Cross-Regional Students’ Engagement and Teacher Relationships Across Online and In-School Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well structured, the topic is good however, i believe that there are few areas to be considered. There is a need to considered Sustainablity Educational Skills (ESD) for instance online learning and use of ICT is one of the key skills of ESD. The paper supports ESD however it is yet not stated clearly. Therefore; i suggest including one statement stated that how this paper and schools need to include ESD.  The below are some references that you may consider in this regard, 

AlDhaen, E. (2023). Education skills for digital age toward sustainable development–analysis and future directions. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 37(3), 11-14. 

Aldhaen, E. (2024). The influence of digital competence of academicians on students’ engagement at university level: moderating effect of the pandemic outbreak. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 34(1), 51-71.

Furthermore, the conclusion need to be modified, you have merged the discussion with conclusion but you need to provide more directional information with regard to the conclusion that could guide setting educational strategies and policy making at different levels. 

All the best 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality is good 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

1. The paper is well structured, the topic is good however, i believe that there are few areas to be considered. There is a need to considered Sustainablity Educational Skills (ESD) for instance online learning and use of ICT is one of the key skills of ESD. The paper supports ESD however it is yet not stated clearly. Therefore; i suggest including one statement stated that how this paper and schools need to include ESD.  The below are some references that you may consider in this regard, 

AlDhaen, E. (2023). Education skills for digital age toward sustainable development–analysis and future directions. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 37(3), 11-14. 

Aldhaen, E. (2024). The influence of digital competence of academicians on students’ engagement at university level: moderating effect of the pandemic outbreak. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 34(1), 51-71.

Author Answer 1: Thank you for your suggestion. The reference to Aldhaen, E. (2024) has been cited in the article.

2. Furthermore, the conclusion need to be modified, you have merged the discussion with conclusion but you need to provide more directional information with regard to the conclusion that could guide setting educational strategies and policy making at different levels.

Author Answer 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the discussion and conclusion sections separately. The conclusion is presented as the sixth section:
“6. Conclusion

Overall, the findings reveal that differences in students' engagement across learning methods are reflected in specific aspects: while online learning was associated with more efficient teacher support, improved access to vocabulary resources, and enhanced emotional attachment to school. In-person learning fostered higher behavioral engagement, greater motivation, and stronger preferences for classroom structure and content.

Besides, though limited home learning environments during online learning negatively impacted student motivation and engagement.

The findings of this study highlight the importance of enhancing educators' digital competencies and strengthening digital infrastructure to support student engagement (Aldhaen, 2024). Effective teacher guidance and timely feedback play a critical role in fostering engagement, particularly among disadvantaged students. Moreover, digital technologies can enhance students’ ability to access and process knowledge efficiently. Therefore, it is essential for schools and educators to develop strategies for effectively integrating digital tools into the learning process and guiding students in their use.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The references should be reorganized according to the APA rules. The quatationmarks should be deleted in references such as in lines 456-457, 

Archambault, I., M. Janosz, J. Morizo, & L. Pagani. (2009). “Adolescent Behavioural, Affective, and Cognitive Engagement in School: 451
Relationship to Dropout.” Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x.

Name of the initial words should be written in lower case such as in lines 459-460:

Baucum, M. N. (2021). At Home or In Person? A Comparison of Informal Learning Environments for Secondary Students. Journal of 459
Educators Online, 18(1), 1–18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1347018.pdf.

In lines 466-467:

Cederberg, M., & N. Hartsmar. (2013). “Some Aspects of Early School Leaving in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland.” European 466
Journal of Education, 48(3), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12036.

Author Response

1. The references should be reorganized according to the APA rules. The quatationmarks should be deleted in references such as in lines 456-457,

Archambault, I., M. Janosz, J. Morizo, & L. Pagani. (2009). “Adolescent Behavioural, Affective, and Cognitive Engagement in School: 451 Relationship to Dropout.” Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x.

Author Answer 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the quatationmarks.

2. Name of the initial words should be written in lower case such as in lines 459-460:

Baucum, M. N. (2021). At Home or In Person? A Comparison of Informal Learning Environments for Secondary Students. Journal of 459 Educators Online, 18(1), 1–18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1347018.pdf.

In lines 466-467:

Cederberg, M., & N. Hartsmar. (2013). “Some Aspects of Early School Leaving in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland.” European 466 Journal of Education, 48(3), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12036.

Author Answer 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the initial words.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Although the manuscript includes many relevant and recent citations, the theoretical background is not developed or structured well enough. Section 2 is mostly descriptive and sometimes repetitive. The paper lacks a coherent conceptual framework that connects teacher-student relationships, school engagement, and learning modalities. To strengthen this section, it is recommended

-Synthesising key literature more critically, highlighting debates, contradictions, and gaps

-Explicitly articulating the theoretical rationale that justifies the research questions and methods

-Clarifying how this study addresses a gap in the existing literature and what new contribution it makes.

2. The manuscript presents a clear overall structure (introduction, theoretical background, methodology, results, and discussion). However, the narrative coherence across sections could be improved. In particular:

-Some subsections of the literature review (eg. 2.1 -  2.4) overlap conceptually and could be synthesized more effectively

-The transition from the theoretical background to the empirical analysis is somewhat abrupt; it would help to explicitly connect the literature reviewed to the hypotheses or research questions

-The discussion section should more clearly link the findings back to the theoretical concepts introduced earlier.

3. While the study reports interesting findings, such as stronger feelings during online learning, the discussion could be more based on theory. Some of the things that were found, like students feeling more proud of their school while learning remotely, need a better explanation based on theory and comparison with what has been found before.

4. Terms such as “distance online learning,” “remote learning,” and “online learning” are used inconsistently. Choose one main term and use it consistently throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion.

5. The tables are generally useful, but some could be made simpler to avoid redundancy. Also, make sure that each result is linked to the research question.

Author Response

1. Although the manuscript includes many relevant and recent citations, the theoretical background is not developed or structured well enough. Section 2 is mostly descriptive and sometimes repetitive. The paper lacks a coherent conceptual framework that connects teacher-student relationships, school engagement, and learning modalities. To strengthen this section, it is recommended

-Synthesising key literature more critically, highlighting debates, contradictions, and gaps

-Explicitly articulating the theoretical rationale that justifies the research questions and methods

-Clarifying how this study addresses a gap in the existing literature and what new contribution it makes.

Author Answer 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We integrated key literature to support our arguments and highlighted the significance and contribution of this study in Section 2.

 “2.1. Teacher-Student Relationship during online learning and in-school learning

The relationship between teachers and students is different and depends on students’ age and vulnerability, students rely more on teachers when they are younger or more vulnerable (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). Teacher-student relationships have been defined in three dimensions closeness, conflict, and dependency (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). An approach is to apply attachment theory to secondary school students’ interaction with teachers (Chong et al., 2010). Attachment theory explains how teachers' and students’ relationships may work; teachers play roles of secure base and safehaven. When students feel stress a positive teacher-student relationship will give them support and make them feel comfortable, also teachers can provide a safe classroom environment for students (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). Students’ perceptions of interactions with teachers can be used as a sign of teacher-student relationships (Fatou & Kubiszewski, 2018).

Debates over teacher–student relationships in online and in-school learning remain unresolved (Vagos & Carvalhais, 2022; Akram & Li, 2024). Online leaning between students and teachers are often viewed as less authentic and spontaneous compared to those in school settings (Vagos & Carvalhais, 2022). However, Liz Chamberlain et al. (2020) found online learning can help teachers and students create a new communicative space and continuously developed it to enhance students’ learning quality. Comparing teacher–student relationships in online and in-school learning can help us better understand students' perceptions of different learning environments and inform improvements in future teaching methods.

Therefore, this study proposes Hypothesis 1: There are differences in teacher–student relationships between online learning and in-school learning.

2.2. School Engagement during online learning and in-school learning

School engagement has been a topic for many years in analyzing the results of many educational system, such as student dropout issues and academic development, as an element in understanding student learning and achievement (Fredricks et al., 2005; Archambault et al., 2009; Fatou & Kubiszewski, 2018). Students’ school engagement reflects their interaction with school staff, activities, environment, goals, and values, showing their level of involvement or connection with school (Roorda et al., 2019).

School engagement is a multidimensional concept, which has been divided into three dimensions in literatures: cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement (Fredricks et al., 2005; Moreira et al., 2018; Del Toro & Wang, 2021). Students’ self-concepts about conquer complex or difficult questions, and perceptions of schooling tasks are summarized as cognitive engagement (Fredricks et al., 2005); Students' subjective feelings, intrinsic motivation, and optimistic attitudes in the school and learning process are summarized as affective engagement (Del Toro & Wang, 2021); students' classroom behavior, extracurricular participation, and schoolwork efforts in the school activities are summarized as behavioral engagement (Wang et al., 2019; Moreira et al., 2018). Especially, affective engagement is an indicator of students’ experiences of transition from in-school to online schooling (Chzhen et al., 2022). It also reflects their relationships with teachers and experiences in learning process (Symonds & Hargreaves, 2016).

Numerous studies have discussed the effects of online learning on students’ engagement (Walters et al., 2022; Ariyo et al., 2022; Khlaif et al., 2021). Most researchers have found that online learning causes learning resources inequality (Khlaif et al., 2021) and students need mental support (Salayo et al., 2020; Teuber et al., 2021), especially for the disadvantage students (Ariyo et al., 2022), such as secondary vocational students. Research has shown that students’ engagement with online learning is often less positive, partly because teachers feel less competent in delivering online instruction (Salayo et al., 2020) and due to reduced effectiveness in teacher supervision (Walters et al., 2022). However, Miao et al. (2022) found that online learning can also be an effective way to promote student engagement.

Therefore, this study proposes Hypothesis 2: There are differences in students' school engagement during online learning and in-school learning.

2.3. Teacher–Student Relationships and School Engagement Across Learning Methods

The quality of teacher–student relationships play a critical role in students’ overall school functioning and is closely linked to their school engagement (Roorda et al., 2019; Duong et al., 2019). When teachers act as a secure base and a safehaven, students are more likely to engage in school-related activities, including learning tasks and academic performance (Roorda et al., 2019; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). Research has shown a strong association between teacher–student relationships and secondary school students’ levels of engagement (Roorda et al., 2017; Roorda et al., 2019).

In the context of online learning, students describe their engagement as shaped by both technological factors and their sense of connectedness with teachers (Chzhen et al., 2022). In vocational education settings, perceived teacher support has been found to influence student engagement both directly and indirectly, mediated by the satisfaction of basic psychological needs and learning motivation (Xu et al., 2023). Students’ subjective perceptions of their relationships with teachers significantly shape how teacher support affects engagement, for instance, a positive emotional connection, such as liking their teachers, can enhance active participation in online learning (Vagos & Carvalhais, 2022). Conversely, when teachers fail to establish positive relationships or employ effective relational practices, student engagement may decline across both online and in-person learning contexts (Duong et al., 2019).

To investigate how different learning modalities affect these dynamics, this study proposes Hypothesis 3: There are differences in the relationship between teacher–student relationships and student engagement during online learning and in-school learning.

Moreover, creating a supportive physical and virtual learning environment is essential for effective education (Reynolds & Sokolow, 2022). The availability of adequate space and learning resources significantly influences academic outcomes among secondary school students (Baucum, 2022), and overall learning effectiveness is closely tied to the quality of the study environment (Means et al., 2009). Therefore, the study environment is also considered an important factor influencing both teacher–student relationships and student engagement.

Therefore, this study proposes Hypothesis 4: There are differences in the learning environments during online learning and in-school learning.

2.4. The Present Study

This study surveyed students in China to examine whether teacher–student rela-tionships and student engagement differ between online and in-school learning, with a particular focus on disadvantaged students. Specifically on cross-regional secondary vocational education students, a population largely overlooked in prior studies on en-gagement and teacher–student dynamics.

It contributes to the existing literature by addressing the learning needs of under-served students through the lens of learning methods, aiming to enhance teacher–student relationships and foster positive school engagement.

By comparing learning methods, this research offers valuable insights into how educational practices can be adapted to better support student connection and active engagement, both online and in school.”

2. The manuscript presents a clear overall structure (introduction, theoretical background, methodology, results, and discussion). However, the narrative coherence across sections could be improved. In particular:

-Some subsections of the literature review (eg. 2.1 -  2.4) overlap conceptually and could be synthesized more effectively

-The transition from the theoretical background to the empirical analysis is somewhat abrupt; it would help to explicitly connect the literature reviewed to the hypotheses or research questions

-The discussion section should more clearly link the findings back to the theoretical concepts introduced earlier.

Author Answer 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the original Section 2.4 and instead proposed four hypotheses within the literature review clearly. We also revised the discussion section to correspond with each hypothesis.

“Hypothesis 1: There are differences in teacher–student relationships between online learning and in-school learning.

Hypothesis 2: There are differences in students' school engagement during online learning and in-school learning.

Hypothesis 3: There are differences in the relationship between teacher–student relationships and student engagement during online learning and in-school learning.

Hypothesis 4: There are differences in the learning environments during online learning and in-school learning.”

3. While the study reports interesting findings, such as stronger feelings during online learning, the discussion could be more based on theory. Some of the things that were found, like students feeling more proud of their school while learning remotely, need a better explanation based on theory and comparison with what has been found before.

Author Answer 3: Thank you for your suggestion. Based on our student sample, we added the following explanation under Section 5.2: “This may be because our target group consists of cross-regional students from underprivileged areas, and when they are at home, they often receive high praise from their families and neighbors.”

4. Terms such as “distance online learning,” “remote learning,” and “online learning” are used inconsistently. Choose one main term and use it consistently throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion.

Author Answer 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised all instances to use “online learning” consistently.

5. The tables are generally useful, but some could be made simpler to avoid redundancy. Also, make sure that each result is linked to the research question.

Author Answer 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have linked the relevant hypotheses in the table accordingly. By written “Hypothesis X be tested”.