Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 46 no. 5 (2025)

Engagement in Online Learning of the Graduate Students in a Private School in Iligan City

Aseza Romoros | Erlinda Basmayor

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study explored the levels of engagement in online learning and its relationship with academic performance among graduate students in a private institution in Iligan City. Using a descriptive-correlational research design, the study examined cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and social dimensions of engagement. Data were gathered from graduating Master of Education students majoring in Educational Management through validated survey questionnaires and academic performance records. The results revealed that social engagement had a significant correlation with academic performance, while other dimensions showed varying levels of influence. Among the platforms used, Google Meet was the most preferred, while Google Classroom had the lowest usage. Findings also showed that students exhibited high behavioral engagement through reviewing recorded lectures, but low engagement forum participation and note-taking. Emotional engagement reflected a sense of isolation, though students reported enjoying interactions with peers and instructors. Based on the findings, an action plan was developed focusing on targeted interventions to strengthen each engagement dimension and support academic achievement. The study concluded that enhancing social and emotional engagement is key to improving graduate students' success in online learning environments.



References:

  1. Alqahtani, A, Y., & Rajkhan, A. A. (2020) E-learning critical success factors during the COVID – 19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Education Sciences, 10(9), 216.
  2. Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40 (1), 133-148.
  3. Bohloko, M., Makatjane, T. J George, M. J., & Mokuku, T. (2019). Assessing the impact of students’ attitudes and anxiety towards online learning during COVID-19 lockdown. South African Journal of education, 39(supplement 1), S-1-S-8.
  4. Bond, M. and Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1), p.11.
  5. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marin, V. I., & Handel, M. (2023). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1-24.
  6. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2023). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203.
  7. Brown, R. (2019). 13 Differences Between Online and Face to Face Courses. Miami Regional. E-Campus News. Miami, FL
  8. Cruz, A. M., & De Guzman, J. V. (2023). Online collaborative learning and student outcomes in Philippine science classes. Philippine Educational Research Journal, 12(2), 101–115.
  9. Debackère, F., Mäkelä, T., Salminen, J., & Lehtinen, T. (2023). How “basic” is basic digital literacy for older adults? Insights from digital skills instructors. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1231701
  10. Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning,
  11. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2020). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109
  12. Garcia, M. L., & Cabanilla, M. L. (2021). Social engagement and academic performance among online graduate students in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 99(2), 45–56.
  13. Hernandez, M. R., Tan, J. L., & Santos, R. P. (2024). Personalization and critical thinking in graduate online management education. Journal of Educational Technology & Management, 6(1), 88–102.
  14. Ito, K., & Nakamura, Y. (2024). Immersive flipped classroom: VR and 360° video in higher education. Japan Journal of FL & EdTech, 18(3), 155–169.
  15. Kara, M., Erdoğdu, F., Kokoç, M., & Çağıltay, K. (2019). Challenges faced by adult learners in online distance education: A literature review. Open Praxis, 11(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.1.929
  16. Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santigue, L (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29.
  17. Lee, C. H., Johnson, M. H., & Patel, N. (2025). Adaptive virtual classrooms using eye-tracking: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Learning Analytics, 7(1), 45–60.
  18. Lee, J., Kim, S., & Park, Y. (2023). Behavioral engagement indicators and performance in online higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1123.
  19. Maalste, H. (2024, March 26). Home Alone with bad internet: Why online university students in regional Australia are turning to study hubs. The Guardian.
  20. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2020). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.\
  21. Montano, R. D. (2021). Emotional engagement and flourishing in Filipino online learners. Asian Education Psychology, 9(1), 15–29.
  22. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
  23. Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2020). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing workforce. Personnel Psychology, 53 (2), 375-403.
  24. O’shea, S., Stone, C., & Delahunty, J. (2015). I feel like I am at university even though I am online: Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions in an online learning environment. Distance education, 36(1), 41-58.
  25. Park, J.H., & Choi, H.J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.
  26. Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225.
  27. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
  28. Reyes, J. P., & Santos, K. M. (2022). Instructor presence and student engagement in Philippine online graduate education. Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 4(1), 66–78.
  29. Reyes, J. P., Santos, K. M., & Lopez, M. A. (2024). Gamification in MOOCs at the University of the Philippines Open University. Philippine Journal of Digital Learning, 3(2), 59–72
  30. Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., & Swan, K. (2017). Predicting student Achievement and satisfaction in online courses using engagement metrics. Distance Education, 38(2), 145–158.
  31. Roddy, C., Amiet, D. L., Chung, J., Holt, C., Leaver, T., & Mundy, M. E. (2017). Applying best practice online learning, teaching, and support to intensive online environments: An integrative review. Frontiers in Education, 2, 59.
  32. Rovai, A.P., & Baker, J. D. (2005). Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,6(1), 31-44.
  33. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008a). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology, 49, 186 –193.
  34. Smith, A., & García, L. (2023). Cognitive engagement strategies and student performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Online Education, 5(4), 210–232.
  35. Singh, D., & Rajendran, R. (2024). Cognitive engagement as a predictor of learning gain in Python programming. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00330-9
  36. Truss, L. (2024). Learner engagement with instructor-generated video. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13450
  37. UCL researchers. (2021). Student and instructor perceptions of engagement after the rapid online transition of teaching due to COVID-19
  38. Watts, L. (2019). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23–32.
  39. Winter, E. (2021). Teachers’ use of technology and the impact of Covid-19. Volume 40, 2021 - Issue 2: COVID-19 and Education: Positioning the Pandemic; Facing the Future.
  40. Wut, T. M., P. M., & Low, M.P (2023) Engaging university students in online learning: A regional comparative study from the perspective of social presence theory. Journal of Computing in Education.
  41. Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self- regulated online learning environment. Educational Technology &Society, 12(3), 12-22.
  42. Yu, Z. (2021). The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 14.
  43. Zhao, X., Narasuman, S., & Ismail, I. S. (2023). Influences of gender, major, and age differences on students’ engagement in blended learning environments. In Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Conference on Education, Knowledge and information Management (ICEKIM 2023) (pp. 1186-1194)

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic