013). This thesis will use the definition of student engagement of Groccia’s (2018) model,
which SE is the interplay between behaviour, emotion, and cognition factors.

18
Behavioural Dimension.
Student engagement always includes elements of behaviour. The behaviour dimension
refers to academic and non-academic thinking and behaviour processes (Fredricks et al., 2004;
Kahu, 2013). It includes following the rules of schools and online learning, learning and
developing academic skills, and participating with tasks in and out of class (Fredricks et al.,
2004; Redmond et al., 2018). The behavioural dimension indicates learning and social activities,
which have direct or indirect influences on student engagement.
Emotional Dimension.
Also included in student engagement is the emotional dimension of learning and
behaviour. The emotional dimension draws on positive and negative feelings or attitudes towards
peers, instructors, and institutional stuff; moreover, it also refers to students’ willingness to learn
(Fredricks et al., 2004; Redmond et al., 2018). Issues such as students like or dislike of their
school or teachers, efforts students are willing to expend to learn, and prior assumptions all may
be in play. In Askham’s article issues of emotion and learning are identified as important to the
overall learning environment “there is an emotional intensity attached to the experience of
learning that is often overlooked” (Askham, 2008, p. 94). Emotions are an important feature of
learning and of relationships, which influence students’ learning and cognitive development.
Cognition Dimension.
The Collins dictionary explains cognition as “the mental process involved in knowing,
learning, and understanding things” (Collins Dictionary, n.d.). Therefore, cognitive engagement
refers to the intellectual efforts students make to master the knowledge. Skills, such as
memorizing, self-regulating, critical thinking, combining and synthesizing knowledge, and
learning strategies all influence cognition and learning (Fredricks et al., 2004; Redmond et al.,

19
2018; Reeve & Tseng, 2011). Cognitive engagement is crucial as it aids students as they develop
deeper understanding and handle more complex learning content.
Conclusion.
As discussed earlier, SE is a dynamic state, which is influenced by various factors such as
students’ characteristics, emotion, background knowledge, cognition and efforts, and prior
success with learning. Therefore, a multidimensional model of student engagement is more
appropriate for this thesis, as shown in figure one. As Groccia (2018) indicated: “learners can be
engaged during their academic experience: in teaching, learning, research; with community,
students, and faculty. Additionally, student engagement within these six dimensions can occur on
cognitive, affective, and behavioral level” (p. 14).
Figure 1
Groccia’s Model of Student Engagement

With
other
students
With
faculty
and staff

In
research

Engagement
Doing
Feeling
Thinking

In
teaching

In
learning

With the
communi
-ty

Note. From “What Is Student Engagement?,” by J. E. Groccia, 2018, New Directions for Teaching & Learning,
2018(154), p. 15 (http://10.0.3.234/tl.20287).

20
Student Engagement in Online Environment
With the advancement of technology, distance education is also constantly developing.
“The use of the internet in teaching and learning has become more common in higher education”
(Mather & Sarkans, 2018, p. 61). As more universities offer more online programs and courses,
and students’ enrollment in online programs grows, research on student engagement in online
learning becoming increasingly important (Dixson, 2015; Redmond et al., 2018). There are many
concepts of online student engagement. Constructivism and connectivism provide a theoretical
basis for understanding online learning (Garrison et al., 2001). Garrison et al. (2001) defined
more explicitly the key factors influencing blended learning from the perspective of
constructivism. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework is one of the most widely used
frameworks in online and blended teaching and learning (T. Anderson, 2008; Castellanos-Reyes,
2020); moreover, many scholars have verified the effectiveness of the three factors and the
interaction between three factors (Kanuka et al., 2007; Richardson & Swan, 2003). It is the ideal,
something all educators are striving to achieve. Therefore, this study will use the CoI framework
to explain student engagement in an online environment. The CoI Framework as shown in figure
two.
Community of Inquiry Framework.
To explore student-teacher and student-student interaction Garrison presented the CoI
framework (Garrison, 2011). CoI includes three elements: cognitive presence (CP), social
presence (SP), and teaching presence (TP), as shown in figure two.

21
Figure 2
Community of Inquiry

SOCIAL
PRESENCE

Supporting
Discourse

COGNITIVE
PRESENCE

EDUCATIONAL
EXPERIENCE
Monitoring
and Regulating
Learning

Setting
Climate

TEACHING
PRESENCE

Note. From “Community of Inquiry,” by D. R. Garrison, E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research
and practice (2nd ed.) (p. 23), 2011, Routledge. Copyright 2011 by Taylor & Francis.

Cognitive Presence.
Critical reflection is an integral part of the learning process for students. “Cognitive
presence is a vital element in critical thinking, a process and outcome that is frequently presented
as the ostensible goal of all higher education” (Garrison et al., 1999, p. 89). CP refers to the
extent to which learners can construct the understanding through continuous reflection and
discourse (Garrison et al., 1999, 2001; Swan & Ice, 2010). Critical thinking in CP “includes
creativity, problem solving, intuition, and insight” (Garrison et al., 2001, p. 8). CP has four
stages, which are “Triggering Event, Exploration, Integration, and Resolution” (Garrison et al.,
1999, p. 89). Each stage has its own indicators and sociocognitive processes (Garrison et al.,
2001). A triggering event could be a question from instructors, problems that emerge from

22
interactions, detailed in-class discussions about a point of research and practice, or the
uncovering of personal value positions and understandings through reflective writing. Then
students will try to get more information through materials related to the issue. At the third stage,
students will construct the meaning of all information, in which TP is crucial, as instructors
should evaluate the ideas from students and facilitate them to further cognitive development
(Garrison et al., 2001). At the fourth stage, students may apply the new knowledge, or ask further
questions or start new queries. CP is a process that helps students combine their experiences with
the new knowledge, and eventually have a deep understanding of the course content or concepts.
Social Presence.
Social Presence (SP) refers to the ability of learners to identify with the community of
learning. The establishment and encouragement for social presence helps to build a trustful
environment where learners communicate meaningfully and develop interpersonal relationships
through the full display of their personality characteristics (Garrison et al., 1999). SP is good for
creating a collaborative learning environment (Castellanos-Reyes, 2020). SP is a supportive
element for cognitive presence, the process of critical thinking; furthermore, it has also been
shown to increase academic success (Garrison et al., 1999; Garrison, 2011). SP can also build a
sense of belonging, helping to create a collaborative and critical environment (Garrison et al.,
1999; Garrison, 2011). SP can be demonstrated through emotional expressions, questions to
other students or teachers, or through participation in group work. SP is especially significant
during ERE because many studies have shown that during the ERE students and teachers were
facing extreme mental and psychological issues. For example, Gao (2020) revealed the issue of
mental and well-being in ERE. The study from Green et al. (2020) showed that students and
teachers felt stress and social isolation in ERE. Another study showed that students are less

23
motivated because of the lack of a sense of connection with instructors and other students (Shin
& Hickey, 2020). Therefore, SP is becoming a significant element to improve student
engagement in ERE.
Teaching Presence.
Teaching Presence (TP) plays a critical role in the CoI frameworks, as “TP brings all the
elements of a community of inquiry together in a balanced and functional relationship congruent
with the intended outcomes and the needs and capabilities of the learners” (Garrison, 2011, p.
25). TP has two functions. The first function is about the course itself, which includes the course
content, the ways instructors present material to be studied, and how they assess learning
outcomes (Garrison et al., 1999). The second function is the interactions between teachers and
students (Garrison et al., 1999). Teaching presence can be expressed through explicit instruction
of course content and learning outcomes, participation, and facilitation of different learning
activities, encouraging discussion, and affirming or correcting students’ understanding. TP
includes three teaching roles: instructional design and organization, facilitating discourse, and
direct instruction (Garrison, 2003). Instructional design and organization refer to the general
course design and delivery, such as curriculum design, instructions, and evaluations. The purpose
of the facilitating discourse is through appropriate guidance, leading students to critically think
and reflect on the materials, ultimately reach a deeper understanding of the content. For example,
instructors could identify an area for discussion, or build an encouraging and trust environment
to motivate students to share their opinions. Direct instruction is more specific than facilitation.
Instructors should focus on a particular topic, or point out misconceptions from students, and
guide them appropriately, which means guiding students based on students’ knowledge. In

24
conjunction with cognitive and social presence, the intent of the CoI model is to create a
community of inquiry (Garrison et al., 1999; Garrison, 2011).
Summary.
All three elements CP, SP and TP connect and influence each other, and ultimately
improve student engagement. Multiple studies have suggested that the CoI framework makes
positive contributions to student engagement in online learning in various aspects, SP in
particular (Lawrence-Benedict et al., 2019). TP is a key element because the design and
organization of the course determines CP and SP.
The Importance and Significance of Student Engagement
The study of student engagement (SE) could date back to the 1930s; the American
psychologist Ralph Tyler was one of the first pioneers who identified that time on task played a
significant role in learning (Kuh, 2009). Students who have more task-related behaviours in class
learn more (Anderson, n.d.). In 1984, the National Institute of Education (ED) highlighted the
significance of involvement in learning in students’ education. The more “time, energy, and
effort” student dedicate to their education, the more they gain (National Inst. of Education (ED)
DC., 1984, p. 17). Later, Pace (1990) noted that the time, energy and communication with peers
and instructors are positively related to students’ achievement. More and more people recognize
the importance of student engagement. Swan et al. (2000) found that students who had more
interaction with their peers and instructors were more successful in learning; SE became an
important factor in students’ study and personal development. The studies from Brown and Sake
(1987), Hossler et al. (1988), Jones and Schwartz (1994), and Bellei (2009) showed that
instructional time is positively related to students’ achievement. More specifically, Törnroos
(2005) found that learning opportunity has a positive effect on students’ achievement. Students

25
who spend more time on course-related content will have more gains in learning outcomes. In
more recent times, the popular author Malcolm Gladwell has identified that 10,000 hours of
rehearsal and learning is what is required to achieve world-class ability in a particular area
(Gladwell, 2010). While not proven to be entirely accurate, the concept continues to hold some
merit. Practice, time on task, energy, and useful instruction all relate to improvements and likely
contribute to student engagement.
The Engagement Indicators.
The importance and significance of SE has been demonstrated in many studies. The
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) began gathering data in 1999, which included
behavioral and perceptual indicators; behavioral indicators included participation time in and out
of classroom of students, while perceptual indicators included relationships between students and
students with faculty members, and the supporting environment of institutions. The initial
purpose of NSSE was to describe the quality of colleges and universities by focusing on
pedagogical practices and students’ learning experiences while the government drew attention to
students’ preference for institutions and teachers’ certifications (NSSE, 2001). Through the
NSSE data, institutions could see which are effective instructional practices and student
engagement patterns, and then modify them appropriately (Kuh, 2003). SE by NSSE is a
summary of include critical research concepts regard student engagement, which include student
engagement in academic activities and the supporting environment from educational institutions
(Hu & Kuh, 2001; Kuh, 2009; NSSE, n.d.). NSSE combines the theory from Ralph Tyler, C.
Robert Pace, Alexander Astin, Tinto, Pascarella, Feldman and Newcomb, Pascarella and
Terenzini, Chickering and Gamson (NSSE, n.d.). The research study from Kuh et al. (1997)
showed that College Student Experiences Questionnaire could access the relationship between

26
students’ behavior and institutions of higher education. With some modifications and
development, in 2013, NSSE introduced new engagement indicators (EIs). EIs had four themes,
identified as being Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and
Campus Environment (Rocconi & Kinzie, 2013).
Academic Challenge.
There are four EIs under this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative
Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning. First, Higher-Order Learning is from
Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive domain, and EIs are also following the principle of Bloom’s
Taxonomy (NSSE, n. d.). “Higher-order thinking occurs when a person takes new information
and information stored in memory and interrelates and/ or rearranges and extends this
information to achieve a purpose or find possible answers in perplexing situations” (Lewis &
Smith, 1993, p. 136). Higher-order thinking is not merely critical thinking or problem-solving;
higher-order thinking includes absorbing new information, thinking critically, reflecting on the
information, and integrating the new information into the existing knowledge. NSSE (2013) also
identified that students who are required to engage in higher-order learning skills apply
knowledge, solve problems, and have a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of the
subject at hand. Second, reflective learning focuses on the frequency of students’ reflection on
their knowledge, and personal connection with learning materials (NSSE, n.d.; Tukibayeva &
Gonyea, 2014). Studies showed that students with a deep learning approach were more likely to
connect, reflect and review their existing experience and knowledge when facing new
information or tasks (Dolmans et al., 2016; Laird et al., 2005). Third, the learning strategies are
positively related to academic achievement; moreover, effective learning strategies help students
reflect on problems, improve their metacognitive knowledge, and their learning strategies in

27
return (Biwer et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2014). Forth, quantitative reasoning skills become highly
valued in the workplace; therefore, it is critical that students master quantitative skills to analyze
quantitative information (Dumford & Rocconi, 2015). Quantitative reasoning is one that uses
skills like “prerequisite knowledge”, “logical thinking”, and/ or “practical skills” to “create and
interpret with graphs”, “work with data”, and/ or “explain the results and meaning of the
math/numbers” (O’Neill & Flynn, 2013, p. 340). The four EIs under academic challenge are
focusing on different dimensions of academic efforts (Rocconi & Kinzie, 2013).
Learning with Peers.
Learning with Peers is composed of two EIs: Collaborative Learning and Discussions
with Diverse Others. Collaborative learning could trackback to Vygotsky (1962, 1978), Dewey
(1938), and Piaget (1951) (Davidson & Major, 2014). Often considered the opposite to
competition, collaborative learning is a self-managed group that shares the same goals, works
with respect, group members contribute personal strengths, not necessarily interdependently, and
members take substantial responsibilities (Davidson & Major, 2014; Panitz, 1999). Collaborative
learning is also in contrast to passive learning (Robbins & Hoggan, 2019). Collaborative learning
could help students improve their thinking skills, communicating skills, the ability to work with
others; moreover, they could explore their knowledge, have a deeper understanding of course
content, assignments, projects (Boud et al., 2014; Goodsell, 1992; Robbins & Hoggan, 2019).
Peer relationships influence students in diverse ways, including school connectedness
(Astin, 1993; Gowing, 2019; Newcomb, 1943). “students’ values, beliefs, and aspirations tend to
change in the direction of the dominant values, believes, and aspirations of the peer group.”
(Astin, 1993, p. 398). Furthermore, “College students’ interpersonal interactions with diversity
are associated with improved cognitive skills, leadership skills, civic engagement, self-concept,

28
sense of belonging, cultural awareness, and intergroup attitudes” (Bowman, 2013, p. 875). The
interaction and relationship among students have an impact on student engagement from two
aspects: learning concept and attitude towards learning.
Experiences with Faculty.
There are two EIs under this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction, and Effective Teaching
Practice. Interaction is a significant factor in student engagement. Many studies show the
student-faculty interaction has a positive influence on students (Cuseo, 2018). The studies from
Astin (1993), Kuh and Hu (2001), and Pascarella (1980) indicate that student-faculty interaction
is positively related to students’ satisfaction with college, personal development, academic
achievement, and cognitive growth. Student-faculty interactions could be in and out of class,
academic or non-academic interactions. The more students interact with faculty, the more benefit
students will gain. There are different kinds of student-faculty interactions, for example, “ask
Info related to the course, discuss term paper or project with faculty member, talk with faculty
member, have coffee, cokes, snacks with faculty” (Kuh et al., 1997, p. 450). However, not all
kinds of student-faculty interactions have a positive impact on learning outcomes. Rather, the
interactions related to academic knowledge, value, or career have a prominent impact. (Hu &
Kuh, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1978). Accordingly, qualitative non-classroom studentfaculty interaction is meaningful for students’ satisfaction with institutions and their success.
Campus Environment.
There are two EIs under the theme Campus Environment: Quality of Interactions and
Supportive Environment. Qualitative of Interactions focuses on interactions with important
people from educational institutions, like advisors, faculty, and staff (NSSE, n.d.; Rocconi &

29
Kinzie, 2013). Studies showed that qualitative interactions have an intellectual and academic
impact on students (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2007).
Environment involves “characteristics of institutions; curriculum; faculty; the peer group;
residence, major, and financial aid; and student involvement ” (Astin, 1993, p. 33). The
environment includes interpersonal interaction and the interaction between students and their
surroundings. Positive interaction and perspectives from students will influence their satisfaction
and sense of belongings (Astin, 1968, 1993), and how they spend their time (Kuh et al., 2006).
Chapter Summary
This thesis started from 2020, therefore, it considered the effects of multiple schoolsystem closures or other events that have transpired since early 2020. According to UNESCO
(2020) the COVID-19 impact on education is global, and the largest influence was in April 2020.
There were more than 1.5 billion learners and students worldwide, from children at early
childhood education, to students at tertiary education affected by the global pandemic. Almost
90% of schools from 192 countries were closed due to the pandemic, COVID-19. The entire
society was forced to pivot into emergency remote education rather than what was the dominant
delivery mode of F2F learning.
While remote education has long been a consistently growing subfield in higher
education (Bower & Hardy, 2004; Seaman et al., 2018), the outbreak of COVID-19 has made
ERE a global phenomenon (Hodges et al., 2020). For most educational institutions, educational
practitioners, and students, the experience of ERE is the experience of remote education, but in
reality, the two are very different (Hodges et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2020). ERE is not the
same as traditional distance education, which is fully developed and most of the time is
supported by dedicated personnel, whereas ERE is more ad hoc and is a means of responding to

30
a crisis (Hodges et al., 2020; Means et al., 2014). ERE is done by educational institutions,
administrators, faculty, staff, and students with little background in remote learning; it is an
abrupt shift without transition and is forced in nature.
The foundation of previous studies is the coexistence of F2F and online; F2F and online
are a matter of choice for students (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Under this premise, previous studies on
student engagement have accumulated rich cases and profound theories. When society is facing a
social security crisis like COVID-19, online education becomes the main teaching modality,
however it is not effectively structured as online education (Brooks & Grajek, 2020). What we
are using is something that researchers are calling ERE. ERE is compulsory (Bozkurt et al.,
2020), at this time in higher education, and is different in purpose, format and efficacy from the
premise of previous studies in either online learning or F2F learning. This compulsion is also
reflected in educational technology, where COVID-19 forces educators and the educated to
collectively embrace/try new educational methods and use new technology and tools. For
students, F2F and online learning is no longer optional. This situation has never occurred. In
ERE teaching modality, the study of student engagement in learning is still unknown. This
constitutes a gap in the research.

31
Chapter Three: Methodology
Research Question
This research focused on questions related to student engagement. Using the Critical
Incident Technique (CIT) to fill a research gap because few pieces of research have studied
student engagement in F2F and ERE. The research questions were:
1. From students’ perspective, are there differences in student engagement, when the
same courses are switched from primarily F2F teaching to ERE modalities?
2. What are the main reasons causing these differences?
Participants
In the beginning, I was planned to employ snowball sampling to recruit participants,
because snowball sampling is an extremely valuable and often necessary sampling technique
(Waters, 2015). Further, as Noy (2008) stated: “in snowball sampling, the researcher relinquishes
a considerable amount of control over the sampling phase to the informants” (p. 332); by doing
this, the data collected in this study could be more dynamic. To recruit participants, an
introduction letter, as shown in Appendix A, was posted through Moodle in the graduate
program in the Faculty of Education at Thompson Rivers University, which had 425 registered
students. The study concentrated on graduate students; however, it was difficult to recruit
participants through the purest theoretical snowballing in the Faculty of Education as many
students just responded to me directly, rather than recruiting other students. I conducted
interviews with all the students who responded to me initially, and also asked them to introduce
classmates or friends in the Master of Education program who might be interested in attending
the research.

32
The sampling was focused on graduate students in a Master of Education Program.
Studies show that graduate students have higher levels of self-efficacy and autonomy in learning,
and their critical thinking skills are better than undergraduate students (Bissessar et al., 2019;
Zascavage et al., 2007). Therefore, graduate students are skilled in learning methods, have strong
independent learning ability, and have fewer influencing factors on the study, which could
reduce the interference factors for the data.
Moreover, there are different learning strategies in F2F and online learning students; for
example, students often need to be more motivated, independent, and organized in online
learning if they are to achieve a similar or a better outcome as F2F learning (Phipps & Merisotis,
1999; as cited in Summers et al., 2005). Therefore, students who shift from F2F to online
learning may have difficulties, especially for students, who do not have the experience in an
online learning environment.
Thirdly, in 2020, nearly one-third of on campus students at TRU were international
students (Thompson Rivers University, 2020a). In the learning process, the influence of SE can
be significant, especially for international students as they may face many challenges. The shift
to graduate studies is a beginning of a different sort, however, many students find the increased
expectations for reading, writing, independent thought and intensive course or research a
challenge (Küçükali, 2019; McClure, 2007). In many ways, students begin again – older, and
with an undergraduate degree, but inexperienced in this new environment. One of the main
challenges is the language, both in the academic and social contexts (Rodríguez et al., 2019). The
other main difficulty for international students is the cultural difference, includes their academic
experience (McClure, 2007; Rodríguez et al., 2019). Students have different expectations

33
according to their academic experiences; especially, when they experience a new education
system, they find it hard to figure out the appropriate way (McClure, 2007).
Flanagan (1954) mentioned that the sample size related to the nature, the variety, and
quality of the critical incidents, but not the number of participants. Further, Thomson (2011)
pointed out that redundancy happens when the number of participants between 10 to 30.
Ultimately, ten participants were recruited in this study. Most of them were international
students, some were in their first year, and some were in their second year of the graduate
program.
Critical Incident Technique
The Critical Incident Technique (CIT) was used in this study to figure out the critical
factors that influenced student engagement in the online learning environment from students’
points of view.
The definition of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) is:
…a procedure for gathering certain important facts concerning behavior in defined
situations…a set of procedures for collecting direct observations of human behavior in
such a way as to facilitate their potential usefulness in solving practical problems…The
essence of the technique is that only simple types of judgments are required of the
observer, reports from only qualified observers are included… rather than collecting
opinions, hunches, and estimates, obtains a record of specific behaviors from those in the
best position to make the necessary observations and evaluations (Flanagan, 1954, p. 327
- 355).
The CIT is widely employed in different research areas, such as such as “counselling
(Dix and Savickas, 1995; McCormick, 1997), education and teaching (LeMare and Sohbat, 2002;

34
Oaklief, 1976; Parker, 1995; Tirri and Koro-Ljungberg, 2002)…organizational learning (Ellinger
and Bostrom, 2002; Skiba, 2000), performance appraisal (Evans, 1994; Schwab et al., 1975)”
(Butterfield et al., 2005, p. 475-476). In educational area “… employed with teacher-pupil
relations (Peterson, 1963), selection of student teachers (Ferero,1971), curriculum and teaching
practices (Hageman,1973), and teacher efficiency as a result of effective teaching of student
teachers (Stewart,1956)” (Reed, 1976, p. 8-9).
Furthermore, the CIT is an exploratory qualitative research method, which is reliable and
valid (Andersson & Nilsson, 1964; Woolsey, 1986). The definition of qualitative research from
Denzin and Lincoln (1998) is:
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic
approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in
their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of
the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and
collection of a variety of empirical materials—case study, personal experience,
introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual
texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives
(p. 3).
Given the purpose of this study, CIT appeared to be a good fit because the data was
collected through interviews, observation, or qualitative questions and interpret the incident from
the participants’ point of view (Cresswell, 1998; as cited in Butterfield et al., 2005).
Flanagan (1954) emphasizes that CIT does not have strict rules to follow but use the most
appropriate approach and procedure to meet the particular research areas. This study used
interviews, as Seidman (2006) suggests that if researchers want to know more about the subject’s

35
experience and understanding of one theme, interviews might be the best method. The interview
allowed the students to describe if they feel their engagement have changed from F2F to online
learning, and why.
Data Collection
According to Creswell (2015), researchers must receive the approval from the
institutional review board, because qualitative data collection involves collecting individual
information. Before conducting the interview, I got the approval from the Research Ethics Board,
as shown at the Appendix B. Further, all the participants have signed the consent form before
conducting the interview, as shown at the Appendix C.
Due to the pandemic, data was collected through online interviews. Topic-related
interview questions and probing questions are shown in the Appendix D. Most interviews were
conducted through Microsoft Teams; for a few participants, who could not log into Microsoft
Teams, the interviews were conducted on Zoom. At the beginning of each interview, I briefly
introduced the research and the participant’s right; then I conducted the interview. All the
interviews were recorded on audio.
Data Analysis
For data analysis, I followed Creswell (2015) and Saldana (2016). First, I transcribed
each interview. Then for the first cycle coding, I employed value coding and subcoding coding
methods, as the value coding is appropriate for exploring participant’s attitude, and the
subcoding could improve the detail of the categories of data (Saldana, 2016). After coding every
interview, I listed all the codes in an excel sheet. Then I did the second cycle coding. “The
primary goal during second cycle coding is to develop a sense of categorical, thematic,
conceptual, and/or theoretical organization from your array of first cycle codes” (Saldana, 2016,

36
p. 234). Because Friesen and Young (1985) experienced problems while conducting their
research with CIT; they found that they need a theory to classify their data, and then they started
with a conceptional structure to categorize their data (as cited in Woosley, 1986). Further,
Flanagen (1954) listed three points while summarising to improve the validity of the data: “ (a)
the selection of the general frame of reference…(b) the inductive development of a set of major
area and subarea headings; and (c) the selection of one or more levels along the specificitygenerality continuum” (p. 345).
Therefore, by coding, this study uses the CoI framework and the Engagement Indicators
(EIs) of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as the reference to categorize the
main and sub-themes and determine the specific incidents; by doing this, this study ensures the
specificity and objectivity of the data from the interviews. There are ten EIs are listed under four
themes, as seen below in Table One.
Table 1
Engagement Indicators as identified in the National Survey of Student Engagement
Theme
Academic challenge

Engagement Indicators
Higher-order learning
Reflective & integrative learning
Learning strategies
Qualitative reasoning

Leaning with peers
Collaborative learning
Discussions with diverse others
Experiences with faculty
Student-faculty interaction
Effective teaching practices
Campus environment
Quality of interactions
Supportive environment

37
Kuh (2003) highlights that NSSE data can demonstrate the level of student engagement
in different academic activities. One significant indicator is that increase student-faculty
members and student-student interaction can improve student engagement (Kuh, 2003, 2009;
McCormick et al., 2013). For example, Padgett et al. (2010) also mentions that interaction with
faculty and other students motivated student engagement (as cited in McCormick et al., 2013).
This study will follow the five steps of CIT: (1) determine the aim of the activity to be
studied; (2) set plans, specifications, and criteria for the information to be obtained; (3) collect
data; (4) analyze the thematic content of the data; and (5) report the findings (Flanagan, 1954;
Woolsey, 1986).
This research will use the CIT citing the engagement indicators (EIs) from the NSSE as
the research framework or trigger to study the research questions.
Positionality of the Researcher
As explained earlier, I was experiencing the ERE while I started the research. It is
important to highlight that this study aimed to support both instructors’ and students’ teaching
and learning practices, to identify factors influencing student engagement in the ERE. The study
used the CIT to conduct interviews neutrally. Moreover, I applied the engagement indicators of
the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Community of Inquiry model as the
theoretical framework. However, the results of this study might have the potential possibility to
be influenced by my previous understanding of ERE and student engagement, and my
perspectives as a student who was also engaged in study.
Reliability and Validity
To ensure the reliability and validity of the research, first, I did member checks, as the
member check is one of the ways to improve the validity of qualitative research (Merriam,

38
1995). After transcribing the interviews, I contacted the interviewees to check the transcripts. I
sent the recordings and transcripts to invite them to check either the transcripts or compare the
transcript and the recordings, all the participants had confirmed positively that the transcripts
were the same as they said in the interview. Moreover, during transcription, I found some words
were not clear, or the recordings were broken off; therefore, I asked the interviewees to clarify.
Examples are shown in the table two.
Table 2
Examples for Interview Clarification
Transcript in the first version

Requirement for clarification

“…and like I mentioned before… to Canada”

Because the recording is damaged in this part,
some words are missing, can you please fill
them in?

“The teacher can see you in the classroom, if

Does the word “behave” the right word in this

you are lazy or tired, the teacher will behave.”

sentence? Could you explain it, please? What
do you mean?

Second, I also conducted an audit trial strategy. “In order for an audit to take place, the
investigator must describe in detail how data were collected, how categories were derived and
how decisions were made throughout the inquiry” (Merriam, 1988, p. 172). Reflecting on
Merriam’s suggestion, as one of my audit strategies, after finishing my first interview coding, I
explained it to my supervisors thoroughly. I interpreted the transcript to my supervisor on an
anonymous basis and explained how and why I coded and categorized the data. After receiving

39
the professional feedback from my supervisors, I recoded the interview and confirmed with them
again. This process improved the reliability of this study.

40
Chapter Four: Results
This chapter will summarize and describe the critical incidents of interviewees related to
the research question:
From students’ perspective, are there differences in student engagement, when the same
courses are switched from primarily F2F teaching to ERE modalities? What are the main
reasons causing these differences?
In accordance with the definition of student engagement, the CoI model, and the
Engagement Indicators from NSSE explained in this study, incidents are summarized in three
main themes and ten sub-themes. Table three below presents the data in a holistic view. Each
main and sub-theme will then be introduced with participants’ incidents discussed in detail.
Table 3
Categorization of Data
Themes

Sub-theme

Frequency of Mentions

Technology

7

Course design and organization

19

Student-faculty interaction

14

Learning with peers

15

Cognitive engagement

5

Learning intensity

5

Learning strategies

5

Social interaction

12

Campus support

2

Program support

3

Teaching Practice

Learning Behaviour

Supportive Environment

41
To protect the participants’ identities, quotes from the interviews will present information
without mentioning any course names or names of instructors; further, quotations will be
adjusted for ease of understanding and grammatical accuracy, without altering the original
meaning of the interviewees. Adjustment examples are shown in the Appendix E.
Teaching Practice
Building on the definition from the CoI Framework, ‘Teaching practice’ in this study
includes pedagogical and social elements related to teaching activity. Namely, these activities
include designing and delivering courses both in and out the class time. In this study, students
experienced both synchronous and asynchronous courses and shared their opinions and
experiences about these types of teaching modalities.
Technology
The sub-theme technology contains the technological elements of the hardware and
software needed to implement online teaching and learning, as well as the impact of
technological elements in the teaching context. Since students were experiencing ERE, which
relied highly on technology, the topic of technology was commonly mentioned by the
participants in the interviews. Students faced many dilemmas when encountering technologies in
the online environment, and they had both positive and negative experiences which shaped their
engagement. Many shared how technology positively impacted their experiences. As one student
shared:
I also can learn a lot of things from the online course. I am more familiar with the use of
electronic equipment. I think in the field of education, more schools are gradually
increasing the use of technology in the classroom, so this helps me keep up with the
learning mode of future students ...For example, I took a course called …and in the

42
course, the instructor introduced us to many different apps to support our classroom
teaching. And for me, I think the most impressive one was called “add a puzzle”.
Teachers can use that app to create interesting videos and course content for students. In
remote learning, it will increase the student’s interests without board. (Student 1)
Another student shared a similar positive experience as well, and described experiencing
new online tools the instructors used and what she learned:
Instructors in emergency remote education will offer more resources, more platforms like
BigBlueButton or Zoom, or other kinds of online instruction platforms. They offer
breakout rooms. We learn something new. We need to work with PowerPoint, Google
PowerPoint, Google Docs. It’s kind of new experience. We learn new technology things.
It means that we become more technological person. It’s good. We know how to use
technology tools. We learn to be more of a digital people. I learned how to use the
BigBlueButton and Zoom, how to share screen while doing a presentation, and how to
use Jamboard to share ideas. (Student 3)
Another student highlighted her positive change in ERE, sharing she had become more
confident over time, and more willing to share her ideas in class.
I think most people afraid of speaking in the public, or at the front of the group. English
is my second language, and it is easy for me to feel nervous, especially speaking in front
of lots of students. So, in the online course, I can turn off the camera, and share my voice
with the students, which increases my courage to express myself. Because I cannot see
any faces of my classmates, I do not know what they think, which makes me feel more
relaxed. (Student 5)

43
And though students shared that they were excited to learn new technology, felt confident
to share thoughts and opinions in class at the same time, they also had unpleasant moments
because of technical issues. A student mentioned:
Last semester I had a presentation to introduce an article to the group members. I found a
related video to better explain the concepts in that article, but when I shared my screen to
play this video, my group members said that they could not hear the video. So, I sent
them the link. This was the first technical problem I encountered with. The second
problem was when my group members were watching this video, the teacher came into
our breakout room to listen to my presentation. Of course, there was silence in the
breakout room because I was waiting for my group members to finish watching the
video. But the teacher thought I didn’t say anything in the 30-minute presentation. So, the
teacher sent me a message in the chat box, L (student’s name), you should talk with your
group members and not just let your members see your PowerPoint. When I saw this
message, the teacher already left our breakout room. So, I was very sad because I had
prepared for a long time for the presentation and was misunderstood by the teacher.
(Student 1)
Another student shared her experience regarding technical problems. “I don’t trust
Moodle with my assignments. Just today I had an experience where I thought I submitted my
PDF and it all went through fine, but my professor didn’t get it” (Student 2). Students living
beyond the Canadian border were also facing more difficulties. A student living in China shared
two examples of how internet connection has influenced her engagement in online learning. One
example was “In China, we have network restrictions. So, sometimes, when a teacher delivered a

44
link, I could not open it. Sometimes, it was hard for me to learn something because some
websites I could not open” (Student 5). Another example was:
I need to use VPN. Sometimes, I lost the connection because my network was unstable.
Once, I got disconnected from my network when I asked a question, the teacher
explained it and asked a question back to me. But, at that time, there was something
wrong with my network. I got disconnected, I could not answer the question, I could not
hear it. When I logged in again, they already entered the next part. I missed that part.
(Student 5)
One other student felt that the online meeting session took extra time and energy from
him, which he did not get used to.
... one of the big ones is adapting and getting used to Zoom and Zoom meeting sessions,
and lots of video conferencing and all. While it didn't seem like a big adjustment to the
learning structure or habits, it does take away and depletes a significant amount of my
energy...took more naps and try to rest up for the online work...those online social
dynamics and video conference calls had just required me to adapt to the new learning
environment. (Student 9)
So as highlighted above, technology is a double-edged sword. On the one hand,
technology provided instructors with various tools and opportunities to diversify the online
teaching classroom form, generated students’ interest, and ultimately improved student
engagement. On the other hand, technology constraints may have limited some elements of
instructors’ delivery of courses and course materials; and may have caused confusion among
students, which might have influenced student engagement. Additionally, students who were
learning in international settings may have faced increased barriers to access their course

45
materials, which directly or indirectly influenced their engagement, especially when the barriers
were out of their control.
Course Design and Organization
The sub-theme ‘course design and organization’ refers to how instructors design and
organize the courses. In this study, the critical incidents under this sub-theme relate to students’
experiences and perspectives with the course outline, synchronous and asynchronous courses,
length of lectures, type of teaching, and teaching content.
Course Design.
Depending on the course content, instructors designed the courses differently and used
diverse ways to organize the courses, therefore, students had distinct experiences and
perspectives. They had positive experiences with the organizational forms of online teaching
while at the same time facing some challenges. As one example, a student found one course was
interesting because it aroused her curiosity. She shared that “The course made me very curious.
The teacher assigned some thinking assignments before the class and then she explained them
during the class. This made me curious about whether my thinking was correct and willing to
participate in the discussion” (Student 8). Another student mentioned how she benefited from the
novel class organization of the online course:
When I logged into Moodle, for today, I was going to read maybe four articles and wrote
a summary. All the materials I thought the teacher prepared really well…The professor
listed a lot of things. And sometimes, she even invited her professor to be the guest
speaker, and we could interact with him. Actually, the article we read was written by him,
which was really amazing too. I don’t think we’ll be able to do that in the face-to-face
course. (Student 7)

46
Another student also had a positive experience with the novel organizational form. He
felt that the instructor delivered the course flexibly. He enjoyed that course:
Last fall, in one of my courses, the instructor was doing a sort of combination way. He
posted everything on Moodle. He recorded all lectures with voice-over PPT presentation.
So, we had access to course materials at any time…That was a great combination…For
example, for whatever reason, I had a meeting on that day, or I was sick, or whatever I
didn’t go to that section, and the instructor provided asynchronous video or anything
before or after the course, it was still giving me the option to go back and study it.
(Student 10)
He also specified why he preferred the recordings of lectures. “... I’m an international
student... I’m not so confident with my professional part of English... my instructor was doing
the synchronous and asynchronous combination...This was the amazing part of the asynchronous
course. I could stop the presentation anywhere I wanted” (Student 10). Another student held a
similar opinion. She described an experience:
The instructor was very good…And he offered very brief but not short synchronous
classes, it was very clear with the main point. So, I think it was very clear to me because I
knew what I should learn in that lesson, what I should do for the assignment, what I
should ask, or what I was not clear about. (Student 3)
However, another student had an opposite experience. He felt the course was not
designed for online context, was not well organized, and was not flexible. He said:
...because this course relied heavily on students being physically in the area of
Kamloops...and because we were not able to do that...The best word I can describe, it’s a
little clunky. It’s not smooth and a little scattered...it was rushed, because the professor

47
only released the weekly modules on Sundays and expected us to read the content for
Monday’s synchronous class. Additionally, the modules were not well laid out, and it
confused when navigating between weekly content. The professor was great, but I think
that there were even challenges for him to know how to translate the teaching content to
fit online learning. So, it didn't feel as though there was lots of meaningful engagement
with the content. (Student 9)
At the same time, he had positive points of view of one course because the instructor
offered the opportunity to reflect cognitively:
It was a lot of reflective work, and some of them required that each of us went out into
the physical land that we lived on, reflected in nature, and then brought those reflections
into assignments. So, that…stimulated my learning, and made me excited to be enrolled
in this class. (Student 9)
Higher-order thinking was what another student expected. He was unsatisfied with the
instructor because the instructor asked lower-order questions during the class, which made him
reluctant to engage in class. Another student had an unpleasant experience with one of her
courses because the course was different than she expected: “… The teacher assigned us to do
presentations in class but did not explain the topic to us… I registered for…but the teacher didn’t
give any valuable information about that” (Student 4). Another two students were upset because
instructors delivered only asynchronous courses (Student 5, 10). They did not enjoy
asynchronous courses, felt difficulty when they had these courses because there were no class for
them to ask questions.
Asynchronous courses and courses with short or insufficient preparation times increased
the burden on students and reduced their engagement. Students preferred synchronous courses

48
because they could communicate with instructors and classmates about course contents. They
benefited more if instructors designed the course suitable for the online settings, such as giving a
clear curriculum schedule and instructions and offering flexibility.
Synchronicity in Course Design.
Like F2F teaching, instructors organized online courses in various ways. Students had
some of the same and some different opinions about online courses, based on their personal
experiences. In this study, some of the students preferred synchronous courses, while some of
them did not.
A student shared her view on the form of online teaching. First, she believed that
instructors should offer synchronous courses like the school schedule on the system. She said
“...She (the instructor) was very good and very responsible. She offered about two-hour
synchronous classes twice per week, so it was exactly like what the TRU schedules offer. So, I
was happy with that instructor” (Student 3). Then she explained in detail why she enjoyed the
course, not only the instructor offered the courses as scheduled, but also the way the instructor
organized the courses. First, the course was well designed. The instructor posted all the materials
on Moodle so that students could get a holistic view of the whole semester and work through the
materials at their own pace. Second, the course was diverse. The instructor organized the
synchronous courses through various activities and teaching tools, such as breakout rooms for
group discussion, and Jamboard for brainstorming. Third, the instructor offered an “interactive
environment” for students to share their opinions (Student 3). She mentioned that all these
factors contributed to her engagement in that course.

49
Another student also mentioned that because of the way the instructor organized the
synchronous course, he became more active and engaged in the class and more willing to express
his opinions in class. He stated:
...this semester I have a teacher who teaches an online course for the first time. I can feel
that ... later, I felt that she found a way to make the classroom more alive. After half of
the semester, she began to interact with students and set up some interesting activities for
the students to interact. And also, in the process of communication, she always
encouraged students to speak. Sometimes, she also put some students’ excellent
assignments on Moodle and studied them with other students in the class. I think this
really made students participating more actively in class. And it also improved the
students’ confidence. I really improved my confidence, and I was willing to share my
ideas and my thoughts in the class even I said a wrong answer and the teacher also gave
me a very good comment on my speaking. (Student 1)
Students experienced different kinds of synchronous courses as well. Few students had
non-mandatory synchronous sessions only for questions and answers about their assignments, or
nothing related to courses. For example, a student said that in one of his courses, the instructor
did not deliver course related synchronous session, rather spent this time socializing with
students. Further, he emphasized that he did not acquire enough new knowledge from that course
as he expected because of the way the instructor organized the course (Student 1). This showed
that students were expecting to have synchronous courses to learn. Another student had a similar
experience, and she felt that it was “frustrating” and “unfair” for students if the instructor did not
offer synchronous courses as scheduled (Student 3). She described one of her courses:

50
One of the instructors gave short synchronous classes, like Q&A. No lecture, nothing. In
the Q&A she asked something like “do you have any questions about the assignment”,
that's it...She posted materials, and materials were poor. I mean, she just wanted to make
sure that we could complete the course by doing assignments...She did not require
students to be present in her synchronous classes...So you can imagine that no lecture, no
real classes, Q&A just about assignments, and no requirement to be presented in the
courses...the course was like nothing. Students had no motivation to show up just for
questions and answers for assignments. I attended a couple of times, not all because I was
very disappointed and angry with what she was doing. I expected more rather than just
Q&A. I got a very good grade for that course. But I felt that the instructor did not do her
job properly and responsibly. In the synchronous classes, she was just chit-chat. I felt that
it was unfair for the tuition fee I paid. (Student 3)
This student also shared another similar type of course organization but with a different
experience. She was disappointed because she was expecting that instructors offer synchronous
lectures online:
Another course still came up with Q&A synchronous classes, but a bit different. We
could talk and discuss the course materials, and we could ask questions about that content
and assignments. The Q&A was more general. The materials, she offered were very rich
and diverse. I learned a lot from that course because the materials were very good, and
they were very informative. So, I learned a lot, but I still expected that she could offer
more than just Q&A. (Student 3)
Another student shared a similar experience with one of her courses, how the instructor
organized the course:

51
One course, the teacher introduced a textbook. He assigned us to read one or two chapters
each week, but he didn’t explain the topic, and he didn’t write any summary of the
chapters. We should go through the chapters and read ourselves...Before each big
assignment, he held an online class...In classes, the teacher just talked about assignments,
and we asked questions about assignments. We didn’t have any discussions about topics
and theories related to the course. If there is no question, he just explained to us the
details of the assignments. (Student 4)
She also shared another unpleasant experience with one of her courses because the course
was different than she expected:
I had a course in winter, the teacher designed five or six online classes, and each class
was three hours. The teacher assigned us to do presentations in class but did not explain
the topic to us. I registered for this course to know how I can deal with…but the teacher
didn’t give any valuable information about that. This class was designed for doing
presentations and assignments. In-class presentations from some students were not
related to the course at all. But the teacher didn’t care about that. When students did
presentations, she gave them the score, but she didn’t tell them that this topic was not
related to the course. And not only me, but also other students couldn’t connect this
course to some of the presentations. I choose the topic...but the teacher didn’t explain that
before. That’s why I think this course was not helpful for me. I didn’t gain any
knowledge in this course. (Student 4)
Another student was upset because the instructor delivered only asynchronous courses.
She felt difficulty when she was in the course.

52
I took the course of...we only had asynchronous courses. The instructor recorded lectures,
uploaded them on Moodle. We just downloaded lectures and listened to them...It was not
good for me because when I had a question about any topic, I had no chance to talk with
my peers or the teacher, I thought by myself. It was a bit hard for me because it was a
new course... so I hoped some of my classmates or my teacher could help me when I had
something difficult. When I could not understand something, I didn’t get any help. So, I
did not like that feeling. (Student 5)
Another student shared a similar experience: “All we did was read and listen to it (prerecorded PPT) and then write a paper.” (Student 10). He also mentioned that although some
instructors offered synchronous courses, they “sat at the front of cameras and then read the
PowerPoint presentation”. He also had some different opinions about how instructors should
organize the synchronous course, and he gave two examples.
The first example was: “One instructor took 30 or 40 minutes to introduce classmates and
on greetings…asked each of them to turn on the camera and introduce themselves...a huge waste
of time”. The second example:
One instructor would take a 30-minute break. We were doing a night course here. We
started at 5:30 pm or even 6:00 pm and finished at 9:00 pm. And you were taking 30
minutes break, did that make sense?... the teaching was ok, but she needed to fit herself
into the new teaching pedagogy, a different approach. We were all sitting in front of a
computer, what was the point to take a 30-minute break. (Student 10)
Sub-Theme Summary.
Although online courses are different from F2F, the students’ desire for knowledge was
the same. In this study most students shared that they prefer synchronous lectures, but the design

53
and the organization of the synchronous course were critical because they directly affected
student engagement. Students felt more relaxed and willing to engage in-class activities if the
course design provided clear guidance, and instructors provided appropriate explanations to
students during synchronous lectures which deepen students’ understanding of the course
materials through appropriate course organization. If the design and organization of courses were
not coherent for students, confused them, or if the instructors did not provide an academic-type
communication platform for students in the course design, students would feel more
overwhelmed by the courses.
Facing a new teaching environment, students can feel instructors’ efforts and difficulties,
at the same time, they also expected that the instructors to adjust their organizational form in
class to the online teaching environment. For students experiencing online classes for the first
time, many were more comfortable with the familiar course organization similar to F2F courses.
Student-Faculty Interaction
According to the definition of ‘student-faculty interaction’ from NSSE, this sub-theme
involves the academic interactions between students and instructors, including verbal and written
communication. In the online environment, students recognized that the interaction with
instructors changed both in and out of class, compared to a more traditional F2F class. Some
students felt that they had more opportunities to interact with instructors. For example, a student
said:
… now I was able to make appointments with them (instructors) and had their detailed
feedback. I did a few times. Anytime I reached them, they were available. Because of the online
course, they assigned us a lot of readings and summaries, and then they always gave us timely
feedback, which was really helpful. (Student 7)

54
Another student held the same view. She felt that she received more guidance from
instructors in online learning because “instructors also understand that there are a lot of things
that students may not be able to understand” (Student 6). One example was:
...the comments of the instructor were not very clear. I was not able to comprehend what
the instructor was trying to say, so I had mailed my instructor and asked if he could
explain to me the meaning... He rapidly replied and said that it was difficult to discuss
things by email, let’s just talk to each other, and he scheduled a meeting. He started
explaining every comment of what he was expecting, what I had done, and what I could
do differently. So that was quite interesting because I think this would not have happened
if it would have been in the F2F class. (Student 6)
In this online learning environment, students shared that they communicated with
instructors mostly in written form. For example, in the synchronous courses, students typed their
questions or answers in a chat box. In the asynchronous courses, students communicated with
their instructors mostly by email and occasionally via Moodle message. Some students
interviewed felt that communicating by email reduced the efficiency of their communication
with their instructors and increased the learning difficulty, especially when they did not get
timely feedback from their instructors. A student stated:
I remembered at a middle term my instructor asked us to complete a paper. After reading
the outline of the paper, I was confused about whether I could use my thesis statement,
but I didn’t receive any response for three days. I got to start writing my paper with
uncertainty. I didn’t get a reply until finishing my paper...it increased the difficulty of the
assignment. (Student 5)

55
She also shared another similar experience: “The assignment’s outline was not clear.
And I sent an email to the instructor, but the response was delayed. So, I didn’t submit my
assignment on time. I think this kind of learning was a waste of time” (Student 5). Another two
students felt the same way. They believed that email was inefficient and took extra time
communicating with instructors because they needed at least one day to receive instructors’
replies (Student 2 & 6). Furthermore, there were times where along with instructors’ initial
response, new questions arose, and either they wrote back to instructors, or they did not have
time to wait for further replies. Students also shared that instructors misunderstood the
information by email. One student noted:
I sent an email to my instructor looking for some help. Because I had some English
writing problem, I thought my instructor understood what I said. But my instructor
replied to me that L (student’s name), you needed to do it by yourself, not let me help you
to finish this project. But I didn’t mean that, I meant some help on the project. (Student 1)
Another student was facing difficulties communicating with her instructors in online
learning in general. She felt that she “got less valuable information by email” and she added up
“It seems that some of the teachers did not care about the requirements of the students in the
online class” (Student 4). She supported her argument with several examples. One example
“Once I sent several questions to my instructor, a few days later I received his answer. He just
answered my last question and ignored other questions”. A further example “In another course, I
asked questions, and the teacher said that you already in Master, and should search for the topic
yourself, figure out your problems, and find out your answers. And it was like that she made an
excuse”. And she also experienced a few times that she did not get enough information as she
expected. For example, “In another course, I wrote the instructor a message, asked for detail

56
about the assignment, but he just repeated the topic while I need more detailed information”. The
difference in written skills and expression, as well as the lag nature of written communication,
could make students feel that they were not receiving enough attention from the instructor.
Restricted time was also a factor that affected student-faculty interaction in online
education. Some students stated that synchronous lectures were shorter than F2F lectures, for this
reason, they would only ask crucial questions to avoid taking up too much of their classmates’
time. In some cases, even if they did not fully understand, they did not continue to ask questions.
A student shared one of her experiences:
I asked for an appointment with my instructor for one assignment. I asked if I correctly
approached the assignment, but she misunderstood my question and explained it in
another way. But the more she explained the messier it was... I did not feel that I should
ask further. She was not an open-minded instructor and not a good listener. And I only
had 30 minutes with her. It was not a qualitative appointment because, after the
appointment, I got nothing. ...She said that actually, she was super busy with all
researches and teaching the courses that semester. So, it was kind of stressful to have an
appointment with her. (Student 3)
During synchronous courses, some instructors only read and explained their
presentations, without offering any opportunities for students to ask questions, or interact with
each other, resulting in a lack of student engagement. A student stated that it was difficult to
“follow the instructor”, and sometimes she could not understand what the instructor was saying
in class (Student 8). Another two students also found that it was hard for them to engage if
instructors went through the presentation during the whole synchronous sessions (Student 3 & 5).
A student shared one example:

57
One day in class, I asked a question, but my instructor had to continue the class because
of the time limitation. We just had one and half hour’s class, and she had a lot of tasks to
accomplish. She told me that we should have another time to talk about this question, we
didn’t have time for this now...I didn’t make an appointment because at that moment I
wanted to ask the question, but when I missed the time, I didn’t want to ask this question
anymore. I was not passionate anymore. (Student 5)
Students subjectively perceived less interaction with the instructors due to time
constraints in and out of class, the students’ English competence, instructors’ type of teaching,
instructors’ accessibility, and instructors’ timely response rate. These factors influenced studentfaculty interaction in online learning. In this case, for students to feel less distanced, they would
prefer to have more interaction with instructors. Due to the characteristics of asynchronous
communication, such as emails, it was hard to reach the effectiveness as synchronous
communication, such as F2F communication. Although in online educational settings, students
still expected the interaction as in F2F. In all these interactions, students were sensitive to the
timeliness of communication but overlooked the difference between different forms of
synchronous and asynchronous communication and the applicable scenarios, which in turn
affected student engagement.
Learning Behavior
This theme is related to students’ academic and non-academic learning-related behavior
and activities, including positive incidents that increased their interest in learning, and the
barriers to learning in the online environment. Five sub-themes from the data have been
identified including learning with peers, cognitive engagement, learning intensity, learning
strategies, and social interaction.

58
Learning with Peers
According to the definition from NSSE (n.d.-a), the sub-theme ‘learning with peers’ in
this study includes group work, group discussion, and factors that help and hinder these learning
activities. According to NSSE, students benefit from learning with peers. In this study, students
preferred learning with peers, rather than learning alone. They also felt there was a difference in
group work between the online and F2F learning environments. A student found that in the
online environment students were more considerate of each other.
When we do the project, we have some students from China and also a student from
India. We were supposed to do a presentation together, which was hard because we were
from three different time zones. First, we tried to used WeChat, but we realized that one
student did not really have it, and then we used WhatsApp. We assigned each student
some tasks, and then we set up appointments to rehearse together, and we did many times
before the presentation. I do not think we would ever do that if in the F2F ... maybe you
prepare before, but I don’t think we would have liked a couple of weeks to prepare for it
together. It took a lot of extra time, but, in the end, it is not only about the presentation,
rather we know each other more… We try to understand each other, and because of the
time zone, we try to consider each other more. (Student 7)
She also created a study group with other classmates, collaborated with them, and shared
that they reminded each other about assignments’ due dates (Student 7).
In the online environment, students feel difficulties inherent in group work have some
similarities in both remote and F2F learning environments. Issues of responsibility and language
are omnipresent. Other issues related only to remote learning included time zones and
technology. Few students mentioned that in some of their courses they did not have any

59
interaction with their classmates. A few students mentioned that because of the time zone issues,
they could hardly find a time to gather together to discuss their group work, therefore, they only
communicated with email, WhatsApp, or other communication applications, which they felt
made communication inefficient. Most students felt that classmates were less engaged in their
group discussion or group work. A student stated:
…because three of my group members were in China and I was in Canada, so, we have
time difference in the communication… and what they did, was like primary school
students’ work. In the end, we failed, and the teacher asked us to redo this project. The
team members still did not want to work hard on their part. So, I helped them to complete
their parts, and I did 99% of the entire project. Then I told them how they should talk
about their parts in the presentation. Fortunately, we passed this time. The other group
members thanked me, but they did not feel guilty. I think the root reason is the online
course... If we were in F2F class, I could see what they did in the process... the instructor
would watch us…could see our behaviors and our learning status. (Student 1)
Another student had a similar experience and held the same opinion. She was a bit
disappointed when she could not accomplish the group work well because two of the team
members did not actively participated, saying:
… we need to present a story in class for five minutes… the teacher explained this shortly
and then assigned us to the breakout rooms to come up with stories. We were five people
in the group, and one of us should act as a leader, but all of us should take a role as in the
story. The problem was that we should make a story about a theme with five characters,
but only three of us collaborated and delivered ideas about the story. The other two
members said nothing; they were just quiet. And in the end, they said that they had the

60
same idea. I think this kind of participation did not help us expand our ideas to create a
story about a special theme. We had not enough information and idea to enhance our
roles to create a five-minute story in the class. (Student 4)
The other two students also had unpleasant experiences with group work. A student
mentioned, “My group had five members, two of which never participated in the discussions.
The remaining three had to take all the responsibilities so that we could present well in the class”
(Student 6). Another student had a slightly different experience, she stated:
There were five people in the group from three countries... We simply divided the
assignment into several parts, and then each person did one. One student was stronger,
and she gave all the difficult tasks to others, and her task was the easiest, which caused
the dissatisfaction of other students. (Student 8)
In the online learning environment, students needed to rely solely on their verbal and
written skills because of the absence of expressions such as body language and facial
expressions, which decreased student engagement in group discussion. A student stated that she
was not able to fully understand the other peers because of some of the differences in wording,
ways of expression, and accent during the group discussion (Student 5). In addition, she could
not see the other peers’ expressions and body language, which increased her difficulty to
understand her classmates. Another student clearly stated that he thought that written
communication was a waste of time. He explained: “…she (the classmate) kept sending me
messages in the chat box to discuss the topic. I think it was a real waste of time and made me felt
bored. Typing was slower than talking to each other” (Student 1).
In online learning, forums were a primary means of interaction among students.
Therefore, another issue students were facing, was caused by written English. A student

61
mentioned that it was her first time to comment on classmates’ posters on a forum; therefore, she
was confused about how and what she should comment on; meanwhile, she also took comments
from other classmates personally. An example was:
...and I just felt one comment was really strong. I even shared it with my colleagues, I
said that I didn’t know how to answer that. It was kind of pushy. But then the second
class, we turned on the camera and I realized that she (the classmate) was curious about
my perspective...but she was questioning a lot why on comment and for me was like a
shock. But if in class, I would see her eyes and knew that she was curious about the topic
and wanted to know more. But because online, from her words, I felt like it was a little
rude. (Student 7)
Another student had “international education since childhood”, therefore, she was aware
of and sensitive about the language she used for her comments. She stated:
We had discussion groups in an online posting, but it was quite different when compared
to face-to-face...But there were peers who hadn’t gone out of their home countries even
once. Unknown to other cultural influences, could be difficult to discuss clearly in an
online or remote class setting with classmates. Not sure of how they would react or take it
personally even if it is a constructive critic...I make sure to end my online discussions,
postings, or comments with smiley faces so they wouldn’t take it harshly, just in case.
(Student 2)
Further, she also noticed that students engaged less in the online discussion, or most of
the students just meant to finish the work before the due date rather than provide valuable
comments. She explicated:

62
Our professor asked us to peer review an assignment and gave the rubric ahead of time.
But most of us did not follow the rubric, just saying “you did a nice job” or “there was a
spelling or font mistake” which didn’t cut for graduate level. (Student 2)
In remote learning, another primary means of interaction among students was in breakout
rooms during and out of class. However, a student stated that she did not consider the discussion
in the breakout room as an interaction because students simply took a turn to express their
thought on a particular question, with no interaction (Student 3). Few students stated
unequivocally that in breakout rooms, everyone muted at the beginning until one person took the
initiative to speak the viewpoint first and began to consult others. Then other group members
would express their views. After sharing their ideas, they muted again. However, there were
always some students who simply agreed with others and were disengaged. Online discussions
often ended up with everyone on mute, waiting for the set time over and back to the main rooms.
A student shared an example:
There were four students in the breakout room. And at that time, we turned off our
camera, just heard the voice of each other. One group member and I shared something,
but the other two classmates were silent. They didn’t share any ideas. I didn’t know if
they were hearing or not, because I couldn’t see them...In group discussion online,
sometimes I just encountered an awkward situation. (Student 5)
Some instructors also provided breakout rooms for students to discuss directly after
synchronous lectures so that students could communicate their thoughts on course contents with
fresh memories. Sometimes, that might be a stress for students. A student felt that her classmates
were less engaged in the breakout rooms. She explained:

63
My instructor offered a 20-minute breakout room at the end of every synchronous course
that we should work in pairs without the instructor monitoring...I talked a lot in a
breakout room to encourage my peers to speak up their opinion, but some people just said
OK, so I understand that they didn’t want to explain further. Once, after we just logged
in, the other peer asked if we could log out because he was tired and didn’t want to talk.
And I said that it’s OK if you do not want to talk more. That happened because after a
two-hour class that peer was tired, and then another 20 minutes were too much for him.
And without the instructor’s monitoring, he did not feel obligated to discuss more. I had
no reason to keep him stay. (Student 3)
Relationship or a feeling of familiarity were also factors that influenced peer interaction.
A student stated: “If in the group, we knew each other, we could have a very good conversation
and I would like to listen to their point. But if we didn’t know each other, for the most time,
everyone muted themselves” (Student 8).
Students interacted less with their peers in online learning because of the limited time,
type of communication, or due to a lack of relationship, or feeling of familiarity. Few students
shared positive experiences and enjoyed the novel way of learning with peers. Most of the
students preferred F2F communication to verbal communication, and verbal communication to
written, as they felt that they could understand each other better. Another factor was that students
felt the distance from their classmates in online learning, which made them reluctant to share
ideas.

64
Cognitive Engagement
Combined with the definition in the CoI framework, the sub-theme ‘cognitive
engagement’ in this study includes students’ learning states in and out of class, as well as the
influence of the environment on learning states.
In the online learning environment, students stated that they felt more relaxed and
comfortable because they could learn at home or in their “comfort zone,” or “comfortable
corner”. Several students agreed, describing their learning and engaging status as “less pressure,”
“brainstorming myself,” “quite beneficial,” and “stimulated”.
Some students indicated that they needed more autonomy in online learning because
there was fewer instructors’ supervision. Students with a high level of autonomy could organize
their learning proactively. Students with low autonomy, on the other hand, had significantly less
interest in learning. A student noted, “Another important thing was self-control...we needed to
figure out the due day for all the different courses. I created a to-do list... I’m learning with more
purpose” (Student 7).
However, another two students had the opposite experience. They shared that because
they did not need to turn on the camera and lacked instructors’ supervision, they were
significantly less engaged in class and had less motivated to learn (Student 5 & 8). One of them
stated: “I didn’t have a lot of power to do my assignments...I didn’t even want to write my
assignments, and I always finished them at the last minute” (Student 8). She then explained why
her interest in learning was lower than in F2F. In addition to the lack of instructors’ supervision,
she emphasized the importance of the learning environment. She stated: “I needed an immersive
environment for me to study, like in a library...At home, I didn’t have any time to write my

65
assignment. I had too many other things to do, like shopping, cooking, and playing video games”
(Student 8). She gave an example:
The course was interesting, but I felt that the teacher was far away from me without a
sense of intimacy...There was a lot of interaction in class, but sometimes the teacher
couldn’t notice whether the students were participating or not, so I chose not
participating...When I talked with my friends, they were also writing their assignments,
not listening to the teacher...I didn’t feel that I was in the class. I just felt that I was
studying at home and looking at a computer. (Student 8)
Another student had a similar feeling. She said: “...I didn’t need to turn on my camera,
just listen. So sometimes I played games, sometimes I shopped online. I knew it was not good for
me, but no one monitored me” (Student 5).
For students, who are independent learners, online learning was successful as they could
proactively adapt their learning approach to achieve the required learning outcomes for courses.
For students with less self-control, creating an immersive online learning environment was more
conducive to focus on courses, reduce other distractions, increase students’ interest in learning
and engage cognitively. More important, student engagement also relied on students’ attitudes
towards the courses and assignments.
Learning Intensity
The sub-theme ‘learning intensity’ in this study means the workload and students’
perspective on the workload.
Since online learning is a text-based learning environment (Garrison, 2011), students also
benefited from this learning modality - they strengthened their written English. A student
mentioned that in one of her courses, she got detailed feedback from the instructor which helped

66
her to improve her writing skills. She noted: “In articles, even in PowerPoint presentations, the
teacher explained in detail about my problem, especially in grammar in my writing, and he told
me how to fix them. It helped me a lot in my writing.” (Student 4).
A few students mentioned that they had “a high reading load and the workload” (Student
7). Another student agreed:
The teachers assigned a lot of resources and materials to us. We needed to read them, to
accomplish the activity in class... So, I had a lot of reading materials to accomplish, about
100 pages per week. All of the materials and resources of the two courses made me feel
stressed. (Student 5)
Another student felt the same. She noted: “The instructor could offer like ten materials to
read per week, and it was too much...was not clear for me because the topics were very broad,
for very big scale...And I wished that he focused more on the key points” (Student 3). In another
course, she was both enjoyed and stressed. She indicated:
The instructor had a very diverse perspective on how to conduct the course. The material
was very diverse and informative. There were two readings per week, but the reading was
quite long...one assignment, we needed to interview someone in the school district. And
then, we summarized the interview, analyzed it based on the theoretical framework we
learned from the course...I really liked it, but somehow it was very stressful. (Student 3)
For another course, she felt stressed for a different reason, as the instructor had too many
activities during the synchronous courses and assignments (Student 3). She described a typical
synchronous class. Before a synchronous class, she needed to finish a summary of the readings.
Then during the class, they had Jamboard, in-class discussion, and group discussion after class,
to discuss and summarize what they learned. However, she liked the instructor.

67
Taking full advantage of online teaching and assigning diverse tasks could indeed be
beneficial to students. However, like F2F, a moderate workload and focused or explicit
instruction of materials and assignments would increase student engagement, as some students
mentioned that they read more in online courses than in F2F courses.
Learning Strategies
Referring to NSSE, the sub-theme ‘learning strategies’ in the study includes students’
learning style and their learning time.
Students clearly stated that their learning becoming more organized and efficient. A
student noted: “I knew which one was more important, and I would start the assignment a little
earlier...I printed the course outline and looked at the due dates, so, I prepared the whole term at
the beginning of the term” (Student 7). Another student felt the same way. He noted: “…most
instructors had clear deadlines posted on Moodle page...Right now, Sunday automatically
became my learning day, from morning to night...I would say, learning was more organized, and
the more organized teaching worked, the more organized I was doing my homework” (Student
10).
A few students mentioned that their learning time became longer compared to F2F
learning because, in remote learning, their learning relied heavily on themselves (Student 2, 3 &
6). One of them stated:
Students themselves researched a lot because sometimes you missed what the instructor
said or the materials were not sufficient for your understanding...The whole day and
night, I was like reading and studying and doing the assignments… So, my learning time
arose, which I found quite difficult for me. (Student 6)

68
However, this did not mean that their learning interest became less. Another student
noted: “Learning time become much more...I was more involved with homework, assignments,
and meeting deadlines...I was reading and continuing on with my other assignments...I was very
much more interested. I had never been so interested in than ever before” (Student 2).
Students stated that they had more reading materials and assignments because they had
fewer course hours in online learning. In addition, they had less interaction with peers, most of
the time, they were on their own. Therefore, their learning time increased, and their learning
strategies changed as well.
Social Interaction
Based on the definition of “Social Presence” in the CoI framework, the sub-theme ‘social
interaction’ in this study refers to non-academic interactions, communication and relationships
among students, and the impact of such communication and relationships on student
engagement.
Most of the students mentioned that ‘social skills’ or ‘networking’ were crucial to them.
A student noted that social skills were critical for everyone, especially for the graduate level,
since everyone had diverse backgrounds and had a purpose for joining the program (Student 7).
Because students were facing different issues in the online environment, they were getting more
sensitive to other students’ needs. However, most students felt that it was difficult for them to
know their classmates, to have personal interaction during and after classes, to be friends with
their classmates in the online learning environment. A student stated:
Gaining knowledge was only one minor aspect of what I wanted. What I wanted was to
build up personal connections and networks with other people...I didn’t know my
classmates...There were just simply no interactions. We went to the class, opened Zoom,

69
closed Zooms, etc. We didn’t walk for coffee...So how could we even know each other,
right? An example could be in my EDUC... course, four of us scheduled a BigBlueButton
conversation, we went into the online meeting room, said “hi”, worked on the
assignment, then left. Many won’t open the camera, we didn’t see each other, it was all
about getting the assignment done, no personal interactions or conversations at all.
(Student 10)
Other students felt the same way. In synchronous classes, there was a time limit for group
discussions. Four to five students were in a group, and instructors usually gave 15-20 minutes for
discussion, and each student had less than five minutes, so there was no spare time to get to
know each other (Student 5). In the online group discussions, students only discussed the
questions or topics set by instructors, and there was no personal interaction (Student 2, 5 & 9).
The group discussions after class were like the example given by student ten, where
students only discussed the assignments, divided the work, and that was it, making it difficult to
make friends (Student 4 & 8). A student also mentioned a group assignment that she had. She did
not know any of the group members; she found all the members’ contact information on Moodle
to get in touch with them and then could set up a WhatsApp group to discuss the assignment
(Student 4). She also stated that she did not receive any emotional support from other students in
the online learning modality, which also led to her lack of motivation to interact with students
and participate in courses. She explained:
...I didn’t get any feedback that motivated me to go through the activity…but in online
learning, I was alone. I needed to do everything by myself, and nobody motivated me to
continue and gave me hope…In the F2F courses, my classmates supported me more
emotionally as they talked with me...I could not be friends with my classmates through a

70
meeting online...As an international student, accompanied by other international students
provided me a supportive environment. I knew that I was not the only person struggling
with these difficulties. By speaking with my international friends, I got motivated and
was more confident to continue my path. (Student 4)
Another student also mentioned the feeling of distance from other students. He stated:
“...in the synchronous sessions, the majority of people had their cameras off, mikes muted and so
that in itself just created a disconnection between like you and the other learners in the class”
(Student 9). Another student explained why he felt distance in online learning. He explained:
...I felt I was outside of the class...face to a computer was weird, like we entered a future
society too fast. I could only saw my classmates in the very little picture. And they could
not show their whole bodies, whole feelings, and emotions from the screen...We didn’t
have too much communication...I also felt I was like facing many robots. I didn’t feel real
because even though they could move, they couldn’t walk or jump, just sit there. And I
could only see half of them, like some GIF pictures. (Student 1)
This sense of distance not only led to less communication and interaction among students
but also affected their classroom and group participation. A student said that because she was not
familiar with her classmates, she was reluctant or concerned about expressing her point of view
in group discussions (Student 8). Because she did not know her classmates, she was not sure
what they would think; moreover, she knew that even if she made a mistake, no one would point
it out and help her to fix it, and everyone simply expressed his or her point of view.
The main challenge, students were facing in the online learning environment was social
interaction. Students did not have enough interaction to get to know each other, leading to a
sense of distance. This sense of distance, in turn, affected student engagement and interaction,

71
resulting in lower participation in group discussion and class activities.
Supportive Environment
Two sub-themes have been extracted from the data: ‘campus support’ and ‘program
support’. Academic and non-academic support outside of classrooms from faculty and campus is
conducive to student engagement. Students confirmed that the service they receive from each of
the library, campus, and program was critical for understanding their course materials and
assignments, expanding their knowledge, and increasing their motivation.
Campus Support
Based on the definition from NSSE, the sub-theme ‘campus support’ in this study
indicates the support for students besides their program, such as the library or other departments
on campus.
A student mentioned the support she received from a librarian:
...I booked an appointment with her, and I told her that I was struggling with one
assignment. I did not understand the meaning of it, and I had to look for some websites
outside of the TRU library…She told me that whatever websites and web pages that I
have found, I could mail it to her, and she would help me out in finding their authenticity,
and if they were good or bad for my topic… She helped me a lot in finding out the right
resource from and outside of the library. So that was definitely helpful. (Student 6)
Another student mentioned one workshop, which motivated her. She stated that the
workshop was regarding how to keep on with courses, motivated oneself, and keep mental health
She enjoyed the workshop and felt the effort from the university offering better support to
students. “These workshops, which were ongoing on the campus, were one of the biggest factors
which motivated me” (Student 2).

72
Although students only mentioned two incidents regarding the campus support, they were
all positive. The campus support offered students a sense of belongings. Through the support,
students had opportunities to access other resources, explore the course content from different
angles, critically reflect on their knowledge.
Program Support
The sub-theme ‘program support’ includes the academic support students receive from
their program, which closely related to their major.
Several students shared their positive experiences with teaching assistants (TAs) in the
graduate program. A student stated that he felt the support was more efficient and had been
“exposure” (Student 10). He explained “before, I didn’t know how powerful it could be.
Somehow this semester, all of my instructors invited someone to our classroom and introduced
us to it...I booked my first appointment...I got what I wanted. It was great” (Student 10). Another
student also shared her positive experience with TAs, how they assisted and eased her learning
understandably. She stated:
I was struggling with an assignment and was able to understand what I needed to do. So,
she (TA) would try to explain things in a much better, easier, and simpler way so that at
least I got the idea of what had to be done. The better thing is that I can book multiple
times, at least two to three times a week. If I do not understand concepts, they (TAs) were
helpful. They listen friendly to our problems and try to understand what are those parts
that we are not able to comprehend. So, they make things easier for me. (Student 6)
Another student not only expressed her experience with a TA but also how she benefitted
from the flexible schedule the TAs was able to use.

73
…the work and the reading load are quite large. I have two tutors, they’re very nice and
helpful. They give me a lot of positive feedback on my summaries and my research
direction...I find out the support hours we got from the writing center are really good too.
They have all different schedules even open on the weekend. I feel very supportive, and I
use the writing center a lot weekly. (Student 7)
A supportive environment has significant implications for student engagement. Students
specified that the assistance they received, contributed to their engagement in learning. They
identified being both academically and emotionally supported by the graduate writing centre.
This support helps student to feel they are being considered as individuals by the faculty and the
program.
Chapter Summary
In the interviews, students mentioned ‘course design and organization,’ ‘student-faculty
interaction,’ ‘learning with peers,’ and ‘cognitive engagement’ most frequently. Students
preferred synchronous, flexible, and varied lectures because instructors’ explanations and the
interaction with instructors and peers during classes contributed to their understanding of
knowledge. The design and organization of courses were fundamental and determined to a large
extent the student-student interaction, student-teacher interaction, students’ critical thinking, and
their cognitive engagement. The following concerned topics of students were ‘technology,’
‘social interaction’ and ‘learning intensity’. ERE relies on technology and the internet, so
students were limited by technology and the internet while learning new technologies and
enjoying the convenience of technology. Comparing to F2F, students experienced a heavier
workload and less socialization with their peers. Third, campus and program support had a
positive impact on student engagement. However, because the learning environment changed,

74
students had to adjust their learning time and methods. Overall, students preferred face-to-face
courses, or a teaching style similar to F2F courses.

75
Chapter Five: Discussion
To start this chapter, I will revisit the research questions of this study:
1. From students’ perspective, are there differences in student engagement, when the
same courses are switched from primarily F2F teaching to ERE modalities？
2. What are the main reasons causing these differences?
The significance of this research derives from ten interviews that students who
experienced ERE. The answer to the first research question is affirmative. The findings of the
study revealed different reasons for the changes in student engagement, some of which coincide
with many previous studies and confirm previous findings, as well as provide some new
indications. This chapter will discuss the results of this study, compare them to the current
literature, outline the limitations of the study, and provide recommendations for future studies.
Discussion of Teaching Practice
During interviews, the most mentioned incidents from students were regarding ‘course
design and organization’, which corresponded to the CoI Framework, where teaching presence is
outlined as one of the foundations in online teaching and learning, which also influences social
and cognitive presence. As with traditional F2F classes, course design and classroom
organization are two essential elements to improving student engagement. Better course design
and classroom organization can improve student engagement. Additionally, other studies
indicated that instructors, course design, and organizations played a dominant role in online
education, as students feel instructors’ effort which consequently increased students’ interest in
learning (Ginns & Ellis, 2007; Kurt & Yıldırım, 2018; So, 2009). However, because of the
dramatic changes and nature in delivery formats, course design, and organization in online
education cannot simply be translated from the traditional F2F classroom; the focus of teaching

76
shifts from learner-centered to learning-centered (Garrison, 2011). Remote education has both
synchronous and asynchronous modes, which are very different from F2F delivery. The design
and organization of online courses should consider the different attributes of synchronous and
asynchronous approaches. In this study, students preferred synchronous courses because
synchronous courses better manifested the features of course design and organization that
students enjoyed: curiosity, flexibility, structuring, variety, interactivity, reflectivity, and
encouragement. In ERE, students were more reliant on instructors’ guidance than they
experienced in F2F. Instructors’ explanations in the synchronous course were more instrumental
for the students to understand the main points of course contents, whereas asynchronous course
design is part of the advantages of online education, which can better highlight the merit of
online education with more flexibility (Berg, 2020). Therefore, a structured course design based
on the nature of synchronous and asynchronous instruction is crucial for students to improve
their learning engagement. It is also evidenced in this study that when teaching switches from
F2F to ERE, both students and teachers need to adapt well and adequately for both synchronous
and asynchronous instruction, and the degree of this adaptation partially influences student
engagement.
The results of the study showed that the second concern of students was student-faculty
interaction. “interaction is seen as a challenging but critical aspect of distance learning” (Berg,
2020, p. 224). In the online environment, teacher-student interactions inside and outside the
classroom have changed both in form and time. More options for interaction have increased the
opportunities for and enriched the content of teacher-student interactions (Carrillo & Flores,
2020). For example, diverse communication platforms like Moodle message, emails, Big Blue
Button, Zoom, and brainstorming tools like Jamboard. The use of email and other

77
communication tools has made it possible to initiate such interactions in any way one chooses,
synchronously and asynchronously. Some students felt positively about this freedom of choice
and flexibility for communication (Student 6 & 7), which facilitated their academic success and
eventually increased student engagement. Synchronous interaction also reduced students’ sense
of isolation (Hisham et al., 2005; Berg, 2020). In response to the interaction with the instructor,
students’ positive impressions occurred in synchronous settings, such as being encouraged by the
instructor in class and having a one-on-one session with the instructor (Student 1, 6 & 7).
However, as noted in other studies, Berg (2020) and Carrillo and Flores (2020), not all
synchronous interactions were positively evaluated by students, who preferred interactions with
depth and in specific context rather than simple greetings. At the same time, there are some
challenges. In this study, students were uncomfortable with both synchronous and asynchronous
interaction modalities. Consistent with other research findings, students perceived both
synchronous and asynchronous forms of communication as having a time lag and not being as
timely as F2F interactions (Esmail et al., 2010; Huang, 2020). The time lag, or the frequency of
interaction with instructors, can affect students’ feelings and, in turn, their engagement (Lee &
Martin, 2017; Berg, 2020). For example, student four explicitly stated that she felt unappreciated
by the teacher because the teacher did not respond promptly. Moreover, it also added to the
learning difficulty of students and indirectly affected their engagement (Student 5). This
maladjustment was also evidenced by the teacher. Teachers without experience in online
instruction were also uncomfortable with asynchronous communication, preferring timely
communication. In the example shared by student six, the instructor chose to explain to the
students through synchronous meetings.

78
The reliance on technology is much greater than in a traditional F2F classroom.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (2007) defined
educational technology as “The study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving
performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (p. 1). The support for the use of technology is a necessary and integral element of
classroom practice in distance education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019; Weiner
et al., 2019). For online instruction, supporting technology replaces the most fundamental parts
of traditional F2F instruction: the building, the classroom, the physical form of teaching aids, etc.
This raises a problem while in a traditional F2F classroom, typically, the learning and use of
basic teaching tools are only required of the teacher, in an online teaching environment, students
are also required to be proficient with these technologies. In addition, instructors should guide
students on how to use it, rather than leaving them to figure it out on their own, as research has
shown that students’ mastery of technology affects student engagement (Aljaber, 2018; Henrie et
al., 2015). This stems from the fact that distance education is equally technology-dependent for
both teachers and students; both need to learn new technologies and become skilled in their
application to make distance education possible. In this study, students shared the tremendous
impact that technology has had on their learning engagement. It is noticeable that students’ use
of technology can be divided into two stages. The first stage is learning and using basic
technology that enabled students’ online learning; this process sparked their interest and
increased engagement, which they generally stated in interviews. The second stage is the
acquisition of more skills and the proper use of technology. For example, in the interview,
student five indicated that she had increased her courage to express herself by purposefully
choosing how to transmit interactive information. This demonstrated that smooth access to the

79
internet and skillful use of technology tools can increase student engagement. This also applies
to teachers, whose adaptability to new tools and diverse employment based on new technologies
also contribute to student engagement. In contrast, this study also shows the limitations of
technology on student engagement. Modern web-based technology was not developed
specifically for online teaching and learning; online education is just one aspect of its application
(Woo & Reeves, 2008). This limitation was sometimes reflected in students’ confusion about
employing technology, as mentioned by student one. Sometimes it manifested itself in the form
of technological instability, as noted by student two. When the confusion caused by the
limitation interferes with the instructional interaction (Student 1), it directly affected student
engagement. In this study, additional technology learning did not always lead to more interest in
learning, and in some cases additional technology learning and application increased feelings of
burden as was observed in the interviews with Student nine.
In the discussion in this subsection, this study explored student engagement in the context
of teaching practices in three separate directions: course design and organization, student-faculty
interaction, and technology. In the beginning, when teaching pivoted from traditional F2F to
ERE, the learning and using new technologies, new forms of classroom organization, and more
diverse forms of student-faculty interaction positively influenced student engagement. The
challenges were mainly in adjusting to both synchronous and asynchronous modalities of ERE.
The maladjustment included both synchronous and asynchronous course design and
organization, as well as both synchronous and asynchronous student-faculty interaction. By
comparing literature and reviewing the interviews of this study, this study argues that this
maladjustment constitutes a major challenge to increase student engagement in learning within
the context of teaching practices when teaching shifted from traditional F2F to ERE. The impact

80
of technology support, on the other hand, worked at both using technology basically and
skillfully. However, a larger impact came from technological shortcomings alone. Given the
short period for the massive application of online technology caused by this major public health
and safety crisis, it was unrealistic to expect perfect online teaching and learning technology to
emerge in such a short duration of practice. Therefore, this study argues that the challenges of
student engagement due to technological shortcomings will be a long-term issue that needs to be
addressed over time.
Discussion of Learning Behavior
As noted in the NSSE results and discussed in this study, students preferred to and
benefited from learning with their peers rather than on their own (Kuh, 2003). Interaction among
students in online learning is also an essential factor in increasing student engagement (Carrillo
& Flores, 2020; Murdock & Williams, 2011). The result regarding this theme was discouraging
in this study. For most students, the imperfection of interaction technology in online settings
resulted in less effective learning and collaboration with peers. Online communication was
severely limited in terms of information compared to the F2F, as it is difficult for students to get
information from the body language and facial expressions of their peers. Time-zone and
geographic conflicts and language barriers were ubiquitous, resulting in limited time for
communication and less interaction. Even group discussions were inefficient because they rely
primarily on text. Most students noted that there was an absence of peer relationships or
familiarity. Students interviewed generally expressed a preference for F2F communication over
online communication, voice-based communication over text-based communication; further, the
efficiency of communication heavily influenced the understanding of both parties involved in the
interaction. Students in the study from Zhang et al. (2005) also indicated that they preferred to

81
communicate by phone rather than by email. At the same time, the sense of distance caused by
online communication had further reduced students’ willingness to share ideas. Garrison (2011)
also noted that text-based communication was more likely to create a sense of distance. A
relatively radical view was that communicating online by text was simply a waste of time
(Student 1). However, few students shared positive experiences and enjoyed novel ways of
learning with their peers. Students in the interviews reflected that they became more considerate
of each other due to their time zone and geographic differences, which allowed them to interact
more smoothly and effectively. In addition, students had more communicative alternatives in the
online environment, as mentioned earlier in the technology discussion, where they could choose
to transmit video or audio-only, and this variety facilitated positive communication and
engagement. Considering the significance of interaction for teaching and learning, this study
argues that effective and positive interaction is more significant in an online learning
environment, as interaction can alleviate students’ sense of distance to a certain extent.
The effect of cognitive engagement on differences in student engagement is a doubleedged sword, reflecting wide variation by student autonomy. Previous research has also shown
that online learning requires more learner autonomy and self-discipline (Gao, 2020; Lee &
Martin, 2017; Russ et al., 2010). Students who were more self-directed, who learned more
actively and autonomously, whose learning strategies and methods timely adapted to the nature
of online instruction, and who were better organized, complained less about changes in learning
intensity. As the same findings in the research from Poluekhtova et al. (2020), students in this
study also stated that they had more workload than F2F. For students who were less selfdirected, less tutor supervision reduced their commitment to learning to a certain extent, and they
always “finish their work at the last minute” (Student 8).

82
This differentiation due to student autonomy was noticeable as time progressed. At the
beginning of the ERE, students maintained their F2F study routine, were not used to planning
ahead, and simply followed courses’ and instructors’ steps to read materials and do assignments.
From the second semester on, some students mentioned that they started to plan their learning
schedule for the day, or the whole semester according to their time, or started to plan when they
would do their assignments instead of rushing to finish them the day before the deadline.
Interpersonal interaction and relationships affect students in various ways, including
improving their learning and sense of belongings in both F2F and online educational settings
(Astin, 1993; Bowman, 2013; Carrillo & Flores, 2020; Gowing, 2019; Hisham et al., 2005;
Murdock & Williams, 2011; Newcomb, 1943). Similar to the findings of learning with peers, in
this study, students expressed dissatisfaction that learning in an online environment significantly
reduced their social communication among peers outside of class. Other studies addressing ERE,
Alqurshi (2020) and Poluekhtova et al. (2020) have also shown a decrease in interaction among
students. Most students in this study stated that ‘socializing’ and ‘networking’ were critical for
them, but distance and the virtual online environment prevented them from developing
friendships. The students in Kurt and Yıldırım’s (2018) study also clearly demonstrated the value
of socialization for them. Due to the unfamiliarity and lack of trust, students were more
apprehensive to express their own opinions or ask questions in class, and in many cases choose
to remain silent. A sense of distance affected students’ participation and interaction and
consequently, reduced student engagement in learning.
The discussion in this section involves people’s reliance on interaction carriers. In terms
of the content of communication, Hunt-Gierut (2011) mentioned that firstly, communication
contained both the sender and the receiver of information; secondly, communication included

83
sensory information and context information. In terms of the process of communication,
Mehrabian (1971) stated that 7% of the human communication process was through mere
language, 38% was means of expression, and 55% was non-verbal communication. In terms of
the quality of communication, Lengel and Daft (1984) initially introduced the concept of the
richness of the information contained in the communication media. According to their theory, the
order of information richness of communication media from most to least were “(1) face-to-face,
(2) telephone, (3) personal documents such as letters or memos, (4) impersonal written
documents, and (5) numeric documents” (Daft & Lengel, 1986, p. 560). Face-to-face
communication involved the most cues, words, expressions, voice, intonation, body language,
and timely feedback (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Giesbers et al., 2014); therefore, it allowed for the
clearest and most accurate communication of information, avoiding equivocation and
misunderstanding (Allen & Griffeth, 1997; Daft & Lengel, 1986). Some studies have indicated
that text-only communication styles, such as emails, had limited visual information and almost
no auditory information, which could easily lead to miscommunication; moreover, the senders
often believed that the message they sent by email was clear (Barry & Fulmer, 2004; Kruger et
al., 2005). In the context of online learning, “it has been shown that asynchronous
communication often leads to a misinterpretation of written contributions (like a post on a
discussion forum) because of a lack of shared context, body language or writing style” (Giesbers
et al., 2014). Furthermore, “synchronous two-way e-learning differs from face-to-face
communication in that participants are not co-located in the same physical space during
interactions and thus, some important communication cues may not be conveyed effectively”
(Blau et al., 2017, p. 3). Similar incidents were mentioned by students in this study as well. For
example, misinterpretation caused by emails and forums, applying emoticons ‘smiley face’ out

84
of concern of being misunderstood, and failed to fully understand other students due to
insufficient communication bandwidth (voice only).
Online interaction is still a long way from perfection, and the technology is now hovering
at the level of ‘capable’ rather than ‘fully interactive’ and considering many factors required for
technological advancement, this study concludes that the challenges of student engagement due
to inadequate online interaction technologies will persist for a long time. On the positive side,
technology is always developing, and optimizing interaction skills within the existing technology
base can improve the deficiencies caused by technology.
Discussion of supportive environment
Qualitative interaction and supportive environment positively related to students’
satisfaction and sense of belongings (Astin, 1968, 1993, NSSE, n.d.; Rocconi & Kinzie, 2013).
Studies during ERE showed that students were facing extra depression and isolation (Gao, 2020;
J. K. Green et al., 2020). Therefore, a supportive environment was more significant for students
in ERE. Both campus-based and program-based support are well-established approaches to
instructional support. They can be functional in both F2F and online teaching modalities. The
campus-based and project-based support that have been established and accumulated in the F2F
modality can be transferred to the online modality, but the support is more dependent on the
online technology but can be well inherited. Students in this study mentioned two incidents of
on-campus support that were positive responses. The supportive environment provided students
with a sense of belonging. Through support, students had the opportunity to access additional
resources, explore course content from different perspectives, and critically reflect on their
knowledge. Project-based support is equally important, and the assistance they received
facilitated their engagement in learning. They felt they were supported academically and

85
emotionally, and this support helped students to receive a sense of caring. So, the findings
showed that a supportive environment had an appositive impact on student engagement.
Limitations of the Study
It is important to note the limitations of this study. This study interviewed only graduatelevel students and was limited to education majors. This study used the CIT to recruit
participants and conduct the study. While the representation of graduate students recruited from
education majors was able to reveal the research phenomenon that was covered by the subject of
this study, the small sample size could not be generalized to the online learning experiences of
all populations within the subject of the study. Further, the subjects recruited for this study were
from different regions, which made the sample size from the same region even smaller and
showed limitations in terms of variability. The purpose of this study was to explore from the
student’s perspective whether there was a difference in student engagement when the same
courses changing from F2F to ERE. The subjects in this study were in an online learning
environment that was different from an ideal online education or distance education. ERE was
not an ideal research context or a purposeful distance education research environment. All of this
exposes this study to possible biases. Open-ended interviews were the only source of data for this
study. On the one hand, as with other qualitative studies, the interview questions were designed
based on the researcher’s cognitive system and previous theories of F2F and distance education,
which may be one-sided or biased. On the other hand, the perceptions shared by participants may
also be biased. Qualitative analysis is a narrative approach; this study only employed researchrelevant elements to the research topic, which may also present a partial understanding of the
researcher. In future follow-up studies, if the interviews were expanded to a larger age range and
multiple majors, the findings would undoubtedly be richer and more adequate, which in turn

86
would increase the objectivity of the study. However, this study may also serve as a pilot study
for future research that delves into student engagement in online education.
Recommendations for Future Study
This pandemic will eventually pass, and as future educational programs are updated and
educational theories evolve, ERE will be integrated with traditional online education, and the
need for continued depth in this study exists. For future studies of this research topic, this study
suggests three implications.
Targeted Comparative Studies of Synchronous and Asynchronous Classrooms and
Interactions at Specific Times
Many challenges to the online learning experience in this study emerged as a result of the
discomfort with the synchronous and asynchronous delivery methods of online teaching and
learning during the transition from F2F to ERE, particularly for students who were more used to
F2F. A foreseeable scenario is that traditional F2F will return to the education system as the
pandemic passes away. Because of the long-standing presence and continued impact of ERE, and
the coexistence of F2F and online learning cannot be seen as a return to traditional education, but
rather as a new beginning. In this process, the shifts and transitions discussed and studied in this
study would once again emerge in some way. Confronting this probability, further research into
the differences and attributes between synchronous and asynchronous classrooms and
synchronous and asynchronous interactions in online education would help institutions consider
what kinds of different hybrid and blended models might be introduced as they shift back to
campus post-pandemic.

87
Comparative Study on The Effectiveness of Different Interactive Forms
A comparative study on the effectiveness of different interactive forms of student
engagement based on existing online technology will be necessary. In F2F or distance education,
interactionism is the mainstream of modern education, which refers to that students learn through
autonomy, cooperation with instructors and peers, and reflection (Kutbiddinova et al., 2016). The
teaching and learning process is a dynamically developing and unified process with interactive
influences and interactive activities. In this study, online interaction in teaching and learning
posed a challenge to learning engagement because of the limitations of the technological tools.
The technological tools require an investment of time to progress, and the technological
landscape does not provide highly reliable predictions. Online interaction models with different
application techniques and organizational forms would then be an effective means to alleviate
the lack of a technological base. Comparing the features of techniques of various interaction
modes to improve the efficiency of interaction and to meet the need for interactionism in modern
education becomes a meaningful study to promote learning engagement.
In-Depth Study about Fostering Social Interaction and Networking in Online Teaching
An in-depth study about how to foster social interaction and networking in online
teaching models is also a possible research direction. According to the definition of ‘social
presence’ in the CoI framework, ‘social interaction’ refers to non-academic interactions,
communication, and relationships among students (Garrison, 2011). The majority of students in
this study referred to ‘social skills’ or ‘networking’ as being crucial to them. However, most
students found that it was difficult for them to get to know their classmates in the online learning
environment, to interact personally during and after class, and to become friends with their
classmates. The main challenge students faced in the ERE was social interaction. Students did

88
not have sufficient interactions to get to know each other, causing a sense of distance. This sense
of distance, in turn, affected student engagement and interaction, led to low participation in
group discussions and classroom activities. However, social interaction itself is a definition of
blurring the boundaries between in-class and out-of-class. It can be achieved either through
specialized online teaching tools or through other online social interaction tools. Sometimes,
even other social interactions beyond e-learning might affect students’ online learning
experience in certain forms and scopes, such social interactions beyond the classroom could also
be considered as part of social interaction in online education. Whether this type of social
interaction should be guided, how to identify the relationship to the online learning experience,
and in what ways this potential association will exert influence on online learners, are interesting
questions for in-depth study of student engagement.
In-Depth Study about Culture Lens on Student Engagement
Nine of ten participants in this study were international students from countries outside of
Canada. A previous study indicated that online learning should consider cultural context, as
culture influences how students engage in an online learning environment (Gunawardena, 2020).
Since the cultural lens was not the focus of this research study, I did not discuss and explore this
direction in depth. This lens may have indicated different factors that affect student engagement
in ERE if the participants were domestic. Further research might help identify if cultural
backgrounds influence student engagement in online education, and to the extent that this
influences student engagement. Identifying the main elements that influence student engagement
in terms of culture, and how could course designers and instructors mitigate or reduce the impact
of culture on student engagement, are critical topics that need further research in the future.

89
Chapter Six: Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to recognize reasons causing differences in student
engagement, when courses shifting from F2F to ERE. This chapter is an overall conclusion for
the study.
Conclusions of Teaching Practice
The teaching practices in this study included three subthemes: technology, course design
and organization, and student-faculty interaction. Based on the comparison of previous literature
and the discussion in chapter five, this study concludes that the course design and organization
should fully recognize the different nature of synchronous and asynchronous courses, should
organize and design courses in a targeted manner. In other words, asynchronous lectures should
include more inspirational components. Synchronous lectures should involve more instructional
elements. In this process, it is crucial that not simply adopting the design of traditional F2F
courses. The tailored course design could reduce the discomfort of shifting from traditional F2F
to online education, take advantage of the online education format, and weaken the impact on
student engagement. The discussion of technology revealed that smooth access to the internet
and proficiency in using technology tools could increase student engagement. Nevertheless,
technological shortcomings and constraints in using technology did limit student engagement.
When the distress caused by these limitations interfered with student-faculty interaction, it
directly affected student engagement in learning. Excessive technology learning and application
can also increase a sense of burden for students. The reliance on technology in student-faculty
interaction also highlighted the impact of technology support on student engagement. Unlike F2F
education, student-faculty interaction in online education requires more intentional interaction
guidance from instructors. The purpose of the guidance is to enable students to make more

90
conducive interaction choices based on the different characteristics of synchronous and
asynchronous interactions, to avoid interaction failures and even interaction errors caused by
blind choices of interaction.
Conclusions of Learning Behavior
This theme covered students’ academic and non-academic behaviors and activities,
included positive incidents that increased their engagement, as well as challenges they
encountered in the ERE. There were five subthemes: learning with peers, cognitive engagement,
learning intensity, learning strategies, and social interactions. The findings of this study indicated
that the imperfections of supporting technologies created challenges to online learning behaviors.
The positive aspect was that technology was gradually improving, and optimization of
interaction skills under the existing technological tools may be a trustworthy means of improving
online learning behavior. Advances in online technology itself can improve the online learning
experience. Technology itself and the use of technology are two sides of the same coin. As
discussed in chapter five, the lack of information in online interactions challenged the efficiency
of interactions; however, it also motivated the improvement of students’ learning autonomy. In
online teaching practices, instructors intentionally guide students to address such beneficial
improvements could be an effective attempt to enhance the online learning experience from the
students’ perspective and increase their engagement in learning.
Conclusions of Supportive Environment
Different from the many novel components of online learning, the campus and program
support were well established in F2F education. The supportive environment performed equally
well both in the traditional F2F and online delivery modalities. In this study, the campus support
partially eliminated the isolation experienced by online learning students and enhanced the

91
learning experience. The program support compensated for the learning barriers created by
insufficient online interaction and improved the efficiency and quality of online learning.
Therefore, the supportive environment was beneficial to improve student engagement.
Recommendations
At the time of writing, we are still engaged in ERE and might be for some time. Based on
the discussion in this study, thinking forward about changes that have been positive, blended
education might be a preferable option, where students can continuously enjoy the benefit of
online learning, the flexibility, the comfort, and the variety. At the same time, F2F lectures can
reduce the sense of distance, and improve the social interaction among students. Building a
trustful environment at the beginning of courses is critical, as it affects student engagement in
various aspects. Further, since text-based communication has the least cues, instructors should
employ rich communication media appropriately to enhance the familiarity among learners,
develop their higher-order thinking, and boost engagement. Offering students technique support
is the foundation of online learning. Another helpful element is introducing and encouraging
students to the access of support of the campus and program areas, which will be a constructive
factor to improve student engagement. These recommendations are based on the results of this
study; therefore, considerate combinations of practical situations are recommended.

92
References
Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement
in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher
Education Research and Development, 24(1), 5–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436052000318541
Aljaber, A. (2018). E-learning policy in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and successes. Research in
Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 176–194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499918764147
Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (1997). Vertical and lateral information processing: The effects
of gender, employee classification level, and media richness on communication and work
outcomes. Human Relations, 50(10), 1239–1260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679705001003
Alqurshi, A. (2020). Investigating the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on pharmaceutical
education in Saudi Arabia – A call for a remote teaching contingency strategy. Saudi
Pharmaceutical Journal, 28(9), 1075–1083.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2020.07.008
Anderson, L. W. (n.d.). A measure of student involvement in learning: Time-on-Task. University
of South Carolina. (ED110504). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED110504.
Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed.). AU Press.
Andersson, B.-E., & Nilsson, S.-G. (1964). Studies in the reliability and validity of the critical
incident technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(6), 398–403.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042025
Askham, P. (2008). Context and identity: Exploring adult learners’ experiences of higher

93
education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 85–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701781481
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2007). Definition. In A.
Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary
(pp. 1–14). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Astin, A. W. (1968). The college environment. American Council on Education.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement the cornerstone of excellence. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 17(4), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1985.9940532
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
B.C. universities switching to online classes to avoid COVID-19 spread. (2020, March 13). CBC.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-sfu-ubc-online-1.5497847
Barry, B., & Fulmer, I. S. (2004). The medium and the message: The adaptive use of
communication media in dyadic influence. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2),
272–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159033
Bellei, C. (2009). Does lengthening the school day increase students’ academic achievement?
Results from a natural experiment in Chile. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 629–
640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.01.008
Bissessar, C., Black, D., & Boolaky, M. (2019). An analysis of intercultural students’ selfdetermination in graduate online programmes: Implications for praxis. European Journal of
Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(1), 36–52.
Biwer, F., oude Egbrink, M. G. A., Aalten, P., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2020). Fostering effective
learning strategies in higher education: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(2), 186–203.

94
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.03.004
Blau, I., Weiser, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2017). How do medium naturalness and personality
traits shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of faceto-face and synchronous e-learning. Research in Learning Technology, 25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1974
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from
and with each other. Routledge.
Bowen, B. S. (2005). Engaged learning opinion. Peer Review, 7(2), 4–8.
Bower, B. L., & Hardy, K. P. (2004). From correspondence to cyberspace: Changes and
challenges in distance education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2004(128), 5–
12. http:// doi.org/10.0.3.234/cc.169
Bowman, N. A. (2013). How much diversity is enough? The curvilinear relationship between
college diversity interactions and first-year student outcomes. Research in Higher
Education, 54(8), 874–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9300-0
Bozkurt, A. (2019). From distance education to open and distance learning: A holistic evaluation
of history, definitions, and theories. In S. Sisman-Ugur & G. Kurubacak (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Learning in the Age of Transhumanism (pp. 252–273). IGI Global.
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S., Al-Freih,
M., Pete, J., Olcott Jr., D., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez Jr., A., Roberts, J.,
Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., … Paskevicius, M. (2020). A
global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Navigating in a
time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572

95
Brooks, D. C., & Grajek, S. (2020, March 12). Faculty readiness to begin fully remote teaching.
Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/3/faculty-readiness-to-begin-fullyremote-teaching
Brown, B. W., & Saks, D. H. (1987). The microeconomics of the allocation of teachers’ time and
student learning. Economics of Education Review, 6(4), 319–332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(87)90015-X
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of
the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.
http://10.0.4.153/1468794105056924
Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of
online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4),
466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184
Casey, D. M. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education
through technology. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(2),
45–51. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0135-z
Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 years of the community of inquiry framework. TechTrends,
64(4), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
Chickering, A. W., Gamson, Z. F., & American Association for Higher Education DC., W.
(1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7.
Christenson, S. L., Wylie, C., & Reschly, A. L. (2012). Handbook of research on student
engagement. Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141.

96
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact
and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281.
Collins Dictionary. (n.d.). Cognition. In Collinsdictionary.com dictionary. Retrieved September
20, 2020, from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cognition.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Needs: Competence, autonomy and relatedness. In M.
R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 43–77).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Crick, T., Knight, C., Watermeyer, R., & Goodall, J. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 and
“Emergency Remote Teaching” on the UK computer science education community. United
Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research Conference., 31–37.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3416465.3416472
Cuseo, J. (2018). Student–Faculty engagement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
2018(154), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20294
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial
behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements media richness and
structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative
learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4),
7–55. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6556

97
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues. Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1897). My Educational Creed. E.L. KELLOGG & CO.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. In Social Text. University of Chicago Press.
Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student
engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning Journal, 19(4).
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface
learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences
Education, 21(5), 1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6
Donovan, T., Bates, T., Seaman, J., Mayer, D., Martel, E., Pau, R., Desbiens, B., Forssman, V.,
& Poulin, R. (2019). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and
colleges: 2018.
Dumford, A. D., & Rocconi, L. M. (2015). Development of the Quantitative Reasoning Items on
the National Survey of Student Engagement. Numeracy, 8(1), 5.
https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.8.1.5
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). Online educators’ recommendations for teaching
online: Crowdsourcing in action. Open Praxis, 10(1), 79.
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.721
Esmail, B., Whittaker, T., & Yang, Y. (2010). Mixing it up: More experiments in hybrid
learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25, 97–103.
Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Teacher support, student motivation, student need
satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: Testing a sequential path model.

98
Educational Psychology, 28(6), 711–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802337794
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
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.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gao, X. (2020). Australian students’ perceptions of the challenges and strategies for learning
Chinese characters in emergency online teaching. International Journal of Chinese
Language Teaching, 1, 83–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46451/ijclt.2020.06.04
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind : The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Garrison, D. R. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century : A Framework for Research and
Practice. Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century : A framework for research and practice.
(2nd ed.). Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education,
2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and
computer conferencing in distance education. International Journal of Phytoremediation,
21(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the
interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The
impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50.

99
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12020
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between
on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1),
53–64. http://10.0.3.248/j.iheduc.2006.10.003
Gladwell, M. (2010). Outliers: The story of success. Black Bay Book.
Goodsell, A. S. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. National
Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA).
Gowing, A. (2019). Peer-peer relationships: A key factor in enhancing school connectedness and
belonging. Educational & Child Psychology, 36(2), 64–77.
Green, J. K., Burrow, M. S., & Carvalho, L. (2020). Designing for transition: Supporting
teachers and students cope with emergency eemote education. Postdigital Science and
Education, 2, 1-906–922. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00185-6
Groccia, J. E. (2018). What is student engagement? New Directions for Teaching & Learning,
2018(154), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.0.3.234/tl.20287
Gunawardena, C. N. (2020). Culturally inclusive online learning for capacity development
projects in international contexts. Journal of Learning for Development, 7(1), 5–30.
Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K. C., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Exploring intensive
longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 131–155.
Hisham, D., Rozhan, M. I., & Hanafi, A. (2005). Interaction in open distance learning: Research
issues in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 63–77.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review.

100
https://er.educause.edu/ articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remoteteaching-and-online-learning
Horspool, A., & Lange, C. (2012). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: Student
perceptions, behaviours and success online and face-to-face. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 37(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.496532
Hossler, C.-A., Others, A., & Consortium on Educational Policy Studies IN., B. (1988). The
relationship of increased instructional time to student achievement. Policy Bulletin:
Consortium on Educational Policy Studies, 1.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The
influences of student and institutional characteristics. American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA. (ED452776). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452776.pdf.
Huang, J. (2020). Successes and challenges: Online teaching and learning of chemistry in higher
education in china in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2810–
2814. https://doi.org/10.1021/j.jchemed.0c00671
Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.-M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful
engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
Hunt-Gierut, D. (2011). How my daughter taught me to teach: The importance of active
communication. Multicultural Education, 19(3), 26–28.
Ian, H. (2020, March 12). B.C. health officials discourage travel outside Canada, ban events
larger than 250 people. CTVNews. https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-health-officialsdiscourage-travel-outside-canada-ban-events-larger-than-250-people-1.4850903

101
Johnson, N. (2019). Tracking online education in Canadian universities and colleges: National
survey of online and digital learning 2019 national report.
https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/download/781/
Jones International University. (n.d.). About JIU. Jones International University.
https://www.jiu.edu.rs/about-JIU/index.html
Jones, J. H., & Schwartz, C. (2005). Prisoners of time: Report of the national education
commission on time and learning. National Education Commission on Time and Learning.
(Original work published 1994).
Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (2014). Learning in the practicum: Engaging pre-service teachers in
reflective practice in the online space. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2),
132–146. https://doi.org/10.0.4.56/1359866X.2014.892058
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the
quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260–271.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00620.x
Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning
outcomes. Computers and Education, 97, 116–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.002
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company
(ED084368). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED084368.pdf.
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we
communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6),

102
925–936. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925
Küçükali, R. (2019). Determining the difficulties experienced by postgraduate students in their
education. Lisansüstü Eğitim Öğrencilerinin Eğitimlerinde Yaşadıkları Zorlukların
Belirlenmesi., 23(3), 987–1006.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2),
24–32.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical
foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the Effects
of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. The Journal of
Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., & Buckley, J. A. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the
literature. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative National Symposium on
Postsecondary Student Success. https://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Kuh_Team_Report.pdf.
Kuh, G. D., Pace, C. R., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development of process indicators to estimate
student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in
Higher Education, 38(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024962526492
Kurt, S. Ç., & Yıldırım, İ. (2018). The students’ perceptions on blended learning: A Q method
analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(2), 427–446.
https://doi.org/10.0.49.194/estp.2018.2.0002
Kutbiddinova, R. A., Eromasova, A. A., & Romanova, M. A. (2016). The use of interactive
methods in the educational process of the higher education institution. International Journal

103
of Environmental and Science Education, 11(14), 6557–6572.
Laird, T. F. N., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005, May 14-18). Measuring deep approaches to
learning using the National Survey of Student Engagement. Annual Meeting of the
Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.5030&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Lawrence-Benedict, H., Pfahl, M., & Smith, S. J. (2019). Community of Inquiry in online
education: Using student evaluative data for assessment and strategic development. Journal
of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100208
Lee, J., & Martin, L. (2017). Investigating students’ perceptions of motivating factors of online
class discussions. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
18(5), 148–172.
Lengel, R., & Daft, R. (1984). Organizations as information processing systems: An exploratory
analysis of the relationship between media richness and managerial information
processing. Department of Management Texas A&M University.
Leshkovska, E. A., & Spaseva, S. M. (2016). John Dewey’s educational theory and educational
implications of Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory. International Journal of
Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering & Education (IJCRSEE), 4(2), 57–66.
https://doi.org/10.0.23.49/IJCRSEE1602057A
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). What is higher order thinking? Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 131–
137.
Martin, J., & Martin, N. (2010). Rousseau’s Emile. In R. B. Barrow & D. Carr (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of philosophy of education (pp. 85–98). SAGE Publications.

104
Mather, M., & Sarkans, A. (2018). Student perceptions of online and face-to-face learning.
International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 10(2), 61–76.
McClure, J. (2007). International graduates’ cross-cultural adjustment: experiences, coping
strategies, and suggested programmatic responses. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2),
199–217. https://doi.org/10.0.4.56/13562510701191976
McCormick, A. C., Gonyea, R. M., & Kinzie, J. (2013). Refreshing engagement: NSSE at 13.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(3), 6–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2013.786985
Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about
whether, when and how. Routledge.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Pedagogy. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4,
2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedagogy
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education : A qualitative approach. (1st ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in
qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51–60.
Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method: Scientific pedagogy as applied to child
education in “the Children’s Houses” with additions and revisions. (A. E. George, Trans.).
Frederick A Stokes Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/13054-000
Murdock, J., & Williams, A. (2011). Creating an online learning community: Is it possible.
Innovative Higher Education, 36(5), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.0.3.239/s10755-011-91886

105
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Number and percentage of undergraduate
students enrolled in distance education or online classes and degree programs, by selected
characteristics: Selected years, 2003-04 through 2015-16.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_311.22.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Distance learning.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of
American higher education. Final Report of the Study Group on the Conditions of
Excellence in American Higher Education. U.S. Department of Education. (ED246833).
ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED246833.pdf.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (n.d.-a). Engagement indicators.
https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/survey-instruments/engagement-indicators.html#top
National Survey of Student Engagement. (n.d.-b). NSSE’s conceptual framework (2013). NSSE.
https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/psychometric-portfolio/conceptual-framework-newversion.html
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2001). Origins and potential of the national survey of
student engagement. NSSE. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/about-nsse/general-nsse-infofacts/origins.html#:~:text=The NSSE was conceived in,in the spring of 2000
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2013). A fresh look at student engagement: Annual
results 2013. In Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
https://doi.org/10.5967/r4w1-bt95
Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change; attitude formation in a student
community. Dryden Press.

106
O’Neill, P. B., & Flynn, D. T. (2013). Another curriculum requirement? Quantitative reasoning
in economics: Some first steps. American Journal of Business Education, 6(3), 339–346.
Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduate: A report of their activities and progress in college in the
1980’s. Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California. (ED373701). ERIC.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED375701.pdf.
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two
Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning.
(ED448443). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED448443.pdf.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-Faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 50(4), 545–595.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1978). Student-Faculty informal relationships and freshman
year educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 71(4), 183–189.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. (Trans A.
Rosin). Viking.
Poluekhtova, I. A., Vikhrova, O. Y., & Vartanova, E. L. (2020). Effectiveness of online
education for the professional training of journalists: Students’ distance learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology in Russia. State of the Art, 13(4), 26–37.
https://doi.org/10.0.45.101/pir.2020.0402
Redmond, P., Abawi, L. A., Brown, A., Henderson, R., & Heffernan, A. (2018). An online
engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 183–204.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Reed, J. G. (1976). The identification of relevant dimensions for the environmental assessment of
a college library using the critical incident technique. [Unpublished master’s

107
thesis].Towson State College. (ED125667). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED125667.pdf.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during
learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to
students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network,
7(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864
Robbins, S., & Hoggan, C. (2019). Collaborative learning in higher education to improve
employability: Opportunities and challenges. New Directions for Adult & Continuing
Education, 2019(163), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.0.3.234/ace.20344
Rocconi, L., & Kinzie, J. (2013). NSSE engagement indicators: A conversation about transition
and use. Southern Association for Institutional Research Conference in Memphis, TN.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Rodríguez, C., Chavez, C. R., & Klauber, C. (2019). International graduate student challenges
and support. International Research and Review, 8(2), 49–64.
Romero-Hall, E., & Vicentini, C. (2017). Examining distance learners in hybrid synchronous
instruction: Successes and challenges. Online Learning, 21(4), 141–157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1258
Russ, C. L., Mitchell, G. W., & Durham, S. K. (2010). Components that Affect Success in
Distance Learning as Perceived by Career and Technical Educators. Business Education
Innovation Journal, 2(2), 73–79.
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (J. Seaman (Ed.)). SAGE

108
Publications.
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in
the United States.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in Education
and the Social Sciences (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Shin, M., & Hickey, K. (2020). Needs a little TLC: examining college students’ emergency
remote teaching and learning experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1847261
Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 34(6), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380209605567
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and
whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and
achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 22–32.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22
So, H.-J. (2009). Is blended learning a viable option in public health education? A case study of
student satisfaction with a blended graduate course. Journal of Public Health Management
& Practice, 15(1), 59–66.
Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement
and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative
Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x

109
Sutton, M. R. (1978). The concept of equilibration in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development.
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. The University of British Columbia.
Swan, K., & Ice, P. (2010). The community of inquiry framework ten years later: Introduction to
the special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.003
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building
knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual
classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383.
https://doi.org/10.2190/W4G6-HY52-57P1-PPNE
Synytsia, A. (2020). Education as a means of affirming democracy values in John Dewey’s
pragmatism: Modern perspective. Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 11(1), 30–41.
Thompson Rivers University. (2020a). Factbook Fiscal Year 2019-20.
https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/2019-202051980.pdf
Thompson Rivers University. (2020b, March 15). COVID-19 updates: Transitioning away from
face-to-face classes. Thompson Rivers University. https://www.tru.ca/covid-19/updates.html
Thomson, S. (2011). Sample size and grounded theory. JOAAG, 5(1), 45–52.
Törnroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315–327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy.
Tukibayeva, M., & Gonyea, R. M. (2014). High-impact practices and the first-year student. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2013(160), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20059
UNESCO. (2020, April 20). School closures caused by Coronavirus (Covid-19).

110
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
van den Berg, G. (2020). Context matters: student experiences of interaction in open distance
learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 223–236.
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.803411
Vibert, A. B., & Shields, C. (2003). Approaches to student engagement: Does ideology matter?
McGill Journal of Education, 38(002), 221–240.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003
Weiner, E., McNew, R., Gordon, J., Trangenstein, P., & Wood, K. (2019). Twenty plus years of
distance learning: Lessons learned. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264,
1807–1808. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190658
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices:
Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning,
Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Interaction in asynchronous web-based learning environments.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 179–194.
Woolsey, L. K. (1986). The critical incident technique: An innovative qualitative method of
research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 20(4), 242–254.
Yan, V. X., Thai, K. P., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated
learning: Do they varywith mindset. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 3(3), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.003
Yang, S.-K. (2011). An international comparison of the historical development of educational

111
philosophy. Bulletin of Educational Research, 57(3), 1–36.
Young, S., & Duncan, H. (2014). Online and face-to-face teaching: How do student ratings
differ? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 70.
Zascavage, V., Masten, W. G., Schroeder-Steward, J., & Nichols, C. (2007). Comparison of
critical thinking in undergraduates and graduates in special education. International Journal
of Special Education, 22(1), 25–31.
Zhang, W., Perris, K., & Yeung, L. (2005). Online tutorial support in open and distance learning:
students’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 789–804.
http://10.0.4.87/j.1467-8535.2004.00492.x

112
Appendix A
Introduction Letter

Introduction Letter
Hello,
My name is Hongran Cui, a MEd student at TRU, and conducting a research project for
my thesis.
The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 has affected most countries in the world,
including Canada. TRU announced on March 15, 2020, that all on-campus courses
would be changed to online courses from March 16 (Thompson Rivers University,
2020). I would like to find out, from the students’ perspective, if there are changes in
student engagement, and what are the main reasons for these changes?
The interview will remain strictly confidential. Participants’ confidentiality will be
protected through anonymity, the use of pseudonyms for the qualitative data reports.
This interview will conduct online through Microsoft teams due to the pandemic.
You can withdraw from the study at any time and/or refuse to answer any questions,
without suffering any negative consequences. If you choose to withdraw, the data will
be destroyed and not used in the study.
The result of this research study could be helpful for students or TRU to modify the
learning environment. Your participation will be appreciated.
If you are interested or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
cuih19@mytru.ca, or by phone at 250-879-5993.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely yours,
Hongran Cui

113
Appendix B
Research Ethics Board Approval

114

Appendix C
Participant Consent Form

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
Title of Research Project:
Face to Face, Online or something in Between: Student Perceptions of Student Engagement
in Different Learning Environments
Researcher: Hongran Cui, TRU 00643768, M.Ed. Candidate, cuih19@mytru.ca, 250-879-5993
Project Description:
Research Purpose: According to UNESCO (2020), in April 2020 almost 90% of schools from
192 countries were closed due to the pandemic, COVID-19. The entire society was forced to
drift into emergency remote education rather than continue the dominant delivery mode of
face-to- face (F2F) learning. This study will ask questions about what differences in student
engagement student perceive because of this learning shift.
Research Procedure: This research will use the critical incident technique (CIT) and use
the engagement indicators (EIs) from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
as the research framework. The project will be conducted using the online platform
Microsoft Teams. The interview will take about 30 minutes. During the interview,
participants will reflect on their experience of engagement in the learning process through
the interview questions.
Consent: I am invited to participate in the abovementioned research study conducted by
Hongran Cui, TRU 00643768 for the purposes of her Thesis in Master of Education.
Participation: My participation will consist of an online audio interview during which I will
answer questions pertaining to the research topic. The audio of online interview(s) will be
recorded for transcription as part of the data collection for the research project.
Benefits: There is renewed interest in student engagement. This time in education, which
includes possibly the largest shift in learning/teaching style in history, is important, and underresearched. My participation in this study will help create a body of knowledge about the
changes in student engagement. The results of the research study may help students and the
university to consider the issues of student engagement more appropriately. I will be able to read
the summary of the findings and utilize the information therein to benefit my learning.

115

Risks: My participation in this study will not require me to release any personal confidential
information or any confidential individual student information. I have received assurance from
the researcher that every effort will be made to ensure that information I provide will be treated
with sensitivity to ensure that a positive image of my institution and program is demonstrated
in the research report and any ensuing presentations or other material.
Confidentiality: I have received assurance from the researcher that the information I will
share will remain strictly confidential. I understand that the contents will be used for the
purposes mentioned above (the thesis), and potential in conferences, or academic journals, or
other publications. My confidentiality will be protected through anonymity in the interview,
the use of pseudonyms for the qualitative data reports, and the secure storage of my interview
transcription notes as per Thompson Rivers University IT Security policies and practices.
Conservation of data: The data collected (tape recordings of interviews, transcripts, and all
relevant work term/program documents) will be kept securely electronically on an encrypted
device, and all hard copies will be securely stored on university property in a locked cabinet
in Dr. Victoria Handford’s office. Data will be kept for five years. After this, it will be
discarded by permanently deleting electronic files and shredding paper copies.
Voluntary Participation: I am under no obligation to participate and if I choose to participate,
I can withdraw from the study at any time and/or refuse to answer any questions, without
suffering any negative consequences. If I choose to withdraw, all the data will be destroyed
and not used in the study.
If you have any concerns about this study or need to file a complaint, please contact my
supervisor Dr. Victoria Handford at vhandford@tru.ca, or by phone at 250-852-6353, and/or
the Dean of the Faculty of Education and Social Work (Dr. Arini) at airini@tru.ca, or by
phone at 250-828-5249, and/or TRU’s Chair of the Research Ethics Board at TRUREB@tru.ca or by phone at 250-828-5000. If you feel upset, distressed, or disturbed during
the research, please contact TRU Counseling Department by phone at 250-828-5023.
Copies of The Consent Form and The Summary of The Research Findings
Each participant will receive a soft copy of the consent form and the summary of the
research finding.
If you would like to receive a copy of the executive summary of completed projects and
updated information during the course of the research, please contact me, and tell me the
way you prefer to receive them. If you would like to review your transcript so you can
feel reassure that it is reflective of what you said, please contact me, and tell me the way
you prefer to receive them.
Acceptance: I,
, agree to participate in the above research study
conducted by Hongran Cui of the Faculty of Human, Social and Educational Development
at Thompson Rivers University.
If I have any questions or further questions about the study and the procedure, I may contact the

116
researcher.
Participant’s signature: (Signature)

Date: (Date)

Researcher’s signature: (Signature)

Date: (Date)

117
Appendix D
Interview Questions

Interview questions using Critical Incidents Technique (CIT)
Title of Research Project:
Face to Face, Online or something in Between: Student Perceptions of Student
Engagement in Different Learning Environments
Researcher: Hongran Cui, TRU 00643768, M.Ed. Candidate, cuih19@mytru.ca, 250
879 5993
Introductory: The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 has affected most countries in
the world, including Canada. TRU announced on March 15, 2020, that all on-campus
courses would be changed to online courses from March 16 (Thompson Rivers
University, 2020). This study will through the following questions to find out what
differences in student engagement student perceive because of this learning shift.
The interview will remain strictly confidential. Your confidentiality will be protected
through anonymity, the use of pseudonyms for the qualitative data reports.
You can withdraw from the study at any time and/or refuse to answer any questions,
without suffering any negative consequences. If you choose to withdraw, all the data
will be destroyed and not used in the study.
Interview Questions
1. 1a) When ERE learning became the main learning modality, it changed your

learning experiences and learning environment. Can you describe what parts of
these learning experiences you like, what has increased your interest in learning?
1b) What parts of these changes in learning environment you have not liked, or
have reduced your interest in learning?
2. 2a) You mentioned that your learning and your interest changed. Can you tell me

about a specific situation where your learning and/or your interest changed because
of the learning environment?
2b) How did this affect your interest in learning?
3. It has been two or three semesters since you switched to emergency remote learning

(ERE). Please describe the changes in your learning methods and learning plan
during this period. If you like, please share your methods with us.

118

4. Please describe the scenarios that greatly/very well stimulated your interest in

learning after switching to emergency remote learning (ERE). What factors
stimulated your interest? Are these factors more likely to appear online or face-toface?
Probing Questions
Trigger
1. Issue: Academic Challenge: higher-order learning, reflective & integrative learning,
learning strategies, qualitative reasoning.
Probes:
• When ERE learning is the main learning modality, are your grades higher or
lower?
• Are you more or less interested in courses?
• Has your learning time become more or less?
2. Issue: Learning with Peers: collaborative learning, discussion with diverse others
Probe:
• When ERE learning is the main learning modality, did your interactions with your
classmates increase or decrease? Interaction could be in a study group, teamwork,
group discussion, or simple communication with classmates about anything.
3. Issue: Experiences with Faculty: student-faculty interaction, effective teaching practices
Probes:
• When ERE learning is the main learning modality, did your interactions with your
instructors increase or decrease?
• What do you think is the main reason for the changes?
o Is it because interaction content increased/ decreased, or interaction ways
changed, or interaction willingness changes, or other reasons?
4. Issue: Campus Environment: quality of interactions, supportive environment
Probe:
• When ERE learning is the main learning modality, did your interactions with
other faculty members increase or decrease?
• What do you think has changed in the support from school / campus?
5. Issue: Better (professional) equipment
Probe:

119
•

When ERE learning is the main learning modality, do you think you need better
or professional equipment? Could you please describe some functions you would
like to have in your new equipment?

6. Issue: More or less synchronous or asynchronous courses
Probe: Do you prefer to have more or less synchronous or asynchronous courses? What is
the reason?
Action：
1. Did something change your actions in learning style?
2. When you changed your learning style, did anyone else participate in changing your
learning style?

120
Appendix E
Examples of Adjustment for Quotation from the Interviews
Example one:
Original: That app can let the teacher make some interesting videos and make some
interesting course content to the students.
Adjustment: Teachers can use that app to create interesting videos and course content for
students.
Example two:
Original: I took a course called … and the in the course, the instructor introduce us many
different apps to support our classroom teaching.
Adjustment: I took a course called … and in the course, the instructor introduced us many
different apps to support our classroom teaching.
Example three:
Original: …for us, in China, we have the internet block… Sometimes I got disconnection
with my network, because it’s unstable.
Adjustment: … for us, in China, we have network restrictions… Sometimes, I lost the
connection because my network was unstable.
Example four:
Original: She would divided us to breakout room and we talking and sharing the idea
with her suggested question.
Adjustment: She divided us into breakout rooms; we talked and shared ideas about her
suggested question.