The structure of student engagement in online learning: A bi‐factor exploratory structural equation modelling approach

Abstract

Enhancing student engagement plays a critical role in reducing student drop‐out rate in online learning as students usually feel isolated and disconnected in this learning environment. This requires a clear conceptualization of the student engagement construct and its underlying structure. However, the conceptual understanding of the student engagement construct has long been impeded by the inconsistency in its multidimensional structure and the conceptual ambiguity among its components. This study aims to examine the underlying structure of student engagement in online learning based on the bi‐factor exploratory structure equation modelling framework (B‐ESEM). Four competing models representing the underlying structure of student engagement in online learning were compared based on their degree of fit to survey data from 363 students in an online undergraduate program. Students' responses to the online learning engagement questionnaire were best represented by a B‐ESEM model that provided simultaneous assessment of a global engagement factor and specific factors of behavioural, cognitive, affective and social engagement while controlling for item cross‐loadings. However, behavioural engagement only retained limited specificity once the global engagement factor was taken into account. The study findings offer a solution to reconcile the inconsistency in the multidimensional structure of student engagement and reduce the conceptual ambiguity among its components, thus contribute to better measuring student engagement in online learning.

Behavioral, cognitive, emotional and social engagement in mathematics learning during COVID-19 pandemic

“…Such activities with technological tools may lead to issues with ethical and moral values associated with the use of digital technology. It was found that technology can transform interest and feelings, increase happiness and reduce boredom, sadness, and anxiety indicating that technology adoption in virtual learning may have a positive impact on the emotional engagement [ 44 ].…”

“…There are various competing and contrasting ideas about students’ engagement in an online environment [ 44 ]. For example, Bowden et al [ 45 ] proposed four pillars of student engagement: affective, social, cognitive, and behavioral ( Fig 1 ).…”

“…Redmond et al [ 46 ] emphasized collaborative engagement for peer or group learning in a sense similar to social engagement [ 45 ]. We developed a study tool based on the ideas of [ 45 ] and a bi-factor exploratory structural equation-model by Hoi and Hang [ 44 ].…”

“…Both student interest and enjoyment may produce positive emotions by increasing engagement [ 49 ], which are tightly related to their learning, achievement, and satisfaction [ 50 ]. Social engagement may create positive bonds between peers and instructors [ 50 ], reducing the risk of isolation, disconnection, and dropouts [ 44 ]. Cooperation, listening to others, punctuality in class, and maintaining balanced relations with instructor and peers are the components of social engagement in the context of the classroom [ 50 ].…”

Bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling: A meta-analytic review of model fit

“…The second domain of motivation and emotion includes the constructs academic motivation (Litalien et al, 2017 ; Guay and Bureau, 2018 ; Gordeeva et al, 2020 ; Howard et al, 2020 ; Kartal, 2020 ; Guay et al, 2021 ; Dierendonck et al, 2022 ), sport motivation (Appleton et al, 2016 ; Milton et al, 2018 ; Stenling et al, 2018 ; Cece et al, 2019 ; Méndez-Giménez et al, 2020 ; Rodrigues et al, 2020 ), work motivation (Burk and Wiese, 2018 ; Calkins, 2018 ; Howard et al, 2018 , 2020 , 2021 ; Gegenfurtner and Quesada-Pallarès, 2022 ), job satisfaction (Sutherland, 2020 ), affective commitment (Perreira et al, 2018 ), work engagement (Gillet et al, 2019 ; Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al, 2021a , 2022 ), teacher engagement (Perera et al, 2018b ), student engagement (Hoi and Hang, 2021 ; Dierendonck et al, 2022 ; Tomás et al, 2022 ), basic psychological needs (Stenling et al, 2015 ; Sánchez-Oliva et al, 2017 ; Tóth-Király et al, 2018 , 2019 ; Bhavsar et al, 2019 , 2020 ; Garn et al, 2019 ; Burgueño et al, 2020a , b ; Cromhout, 2020 ; Gillet et al, 2020 ; Gucciardi et al, 2020 ; Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al, 2021b ; Rodrigues et al, 2021 ), subjective task value (Fadda et al, 2020b ; Part et al, 2020 ), flow (Kyriazos et al, 2018b ; Gu et al, 2020 ), interest (Garn, 2017 ), locus of causality (Howard et al, 2020 ), attitudes (Deemer et al, 2014 ), purpose (Summers and Falco, 2020 ), self-efficacy (Barbaranelli et al, 2018 ; Dominguez-Lara et al,…”