Investigation of Kyrgyz Learners’ Engagement in Online Courses

Gülgün Afacan Adanır; Gulshat Muhametjanova; Azat Akmatbekova

doi:10.55982/openpraxis.14.2.158

Investigation of Kyrgyz Learners’ Engagement in Online Courses

Open Praxis

Volume 14 (2022): Issue 2

By: Gülgün Afacan Adanır , Gulshat Muhametjanova and Azat Akmatbekova

Open Access

|Dec 2022

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate Kyrgyz learners’ engagement in online courses. In this respect, the Student Engagement Scale and appropriate open-ended questions were employed in order to obtain data from learners. The sample covers 400 undergraduate learners studying at Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University. The study has a mixed research design, hence both quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed. The results of the study revealed that behavioral engagement has a significant effect on learner achievement. The study also demonstrated that the engagement of Kyrgyz learners in online courses differs in terms of their gender and their prior online course experience. The majority of Kyrgyz learners had limited access to the Internet and computers; therefore, they experienced problems in online courses. The other problems facing Kyrgyz learners are due to insufficient house conditions, frequent power failures, health problems, and a lack of interactivity in online courses.

References

Afacan Adanır, G., Muhametjanova, G., Çelikbağ, M. A., Omuraliev, A., & İsmailova, R. (2020). Learners’ preferences for online resources, activities, and communication tools: a comparative study of Turkey and Kyrgyzstan. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(2), 148–166. DOI: 10.1177/2042753019899713
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Akuratiya, D. A., & Meddage, D. N. (2020). Students’ perception of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A survey study of IT students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 4(9), 755–758.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29–42. https://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_15/Jan15.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Butler, J. M. (2011). Using standardized tests to assess institution-wide student engagement. In R. L. Miller, E. Amsel, B. Kowalewski, B. Beins, K. Keith, & B. Peden, (Eds.). Promoting student engagement, volume 1: Programs, techniques and opportunities (pp. 258–264). Academia.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cho, M. H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. The Internet and Higher Education, 21(2014), 25–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Datareportal. (2019). Digital 2019: Kyrgyzstan [PowerPoint slides]. Datareportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-kyrgyzstan
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2) 1–13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079585.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4). DOI: 10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, S., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2016). Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher–student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1192–1207. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-016-0414-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305–321). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/0-387-23823-9_19
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. DOI: 10.3102/00346543074001059
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103654.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heng, K., & Sol, K. (2021). Online learning during COVID-19: Key challenges and suggestions to enhance effectiveness. Cambodian Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 3–16.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hu, M., & Li, H. (2017, June). Student engagement in online learning: A review. Proceedings of 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), 39–43. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8005384. DOI: 10.1109/ISET.2017.17
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Internet World Stats. (2019). KYRGYZSTAN (Kyrgyz Republic) [Data set]. https://www.Internetworldstats.com/asia.htm#kg
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Johnston, J., Killion, J., & Oomen, J. (2005). Student satisfaction in the virtual classroom. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 3(2), 1–7. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=ijahsp/. DOI: 10.46743/1540-580X/2005.1071
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jones, R. D. (2008). Strengthening student engagement [White paper]. International Center for Leadership in Education. https://www.literacytakesflight.com/uploads/7/8/9/3/7893595/strengthen_student_engagement_white_paper.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kahn, P., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 203–218. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9484-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Li, F., Qi, J., Wang, G., & Wang, X. (2014). Traditional classroom vs e-learning in higher education: Difference between students’ behavioral engagement. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 9(2), 48–51. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v9i2.3268
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 233–247. DOI: 10.1037/a0021307
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Louwrens, N., & Hartnett, M. (2015). Student and teacher perceptions of online student engagement in an online middle school. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 19(1), 27–44. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/151619/
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement online: What works and why. John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morris, O. (2012). Faculty choice and student perception of web based technologies for interaction in online economics courses. [Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University]. Proquest. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1125280856
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Muhametjanova, G., Afacan Adanır, G., & Akmatbekova, A. (2020). Internet and social networks use habits of adolescents between ages of 10–19 in the Kyrgyz Republic. Journal of Children and Media, 14(2), 173–186. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2019.1684965
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nambiar, D. (2020). The impact of online learning during COVID-19: students’ and teachers’ perspective. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(2), 783–793. DOI: 10.25215/0802.094
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). Teachers College Press. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED371047.pdf#page=16
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2). 219–226.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 23–37. DOI: 10.1207/s15389286ajde2001_3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in health sciences education, 16(4), 465–479. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-011-9272-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). A predictive model to evaluate students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(2014), 4844–4853. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1036
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tsay, C. H. H., Kofinas, A., & Luo, J. (2018). Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 121(2018), 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.009
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wang, M. T., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49(4), 465–480. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.14.2.158 | Journal eISSN: 2304-070X

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 110 - 121

Submitted on: Sep 27, 2021

Accepted on: Mar 25, 2022

Published on: Dec 9, 2022

Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

survey,

© 2022 Gülgün Afacan Adanır, Gulshat Muhametjanova, Azat Akmatbekova, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 14 (2022): Issue 2