Self-Regulation, Teaching Presence, and Social Presence: Predictors of Students’ Learning Engagement and Persistence in Blended Synchronous Learning
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Do self-regulation, teaching presence, and social presence affect learning engagement in BSL?
- Do self-regulation, teaching presence, and social presence affect learning persistence in BSL?
- Does learning engagement mediate the relationship between (1) self-regulation, teaching presence, and social presence and (2) learning persistence in BSL?
2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Learning Engagement and Persistence in Blended Synchronous Learning
2.1.1. Learning Engagement
2.1.2. Learning Persistence
2.1.3. Learning Engagement and Learning Persistence
2.2. Predictors of Learning Engagement and Persistence
2.2.1. Self-Regulation
2.2.2. Teaching Presence
2.2.3. Social Presence
2.3. Hypotheses
3. Methods
3.1. Research Context and Participants
3.1.1. Research Context
3.1.2. Participants
3.2. Measurement Instrument
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
4.2. Testing the Hypothesized Model
4.3. Mediation Analysis
5. Discussions
5.1. The Predictors of Learning Engagement
5.2. The Predictors of Learning Persistence
6. Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Measurement Scales Used in This Study
NO. | Items | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
1 | I ask myself questions to make sure I know the material I have been studying. | 5.63 | 0.928 |
2 | When work is hard I either give up or study only the easy parts. (*R) | 5.70 | 0.923 |
3 | I work on practice exercises and answer end of chapter questions even when I do not have to. | 5.70 | 0.988 |
4 | Even when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I keep working until I finish. | 5.87 | 0.931 |
5 | Before I begin studying I think about the things I will need to do to learn. | 5.49 | 1.087 |
6 | I often find that I have been reading for class but do not know what it is all about. (*R) | 5.61 | 0.918 |
7 | I find that when the teacher is talking I think of other things and do not really listen to what is being said. (*R) | 5.38 | 0.993 |
8 | When I’m reading I stop once in a while and go over what I have read. | 5.73 | 0.908 |
9 | I work hard to get a good grade even when I do not like the blended synchronous course. | 5.50 | 0.968 |
NO. | Items | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The instructor clearly communicated important blended synchronous learning topics. | 5.86 | 1.008 |
2 | The instructor clearly communicated important blended synchronous learning goals. | 5.85 | 0.979 |
3 | The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in blended synchronous course learning activities. | 5.75 | 0.997 |
4 | The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for blended synchronous learning activities. | 5.97 | 1.014 |
5 | The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on blended synchronous learning topics that helped me to learn. | 5.48 | 1.151 |
6 | The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding blended synchronous learning topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking. | 5.56 | 1.209 |
7 | The instructor helped to keep blended synchronous learning participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue. | 5.60 | 1.161 |
8 | The instructor helped keep the blended synchronous learning participants on task in a way that helped me to learn. | 5.69 | 1.052 |
9 | The instructor encouraged blended synchronous learning participants to explore new concepts in this course. | 5.65 | 1.199 |
10 | Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among blended synchronous learning participants. | 5.77 | 1.091 |
11 | The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant blended synchronous learning issues in a way that helped me to learn. | 5.78 | 1.109 |
12 | The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses relative to the blended synchronous learning’s goals and objectives. | 5.40 | 1.209 |
13 | In the blended synchronous learning environment, the instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion. | 5.57 | 1.254 |
NO. | Items | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Getting to know blended synchronous learning participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course. | 5.29 | 1.212 |
2 | I was able to form distinct impressions of some blended synchronous learning participants. | 5.18 | 1.199 |
3 | A blended synchronous learning environment is an excellent medium for social interaction. | 5.17 | 1.165 |
4 | I felt comfortable conversing through the blended synchronous learning medium. | 5.53 | 1.101 |
5 | I felt comfortable participating in the blended synchronous learning discussions. | 5.39 | 1.122 |
6 | I felt comfortable interacting with blended synchronous learning participants. | 5.29 | 1.130 |
7 | I felt comfortable disagreeing with other blended synchronous learning participants while still maintaining a sense of trust. | 5.24 | 1.114 |
8 | I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by blended synchronous learning participants. | 5.33 | 1.056 |
9 | The discussions in the blended synchronous course help me to develop a sense of collaboration. | 5.51 | 1.121 |
NO. | Items | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
1 | I follow the rules of the blended synchronous courses. | 5.60 | 1.017 |
2 | I participate in activities in the blended synchronous courses (e.g., interactive poll, quiz). | 5.67 | 0.971 |
3 | I am able to consistently pay attention when I am taking the blended synchronous courses. | 5.52 | 0.967 |
4 | I like taking the blended synchronous learning. | 5.33 | 1.077 |
5 | I feel excited by my work in the blended synchronous course. | 5.54 | 1.036 |
6 | The blended synchronous classroom is a fun place to be. | 5.75 | 0.991 |
7 | I feel happy when taking blended synchronous courses. | 5.72 | 0.928 |
8 | When I read the blended synchronous learning materials, I ask myself questions to make sure I understand what it is about. | 5.45 | 0.966 |
9 | If I do not know about a concept when I am learning in the blended synchronous course, I do something to figure it out. | 5.68 | 0.950 |
10 | I try to look for some course-related information on other resources such as journal papers, web pages, etc. | 5.47 | 1.109 |
11 | If I do not understand what I learned in blended synchronous course, I go back to teacher’s instructions and learn again. | 5.08 | 1.148 |
12 | I read extra materials to learn more about things we do in the blended synchronous course. | 5.53 | 1.024 |
NO. | Items | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Completing the blended synchronous learning is important to me. | 5.82 | 0.985 |
2 | I am confident that I can overcome obstacles encountered in the blended synchronous learning. | 5.71 | 1.044 |
3 | I will finish my studies in the blended synchronous learning no matter how difficult it may be. | 5.66 | 1.106 |
4 | I will certainly finish the blended synchronous learning of this semester. | 5.25 | 1.192 |
5 | I am not likely to continue my studies in the blended synchronous learning. (*R) | 5.74 | 1.078 |
6 | I would like to quit my studies in the blended synchronous learning. (*R) | 5.50 | 1.121 |
References
- Bower, M.; Dalgarno, B.; Kennedy, G.E.; Lee, M.J.W.; Kenney, J. Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Comput. Educ. 2015, 86, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lakhal, S.; Mukamurera, J.; Bédard, M.E.; Heilporn, G.; Chauret, M. Features fostering academic and social integration in blended synchronous courses in graduate programs. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakhal, S.; Bateman, D.; Bédard, J. Blended Synchronous Delivery Mode in Graduate Programs: A Literature Review and How It is Implemented in the Master Teacher Program. Collect. Essays Learn. Teach. 2017, 10, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Conklina, S.; Oyarzun, B.; Barreto, D. Blended synchronous learning environment: Student perspectives. Res. Educ. Media 2017, 9, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zydney, J.M.; McKimmy, P.; Lindberg, R.; Schmidt, M. Here or There Instruction: Lessons Learned in Implementing Innovative Approaches to Blended Synchronous Learning. TechTrends 2019, 63, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raes, A.; Detienne, L.; Windey, I.; Depaepe, F. A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learn. Environ. Res. 2020, 23, 269–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakhal, S.; Mukamurera, J.; Bédard, M.E.; Heilporn, G.; Chauret, M. Students and instructors perspective on blended synchronous learning in a Canadian graduate program. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2021, 37, 1383–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butz, N.T.; Stupnisky, R.H.; Peterson, E.S.; Majerus, M.M. Motivation in synchronous hybrid graduate business programs: A self-determination approach to contrasting online and on-campus students. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2014, 10, 211–227. [Google Scholar]
- Zydney, J.M.; Warner, Z.; Angelone, L. Learning through experience: Using design based research to redesign protocols for blended synchronous learning environments. Comput. Educ. 2020, 143, 103678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szeto, E.; Cheng, A.Y.N. Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: What effects are there on students’ social presence experience? Interact. Learn. Environ. 2014, 24, 487–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.Y.; Huang, C.Q. Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a blended synchronous learning environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 451–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Quek, C.L.; Hu, X. Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2017, 18, 3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.Y.; Huang, C.Q.; Quek, C.L. Students’ perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 34, 3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kyei-Blankson, L.; Godwyll, F.; Nur-Awaleh, M.A. Innovative blended delivery and learning: Exploring student choice, experience, and level of satisfaction in a hyflex course. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2014, 16, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelmalak, M.M.M.; Parra, J.L. Expanding learning opportunities for graduate students with HyFlex course design. Int. J. Online Pedagog. Course Des. 2016, 6, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredricks, J.A.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 59–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bote-Lorenzo, M.L.; Gómez-Sánchez, E. Predicting the decrease of engagement indicators in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK 2017), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13–17 March 2017; pp. 143–147. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, J.H.; Huang, C.Q.; Han, Z.M.; He, T.; Li, M. Investigating the Influence of Interaction on Learning Persistence in Online Settings: Moderation or Mediation of Academic Emotions? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hart, C. Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. J. Interact. Online Learn. 2012, 11, 19–42. [Google Scholar]
- Alhazbi, S.; Hasan, M.A. The Role of Self-Regulation in Remote Emergency Learning: Comparing Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Learning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eggers, J.H.; Oostdam, R.; Voog, J. Self-regulation strategies in blended learning environments in higher education: A systematic review. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boelens, R.; De Wever, B.; Voet, M. Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 22, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McGee, P.; Reis, A. Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 2012, 16, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.Y.; Gomez, J.; Yen, C.-J. Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. J. Interact. Online Learn. 2009, 8, 165–182. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson, J.C.; Maeda, Y.; Lv, J.; Caskurlu, S. Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 71, 402–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.; Law, V.; Lee, S.J. The role of learners’ epistemic beliefs in an online Community of Inquiry. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 1882–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shea, P.; Hayes, S.; Smith, S.U.; Vickers, J.; Bidjerano, T.; Gozza-Cohen, M.; Jian, S.B.; Pickett, A.M.; Wilde, J.; Tseng, C.H. Online Learner Self-Regulation: Learning Presence Viewed through Quantitative Content- and Social Network Analysis. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2013, 14, 427–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.F.; Tong, M.W.; Long, T.T. Investigating relationships among blended synchronous learning environments, students’ motivation, and cognitive engagement: A mixed methods study. Comput. Educ. 2021, 168, 104193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joo, Y.J.; Joung, S.; Kim, E.K. Structural relationships among e-learners’ sense of presence, usage, flow, satisfaction, and persistence. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2013, 16, 310–324. [Google Scholar]
- Doo, M.Y.; Bonk, C.J. The effects of self-efficacy, self-regulation and social presence on learning engagement in a large university class using flipped Learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2020, 36, 997–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waddington, A.M.; Porter, S.D. Developing social presence in online learning among nurses: Exploration of the community of inquiry models domain of social using a qualitative descriptive design. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2021, 52, 103000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahu, E.R.; Nelson, K. Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2018, 37, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borup, J.; Jensen, M.; Archambault, L.; Short, C.R.; Graham, C.R. Supporting students during COVID-19: Developing and leveraging academic communities of engagement in a time of crisis. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2020, 28, 161–169. [Google Scholar]
- Jung, Y.; Lee, J. Learning Engagement and Persistence in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, J.-W.; Song, Y.-H. Probing the interaction effects of task value and academic self-efficacy on learning engagement and persistence in an e-learning course. J. Learn.-Cent. Curric. Instr. 2013, 13, 91–112. [Google Scholar]
- Joo, Y.J.; Lim, K.Y.; Kim, E.K. Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1654–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, G.; Nakata, V.; Nakata, M.; Day, A. Promoting the persistence of Indigenous students through teaching at the Cultural Interface. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1158–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillory, R.M.; Wolverton, M. It’s about family: Native American student persistence in higher education. J. High. Educ. 2008, 79, 58–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeshola, I.; Agoyi, M. Examining factors influencing e-learning engagement among university students during covid-19 pandemic: A mediating role of “learning persistence”. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 20, 9493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alamri, M.M. Investigating Students’ Adoption of MOOCs during COVID-19 Pandemic: Students’ Academic Self-Efficacy, Learning Engagement, and Learning Persistence. Sustainability 2022, 14, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, G. Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teach. High Educ. 2007, 12, 349–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deschacht, N.; Goeman, K. The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners: A difference-in-differences analysis. Comput. Educ. 2015, 87, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raes, A.; Vanneste, P.; Pieters, M.; Windey, I.; Van den Noortgate, W.; Depaepe, F. Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Comput. Educ. 2020, 143, 103682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, W.-C. A quick BAT for evaluating the reliability of binary-state networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 216, 107917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, W.-C. A simple algorithm for evaluating the k-out-of-n network reliability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2004, 83, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerman, B.J. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Pract. 2002, 41, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerman, B.J.; Schunk, D.H. Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, J.C.Y.; Rueda, R. Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 43, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cho, M.-H.; Shen, D. Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Educ. 2013, 34, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Choi, J.; Kim, T. Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 44, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrison, D.R.; Anderson, T.; Archer, W. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 1999, 2, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiock, H.S. Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2020, 21, 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrison, D.R.; Arbaugh, J.B. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet High. Educ. 2007, 10, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Stein, D. Effects of online teaching presence on students’ cognitive conflict and engagement. Distance Educ. 2021, 42, 547–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szeto, E. Community of Inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Comput. Educ. 2015, 81, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrison, D.R.; Anderson, T.; Archer, W. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet High. Educ. 2010, 13, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pursel, B.K.; Zhang, L.; Jablokow, K.W.; Choi, G.W.; Velegol, D. Understanding MOOC students: Motivations and behaviours indicative of MOOC completion. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2016, 32, 202–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, W.T.; Hu, X.; Pan, Z.L.; Li, C.L.; Cai, Y.; Liu, M. Exploring the relationship between social presence and learners’ prestige in MOOC discussion forums using automated content analysis and social network analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 115, 6582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregori, E.; Torras, E.; Guasch, T. Cognitive attainment in online learning environments: Matching cognitive and technological presence. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2012, 20, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.; Baker, R. The different relationships between engagement and outcomes across participant subgroups in massive open online courses. Comput. Educ. 2018, 127, 41–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pintrich, P.R.; De Groot, E.V. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 1990, 82, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arbaugh, J.B.; Cleveland-Innes, M.; Diaz, S.R.; Garrison, D.R.; Ice, P.; Richardson, J.C.; Swan, K.P. Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet High. Educ. 2008, 11, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, N. Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Educ. 2003, 24, 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenny, D.A. Measuring Model Fit. 2015. Available online: https://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm (accessed on 27 April 2021).
- Enders, C.K. An SAS macro for implementing the modified Bollen-Stine bootstrap for missing data: Implementing the bootstrap using existing structural equation modeling software. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2005, 12, 620–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bollen, K.A.; Stine, R.A. Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 205–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, A.B.; MacKinnon, D.P.; Tein, J.-Y. Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organ. Res. Methods 2008, 11, 241–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilis, S.; Yildirim, Z. Investigation of community of inquiry framework in regard to self-regulation, metacognition and motivation. Comput. Educ. 2018, 126, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heflin, H.; Shewmaker, J.; Nguyen, J. Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Comput. Educ. 2017, 107, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, F.; Ritzhaupt, A.; Kumar, S.; Budhrani, K. Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. Internet High. Educ. 2019, 42, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vygotsky, L.S.; Cole, M. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Rogoff, B. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, P.; Leem, J. The Influence of Social Presence in Online Classes Using Virtual Conferencing: Relationships between Group Cohesion, Group Efficacy, and Academic Performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Laer, S.; Elen, J. In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 1395–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heilporn, G.; Lakhal, S.; Bélisle, M. An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2021, 18, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | # Of Items | Source | Scales | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
self-regulation | —— | 9 | Pintrich and De Groot (1990) [62] | 7-point Likert scale | 0.872 | 0.874 |
teaching presence | Design and organization | 13 | Arbaugh et al. (2008) [63] | 7-point Likert scale | 0.943 | 0.943 |
Facilitation discourse | ||||||
Direct instruction | ||||||
social presence | Affective expression | 9 | Arbaugh et al. (2008) [63] | 7-point Likert scale | 0.879 | 0.880 |
Open communication | ||||||
Group cohesion | ||||||
learning engagement | Behavioral engagement | 12 | Sun and Rueda (2012) [48] | 7-point Likert scale | 0.898 | 0.900 |
Emotional engagement | ||||||
Cognitive engagement | ||||||
learning persistence | —— | 6 | Shin (2003) [64] | 7-point Likert scale | 0.874 | 0.877 |
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. SR | 1 | ||||
2. TP | 0.59 ** | 1 | |||
3. SP | 0.66 ** | 0.61 ** | 1 | ||
4. LE | 0.67 ** | 0.72 ** | 0.68 ** | 1 | |
5. LP | 0.69 ** | 0.55 ** | 0.60 ** | 0.67 ** | 1 |
Mean | 5.63 | 5.69 | 5.33 | 5.53 | 5.61 |
SD | 0.68 | 0.86 | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.85 |
Skewness | −0.86 | −0.58 | −0.57 | −0.31 | −0.34 |
Kurtosis | 0.40 | 0.09 | −0.11 | −0.64 | −0.61 |
Latent Variable | Observed Variable | Estimates (B) | Standardized Estimates (β) | S.E. | C.R. | Supported |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Learning engagement | Self-regulation | 0.315 | 0.277 *** | 0.081 | 3.901 | Yes |
Teaching presence | 0.301 | 0.389 *** | 0.048 | 6.265 | Yes | |
Social presence | 0.289 | 0.297 *** | 0.071 | 4.068 | Yes | |
Learning persistence | Self-regulation | 0.576 | 0.489 *** | 0.104 | 5.529 | Yes |
Teaching presence | −0.025 | −0.031 | 0.056 | −0.448 | No | |
Social presence | 0.049 | 0.049 | 0.082 | 0.598 | No | |
Learning engagement | 0.389 | 0.377 *** | 0.100 | 3.885 | Yes |
Point Estimate | Product of Coefficients | Bias-Corrected Percentile 95% CI | Percentile 95% CI | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S.E. | Z | Lower | Upper | Two-Tailed Significance | Lower | Upper | Two-Tailed Significance | ||
Total effect | |||||||||
SR→LP | 0.593 | 0.129 | 4.597 | 0.468 | 0.981 | 0.000 *** | 0.46 | 0.967 | 0.000 |
TP→LP | 0.116 | 0.058 | 2 | −0.027 | 0.199 | 0.132 | −0.022 | 0.203 | 0.107 |
SP→LP | 0.161 | 0.094 | 1.713 | −0.027 | 0.347 | 0.088 | −0.026 | 0.348 | 0.086 |
Indirect effect | |||||||||
SR→LE→LP | 0.104 | 0.056 | 1.857 | 0.038 | 0.253 | 0.003 ** | 0.039 | 0.256 | 0.002 |
TP→LE→LP | 0.147 | 0.043 | 3.419 | 0.045 | 0.217 | 0.001 ** | 0.042 | 0.209 | 0.002 |
SP→LE→LP | 0.112 | 0.056 | 2 | 0.03 | 0.245 | 0.002 ** | 0.03 | 0.248 | 0.002 |
Direct effect | |||||||||
SR→LP | 0.489 | 0.137 | 3.569 | 0.323 | 0.866 | 0.000 *** | 0.302 | 0.847 | 0.000 |
TP→LP | −0.031 | 0.066 | −0.47 | −0.17 | 0.094 | 0.655 | −0.161 | 0.101 | 0.739 |
SP→LP | 0.049 | 0.108 | 0.454 | −0.171 | 0.252 | 0.637 | −0.177 | 0.245 | 0.684 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhong, Q.; Wang, Y.; Lv, W.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Y. Self-Regulation, Teaching Presence, and Social Presence: Predictors of Students’ Learning Engagement and Persistence in Blended Synchronous Learning. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5619. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095619
Zhong Q, Wang Y, Lv W, Xu J, Zhang Y. Self-Regulation, Teaching Presence, and Social Presence: Predictors of Students’ Learning Engagement and Persistence in Blended Synchronous Learning. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5619. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095619
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhong, Qiuju, Ying Wang, Wu Lv, Jie Xu, and Yichun Zhang. 2022. "Self-Regulation, Teaching Presence, and Social Presence: Predictors of Students’ Learning Engagement and Persistence in Blended Synchronous Learning" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5619. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095619
APA StyleZhong, Q., Wang, Y., Lv, W., Xu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Self-Regulation, Teaching Presence, and Social Presence: Predictors of Students’ Learning Engagement and Persistence in Blended Synchronous Learning. Sustainability, 14(9), 5619. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095619