EFL VIETNAMESE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Tran Le Kim Huong

Abstract


English has gradually been very important in education in Vietnam and it is taught from the early ages. However, many students cannot communicate English appropriately after graduation. There are many reasons for this, but student engagement is considered as one of the major reasons which cause the low level of English proficiency of Vietnamese students. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate EFL Vietnamese students’ perceptions of their engagement with English learning in the face-to-face learning environment. A quantitative method was employed. The sample consisted of 428 students who have studied English. The results revealed that students were highly engaged with their learning. Students indicated that they were cognitively engaged with learning the best and were agentically engaged the least. In addition, the findings also showed that English major students were more engaged with their learning than their non-English major counterparts. The students in the group of freshman and sophomore year combined were found to be more engaged than those in junior and senior years. Some implications from the findings were also suggested.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


student engagement, EFL students, face-to-face learning environment, traditional learning environment

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher education research & development, 24(1), 5-20.

Ahmad, S. R. (2016). Importance of English communication skills. International Journal of Applied Research, 2(3), 478-480.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of school psychology, 44(5), 427-445.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of college student personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 43(1), 38-43.

Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational basis of performance and well‐being in two work settings 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068.

Bailey, T. H., & Phillips, L. J. (2016). The influence of motivation and adaptation on students’ subjective well-being, meaning in life, and academic performance. Higher education research & development, 35(2), 201-216.

Banna, J., Lin, M.-F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of online learning and teaching/MERLOT, 11(2), 249.

Blumenfeld, P., Modell, J., Bartko, W. T., Secada, W. G., Fredricks, J. A., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement of inner-city students during middle childhood. Developmental pathways through middle childhood: Rethinking contexts and diversity as resources, 145-170.

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 17(1), 1-30.

Brown, J. D. (2002). The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 6(1).

Carini, R., M, Kuh George, D., & Klein Stephen, P. (2004). Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,

Carter, M., McGee, R., Taylor, B., & Williams, S. (2007). Health outcomes in adolescence: Associations with family, friends and school engagement. Journal of adolescence, 30(1), 51-62.

Chang, J. (2006). Globalization and English in Chinese higher education. World Englishes, 25(3‐4), 513-525.

Chiu, T. K. (2022). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S14-S30.

Christenson, S., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement (Vol. 840). Springer.

Cooper, K. S. (2014). Eliciting engagement in the high school classroom: A mixed-methods examination of teaching practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 363-402.

Dang, T. K. A., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Le, T. T. T. (2013). The impacts of globalisation on EFL teacher education through English as a medium of instruction: An example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 52-72.

Dieu, T. T. T. (2015). Trying KWL strategy on teaching reading comprehension to passive students in Vietnam. International Journal of language and linguistics, 3(6), 481-492.

Devaux, M., & Sassi, F. (2016). Social disparities in hazardous alcohol use: self-report bias may lead to incorrect estimates. The European Journal of Public Health, 26(1), 129-134.

Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), n4.

Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer.

Fredricks, J. (2013). Behavioral engagement in learning. International guide to student achievement, 42-44.

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.

Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). Springer.

Gibbs, R., & Poskitt, J. (2010). Student Engagement in the Middle Years of Schooling (Years 7-10): A. Report to the Ministry of Education.

Goldspink, C., Winter, P., & Foster, M. (2008). Student engagement and quality pedagogy. European Conference on Educational Research in Goteborg,

Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Neal, A. (2008). Is behavioral engagement a distinct and useful construct? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 48-51.

Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. (7th) (Pearson)

Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Mercer, S. (2020). Student engagement in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters.

Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., Vitta, J. P., & Wu, J. (2021). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research, 13621688211001289.

Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in higher education, 38(5), 758-773.

Kalyani, D., & Rajasekaran, K. (2018). Innovative teaching and learning. Journal of applied and advanced research, 3(1), 23-25.

Khan, A. B., & Mansoor, H. S. (2020). Integrated Collaborative Learning Approach (ICLA): Conceptual framework of pedagogical approach for the integration of language skills. Competitive Social Science Research Journal, 1(1), 14-28.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties.

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New directions for institutional research, 141, 5-20.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The journal of higher education, 79(5), 540-563.

Lester, D. (2013). A review of the student engagement literature. FOCUS on Colleges, Universities & Schools, 7(1).

Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83-98.

Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli-Sallee, E., & Dailey-Hebert, A. (2011). Assessing course student engagement. Promoting student engagement, 1, 277-281.

Mameli, C., & Passini, S. (2019). Development and validation of an enlarged version of the student agentic engagement scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(4), 450-463.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.

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.

Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D., & Claux, M. (2018). Students' agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(4), 579-596.

Naji Meidani, E., & Pishghadam, R. (2013). Analysis of English language textbooks in the light of English as an International Language (EIL): A comparative study. International journal of research studies in language learning, 2(2), 83-96.

Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. ERIC.

Ortiz-Rodríguez, M., Telg, R. W., Irani, T., Roberts, T. G., & Rhoades, E. (2005). College Students' perceptions of Quality in Distance Education: The Importance of Communication. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 97.

Ngo, H., Spooner-Lane, R., & Mergler, A. (2017). A comparison of motivation to learn English between English major and non-English major students in a Vietnamese university. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 188-202.

Nguyen, T. T. T., Bui, T. N. T., & Nguyen, D. A. (2020). Tertiary Language Planning and Career Development: Challenges to Vietnamese Students. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(4).

Parsons, S. A., Nuland, L. R., & Parsons, A. W. (2014). The ABCs of student engagement. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 23-27.

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer.

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of educational psychology, 105(3), 579.

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267.

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 104(3), 700.

Russo, T. C., & Campbell, S. (2004). Perceptions of mediated presence in an asynchronous online course: Interplay of communication behaviors and medium. Distance Education, 25(2), 215-232.

Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 14(1), 1-28.

Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). Springer.

Sundkvist, P., & Nguyen, X. N. C. M. (2020). English in Vietnam. The handbook of Asian Englishes, 683-703.

Thao-Do, T. P., Bac-Ly, D. T., & Yuenyong, C. (2016). Learning environment in Vietnamese physics teacher education programme through the lens of constructivism: a case study of a state university in Mekong delta region, Vietnam. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 55-79.

Nguyen Thi, N., Calderon Jr, R., Truong Quang, T., Nguyen Trung, K., Chi Nguyen Thai, Q. C. N. T., Hua Thanh, T., Nguyen Hoang Minh, T. N. H. M., Vu Viet, B., & Nguyen Thanh, H. (2020). Happiness, stress, depressive symptoms, and health behaviors among Vietnamese university students. Journal of Public Health and Development, 18(2), 58–73. Retrieved from https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/AIHD-MU/article/view/166136

Tran, T. T. (2013). Limitation on the development of skills in higher education in Vietnam. Higher Education, 65(5), 631-644.

Tran, L. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Internationalisation of higher education in Vietnam through English Medium Instruction (EMI): Practices, tensions and implications for local language policies. In Multilingual education yearbook 2018 (pp. 91-106). Springer.

Trang, T. T. T., & Baldauf Jr, R. B. (2007). Demotivation: Understanding resistance to English language learning-the case of Vietnamese students. The journal of Asia TEFL, 4(1), 79-105.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy, 11(1), 1-15.

Tuan, L. T. (2011). EFL Learners' Motivation Revisited. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 1(10).

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 10(3), JCMC1034.

Yazzie-Mintz, E., & McCormick, K. (2012). Finding the humanity in the data: Understanding, measuring, and strengthening student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 743-761). Springer.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v9i12.4604

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Tran Le Kim Huong

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).