A QUANTITATIVE STUDY COMPARING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT FOR NON-TRADITIONAL GRADUATE STUDENTS IN BLENDED

SYNCHRONOUS OR ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE LEARNING

by

Heather Shellabarger

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Liberty University

2023
 2

A QUANTITATIVE STUDY COMPARING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT FOR NON-TRADITIONAL GRADUATE STUDENTS IN BLENDED

SYNCHRONOUS OR ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE LEARNING

by Heather Shellabarger

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2023

APPROVED BY:

Laura J. Mansfield Ed.D., Committee Chair

Michelle J. Barthlow Ed.D., Committee Member

 3

ABSTRACT

Enrollment in online learning has continued to grow; different types of learning environments

are being utilized because of the flexibility they provide. Higher education instructors must

understand how to effectively develop asynchronous and blended synchronous environments to

maximize student engagement and achievement. The purpose of this quantitative causal-

comparative study was to investigate the possible cause-and-effect relationship between the

learning environment and student engagement and achievement at a free-standing seminary. A

convenience sample of 144 non-traditional seminary students between the ages of 35-and 70

years attending classes in two different learning modalities, blended synchronous and

asynchronous online were utilized in this study. Participants completed Distance Education

Learning Environment Survey (DELES) and the Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire

(OSLQ) to measure student engagement and student achievement. A multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) was conducted to investigate possible cause-and-effect relationship

between the learning environment, student engagement, and student achievement. The results of

the MANOVA were statistically significant for student achievement based on learning

environment. There were no statistically significant differences between the type of learning

environment and student engagement. Further research is recommended to determine if these

results can be generalized to different types of institutions, both public and private, for traditional

students.

Keywords: blended synchronous, asynchronous, higher education, student engagement,

student achievement, online learning

 4

Copyright Page

© 2023, Heather Marie Shellabarger

 5

Dedication

First and foremost, I dedicate the completion of this manuscript to my Lord and Savior,

Jesus Christ, without His provision, guidance, and resources completing this daunting task would

not have been possible. It is my prayer that the completion of this manuscript will lead to new

opportunities. Secondly, I dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful husband. I thank him for

being supportive and understanding during the countless hours I was in the office working on the

completion of the manuscript. Over the past few years, my husband never doubted that I would

finish.
 6

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the following individuals that assisted me in this endeavor.

First, thank you to Liberty University for the opportunity to complete my Ph.D. while becoming

a “Champion for Christ.” Thank you to Dr. Laura Mansfield who served as my dissertation chair.

Dr. Mansfield, thank you for your support, encouragement, and prayers during this process. In

addition, I would like to acknowledge the work of Dr. Barthlow for serving as the methodologist

of my committee. Dr. Barthlow, thank you for filling in as my chair at the beginning of the

process and helping me secure a permanent chair for the committee. I deeply appreciate the

dedication, guidance, and advice of my committee and I am forever grateful for the both of you.

To my friends and family, thank you for your encouragement and support over the years. I could

not have done this without you. I would also like to thank United Theological Seminary for

approving and supporting my research.

 7

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................3

Copyright Page.................................................................................................................................4

Dedication ........................................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................6

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................11

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................12

List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................14

Overview ............................................................................................................................14

Background ........................................................................................................................14

Historical Overview ...............................................................................................15

Society-at-Large .....................................................................................................17

Theoretical Overview.............................................................................................18

Transactional Distance ...........................................................................................18

Theory of Involvement ..........................................................................................18

Problem Statement .............................................................................................................19

Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................21

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................21

Research Question .............................................................................................................22

Definitions..........................................................................................................................22

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................24

Overview ............................................................................................................................24
 8

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................24

Transactional Distance ...........................................................................................24

Theory of Involvement ..........................................................................................28

Conclusion .............................................................................................................32

Related Literature...............................................................................................................32

Distance Education History ...................................................................................32

Distance Education Currently ................................................................................33

Asynchronous Online Education ...........................................................................35

Online Community.................................................................................................36

Online Learning Benefits .......................................................................................37

Online Learning Barriers .......................................................................................38

Transactional Distance Online ...............................................................................39

Student Involvement Online ..................................................................................41

Synchronous Learning ...........................................................................................43

Synchronous Learning Benefits .............................................................................44

Synchronous Learning Barriers .............................................................................44

Blended Synchronous Learning .............................................................................46

Blended Synchronous Benefits ..............................................................................48

Blended Synchronous Barriers ..............................................................................50

Blended Community ..............................................................................................51

Transactional Distance in Blended Learning .........................................................52

Student Involvement in Blended Learning ............................................................52

Summary ............................................................................................................................54
 9

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..................................................................................................56

Overview ............................................................................................................................56

Design ................................................................................................................................56

Research Question(s) .........................................................................................................57

Hypothesis(es)....................................................................................................................57

Participants and Setting......................................................................................................58

Population ..............................................................................................................58

Participants .............................................................................................................58

Setting ....................................................................................................................60

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................62

Distance Education Learning Environment Survey ...............................................62

Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire .....................................................65

Procedures ..........................................................................................................................69

Data Collection ......................................................................................................70

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................70

Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................72

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .....................................................................................................73

Overview ............................................................................................................................73

Research Question(s) .........................................................................................................73

Null Hypothesis(es) ...........................................................................................................73

Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................................73

Results ................................................................................................................................74

Hypothesis..............................................................................................................74
 10

Data Screening .......................................................................................................74

Assumptions ...........................................................................................................74

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................85

Overview ............................................................................................................................85

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................85

Implications........................................................................................................................89

Limitations .........................................................................................................................90

Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................91

APPENDIX A: Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES) ...........................107

APPENDIX B: Permission to Use DELES .................................................................................108

APPENDIX C: Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ) ...................................109

APPENDIX D: Permission to use Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ) ......110

APPENDIX E: Institutional Review Board Approval (Liberty) .................................................111

APPENDIX F: IRB Approval from research site ........................................................................112

APPENDIX G: Recruitment Email .............................................................................................113

APPENDIX H: Participant Informed Consent Form ...................................................................114

 11

List of Tables

Table 1 ...........................................................................................................................................59

Table 2 ...........................................................................................................................................64

Table 3 ...........................................................................................................................................65

Table 4 ...........................................................................................................................................68

Table 5 ...........................................................................................................................................69

Table 6 ...........................................................................................................................................74

Table 7 ...........................................................................................................................................77

Table 8 ...........................................................................................................................................79

Table 9 ...........................................................................................................................................80

Table 10 .........................................................................................................................................81

Table 11 .........................................................................................................................................82

Table 12 .........................................................................................................................................83
 12

List of Figures

Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 77

Figure 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 78

Figure 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 79
 13

List of Abbreviations

Learning Management System (LMS)

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ)

Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES)

Transactional Distance Theory (TDT)

 14

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

This introductory chapter will provide background information, problem statement,

purpose statement, and the significance of the study. The background information provides an

overview of the related literature on asynchronous online learning, synchronous learning, and

blended synchronous learning, providing a historical, social, and theoretical context regarding

these types of learning modalities. The problem statement provides the gap in the literature and

the purpose statement provides a plan for solving the problem. The significance of the study

describes how this information impacts the educational community. Lastly, this chapter provides

the research question, hypothesis, null hypothesis, and definitions for the study.

Background

Online learning is continuing to grow. Enrollment in online courses increased despite the

overall downward trend of enrollment in higher education (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). Institutions

desiring to keep up with the growing demand for online learning need to stay current with the

technology advances that create different learning platforms (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Blau et al.,

2017). Research at the secondary level is limited for blended synchronous compared to

asynchronous online learning environments (McKenna et al., 2019), however, additional

research is needed on student engagement and student achievement within a blended

synchronous learning environment. Blended synchronous learning in the post Covid world is

here to stay. Universities and colleges are striving to plan for an uncertain future of higher

education that includes a mixture of face-to-face, asynchronous online, synchronous online, and

blended synchronous learning environments (Seaman et al., 2018).

 15

Historical Overview

Post-secondary education has evolved particularly around online education. In

comparison online education is in its infancy when compared to the hundreds of years of higher

education (Kentor, 2015). Online education evolved from print-based correspondence courses to

interactive courses that take place through the internet (Rehn et al., 2017). It is important to note

that there is not a single point of evolution for the start of online education (Kidd, 2010). The

roots of online education can be traced back to correspondence education that could not function

until a reliable postal service was developed (Mood, 1995; Phillips, 1998).

After correspondence education, came the use of radio (Mood, 1995). The radio did not

grant credit but provided a way for individuals to increase their knowledge (Mood, 1995).

Television was the next technology to be utilized for distance education. The presence of cable

and satellite television in the early 1980’s transformed distance education to more like today’s

online learning environments. There was an ongoing determination to use the newest

technologies to advance distance education (Mood, 1995).

Online education can be broken down into four different eras. 1975-1985 utilized

computer-assisted learning that was rooted in a behaviorist approach (Kidd, 2010). The second

era was 1983-1990 that was focused on computer-based training (Kidd, 2010). It was during this

era that constructivist influence emerged in the educational tools. Computer-based training was

accessed through CD or a web download (Kidd, 2010). The third era is 1990-1995 which

focused on web-based training (Kidd, 2010). It was during this era that active learning models

emerged. The last era is 1995-2005 with the focus on e-learning (Kidd, 2010). It is during this

era where users have more interaction between each other.

 16

While these four eras represent the current understanding of distance education, online

education really began to evolve in the 1960’s (Kidd, 2010). The 1960’s when the internet came

into existence and The World Wide Web in the 1990’s advanced distance education (Kidd,

2010). The cost of distance education was thought to be prohibited, but that has not been the case

overall (Kidd, 2010).

Originally, traditional face-to-face learning methods was the main mode of instructional

delivery for higher education institutions. Online learning had been introduced at a much slower

pace for higher education as the acceptance of technology and changes to education are slower in

post-secondary institutions (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Blau et al., 2017). Fully online courses have

been an integral part of the curriculum for the previous two decades in higher education

(Abuhassna et al., 2020; Blau et al., 2017).

One of the major benefits of online learning is the individualized instruction and the one-

on-one tutoring that was possible through computer technology (Kidd, 2010). Blended learning

emerged around twenty years ago but takes on several different forms based upon expectations

and individual institutions (McKenna et al., 2019). Blended synchronous learning is a spin-off of

the blended learning approach where students both in the classroom and virtually can participate

in one classroom of learning (McKenna et al., 2019).

Blended synchronous delivery combines face-to-face students with virtual students to

participate simultaneously through web conferencing technology (Angelone et al., 2020; Nortvig

et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Living in a post Covid world there is a necessity to identify

student engagement and student achievement in both blended synchronous and asynchronous

online learning. Given the newness and the importance of online learning to higher education,
 17

institutions need more insights into the different modalities of online education. Answers are

needed to ensure that students who participate in online learning are engaging and achieving.

Society-at-Large

Technology has rapidly changed the way people function in their daily lives worldwide.

The impact of technology has also changed how institutions utilize technology in learning

(Budevici-Puiu, 2020). Post-secondary schools are no exception to the impactful change

technology has had. Technology-based learning will provide students 24/7 access to educational

content making post-secondary education available to all persons (Budevici-Puiu, 2020).

The number of students participating in non-traditional learning methods has continued to

rise. Fully online courses continue to increase because of its exceptional functionality, flexibility,

and accessibility removing barriers to learning; including geographic barriers (Abuhassna et al.,

2020.). This type of learning method is referred to as asynchronous online learning. With the

development of technologies, synchronous online learning has gained traction (Francescucci &

Rohani, 2019). Synchronous sessions provide the space for real-time interactions between

students and the instructor. This type of learning modality removes the flexibility that

asynchronous online courses are developed to do.

With the further development of technology, the latest teaching delivery method

emerged, blended synchronous learning. Blended synchronous can take on three different

models. For this study, the model utilized is the blending of online and face-to-face students in

one environment (Conklin et al., 2019). This structure is taking advantage of the best of both

modalities by providing direct contact, real-time interaction, and conscious reflection on

discussion responses which are essential to adult learning principles (McKenna et al., 2019).
 18

Theoretical Overview

There are two different theories that drive this study: the theory of transactional distance

and the theory of involvement. Transactional distance theory attempts to explain the

psychological space of potential misunderstanding between the behaviors of the instructors and

the behaviors of the students leading to communication gaps between students and instructors

(Moore & Kearsley, 1996). The theory of involvement is defined as the amount of physical and

psychological energy a student devotes to the academic experience (Astin, 1984).

Transactional Distance

Transactional distance theory was derived out of the two-dimensional theory of

independent learning and teaching, comprised of distance teaching and learner autonomy

(Moore, 1972; Moore, 1973). This theory attempts to explain the psychological space of

potential misunderstanding between the behaviors of the instructors and the behaviors of the

students which may create a separation between students and the instructor leading to potential

communication gaps (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). The theoretical application allows for further

examination of the lack of research on blended synchronous learning in terms of student

engagement and student achievement as compared to asynchronous online. An analysis of the

relationship between learning modality and engagement is explored by applying the theory of

transactional distance (Moore, 1972; Moore, 1973).

Theory of Involvement

The theory of involvement was rooted in the study of college student persistence,

developed by Astin in 1973 (Milem & Berger, 1997) as both a guide for researchers and a tool

for college administration to create more effective learning environments for college students

(Astin, 1984). Astin (1984) defines involvement as the amount of physical and psychological
 19

energy a student devotes to the academic experience. The application of student involvement

theory will explore the relationship between learning modality and student achievement (Astin,

1984).

To summarize, students participating in different type of distance learning modalities is

continuing to rise. The different technologies that continue to be developed contribute to the new

ways that persons can gain an education. Distance learning has gone from print-based

correspondence courses to virtual classrooms using web conferencing platforms. Transactional

distance theory when utilized in the development of courses regardless of the learning modality

will minimize the potential psychological space between the instructor and the learner

minimizing misunderstanding. The theory of involvement will help to explain why some

students persist and are successful in higher education. Application of the theories will be

addressed within the literature review to gain greater understanding of the problem. These two

theories will aid in looking into the problem identified below.

Problem Statement

In terms of different learning modalities, blended synchronous courses are relatively new

and still have unknowns related to student engagement and student achievement. Student

perspectives on blended synchronous learning vary based upon different studies. In a study by

Samson (2020) students who physically attended class face-to-face had a significantly higher

level of participation and GPA than those attending remotely. Yang et al. (2019) revealed

students’ academic performance was improved by students attending remotely and not by

students in the traditional face-to-face classroom. Lakhal et al. (2020) stated that instructors and

students in the traditional face-to-face class could both hinder and encourage the academic and

social interaction of the remote students. Based on the discrepancies in various studies on
 20

blended synchronous learning more research is needed (Heilporn et al., 2021; Lakhal et al., 2020;

McKenna et al., 2019). Learner preferences in both the traditional face-to-face and remote

environments play a role in engagement and achievement in the blended synchronous

environment warranting further research within the blended synchronous environment.

Student participation is influenced by course design, instructional context, and instructor

guidance (Heilporn et al., 2021; Kara, 2021; Lakhal et al., 2020; Samson, 2020). Research is

lacking in the blended synchronous platform especially at the graduate level (Heilporn et al.,

2021). Comparison research is needed between different learning environments: blended

synchronous, asynchronous online, or fully in-person (McKenna et al., 2019). Research

completed for blended synchronous classes have taken place at a single institution, or for a single

course which does not yield results that are generalizable (Conlkin et al., 2019; McKenna et al.,

2019; Samson, 2020). Different learning populations, institutions, classes, or the duration of a

study has the possibility to alter the results (Heilporn et al., 2021; Kara, 2021; Lakhal et al.,

2020; Samson, 2020).

Further research according to Conlkin et al. (2019) is needed to study courses in different

fields. Zydney et al. (2020) utilized a full semester to gather research, however, the frequency of

surveys caused a drop-in participation potentially yielding different results. The effects on

student learning and outcomes based on engagement have not been studied in the blended

synchronous learning modality (Raes et al., 2020). Student achievement and student engagement

specifically have not been researched for non-traditional students in a blended synchronous

learning environment (Angelone et al., 2020; Conlkin et al., 2019; McKenna et al., 2019; Raes et

al., 2020; Zydney et al., 2020). The problem is blended synchronous and asynchronous online
 21

courses have not been researched specifically around student engagement and achievement for

non-traditional students.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this quantitative casual-comparative study is to investigate graduate

student engagement and student achievement based on content delivery model. The independent

variable is the instructional delivery model of blended synchronous learning and asynchronous

online learning. Blended synchronous learning is defined as online students and face-to-face

students in one class simultaneously through computer technologies (Angelone et al., 2020;

Nortvig et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Asynchronous online learning is defined as students

complete course work online through a learning management system which lacks social presence

and immediate feedback (Wang & Huang, 2018). The study will have two dependent variables:

student engagement and student achievement. Student engagement is the amount of energy a

student devotes to their studies relating to student persistence (Astin, 1984). Student achievement

is the measurement of the amount of academic content a student learns during a set time frame

and the extent that a student has reached their short or long-term goals (Top Hat, 2019).

Participants for this study will be non-traditional graduate students ranging from the age of 35

and up. They will be enrolled in either asynchronous online or blended synchronous sections of

introductory course offerings.

Significance of the Study

The benefit of understanding student engagement and student achievement based on

learning modalities in a theological institution in the Midwest is improved student retention,

better course design, and improved instructor guidance (Heilporn et al., 2021; Kara, 2021;

Lakhal et al., 2020; Samson, 2020). This study will build upon the work of McKenna et al.
 22

(2019) to compare blended synchronous learning to asynchronous online learning. Blended

synchronous learning is continuing to grow in higher education and with technological advances

this research will benefit the gaps in the literature. This study will provide research on blended

synchronous learning in a theological institution which has not been previously studied.

Research specially in higher education is lacking for the blended synchronous learning modality

(Heilporn et al., 2021).

Further, while a Midwest theological institution research site may find that student

engagement and student achievement are improved based upon learning modality, that

information can provide insight for further research at larger universities. The research will

provide data comparing asynchronous online to blended synchronous learning modalities for

non-traditional students. This study addresses the gap in literature by determining the difference

in student engagement and student achievement based upon learning modality and building upon

Astin’s (1984) student involvement theory, and Moore’s (1972) transactional distance learning

theory.

Research Question

RQ: Is there a difference in student engagement and student achievement for students

participating in blended synchronous learning or asynchronous online learning for non-

traditional graduate students?

Definitions

1. Asynchronous Online Learning - Students complete course work online through a

learning management system at their own pace, however, it lacks social presence and

immediate feedback (Wang & Huang, 2018)

 23

2. Blended Synchronous Learning – Blended synchronous learning combines online

students and face-to-face students into one class simultaneously through computer

technologies (Angelone et al., 2020; Nortvig et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017)

3. Non-Traditional – Students meeting one of seven characteristics: delayed enrollment into

post-secondary education, attends college part-time, works full-time, is financially

independent for financial aid purposes, has dependents other than a spouse, or is a single

parent (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019)

4. Online Learning – Online education has evolved from print-based correspondence

courses to interactive courses that take place through the internet (Rehn et al., 2017)

5. Student Achievement – the measurement of the amount of academic content a student

learns during a set time frame and the extent that a student has reached their short or

long-term goals (Top Hat, 2019)

6. Student Engagement – the amount of energy a student devotes to their studies relating to

student persistence (Astin, 1984)

7. Student Involvement Theory – rooted in the study of college student’s persistence (Astin,

1984)

8. Synchronous Online Learning – Learning takes place where the student and the instructor

are not in the place, but at the same time through computer technologies (Francescucci &

Rohani, 2019).

9. Transactional Distance Theory – Transactional distance theory was derived from the

theory of independent learning and teaching. The theory is two-dimensional: distance

teaching and learner autonomy. The theory of learning and teaching contained three sub-

systems: learner, teacher, and communication method (Moore, 1973).

 24

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to explore student engagement and

student achievement in blended synchronous online. This chapter will present a review of the

current literature related to asynchronous online education, synchronous online education, and

blended synchronous education using the WebEx platform. The theories relevant to the study

will be discussed. Followed by a synthesis of recent literature regarding asynchronous online

education, synchronous online education, and blended synchronous. The role student

engagement plays in terms of student achievement will be addressed and in the end a gap in the

literature will be identified, presenting a need for the current study.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework that guides this study comes from two different theories:

Moore’s (1972) theory of transactional distance and Astin’s (1984) theory of involvement.

Transactional distance theory evolved from the theory of independent teaching and learning

which took root from John Dewey’s educational philosophy. The theory of involvement was

developed based upon three pedagogical theories: subject-matter, resources, and individualized

and rooted in a study on college persistence (Astin, 1984).

Transactional Distance

Transactional distance theory was derived out of the two-dimensional theory of

independent learning and teaching, comprised of distance teaching and learner autonomy

(Moore, 1972; Moore, 1973). This theory attempts to explain the psychological space of

potential misunderstanding between the behaviors of the instructors and the behaviors of the

students which may create a separation between the students and the instructor leading to
 25

potential communication gaps (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). According to Moore (1972), distance

teaching is defined as instructional methods in which the teaching behaviors are completed apart

from the learning behaviors. Communication between the teacher and learner must then be

facilitated by print, electronic, mechanical, or other devices (Moore, 1972).

Communication is a fundamental component of learning regardless of the learning

modality (Swinnerton et al., 2020). In distance education communication methods include a

variety of sources (Moore, 1993). Communication tools available for distance education has

advanced since 1972 with the addition of personal computers and audio conferences (Moore,

1993). Modern distance teaching includes more than one way of communicating in contrast to

earlier years (Swinnerton et al., 2020). Through the implementation of different communication

methods transactional distance can be lessened (Moore, 1993).

Communications are affected by not only the media tools available, but the number of

students, the frequency of communication opportunities, financial constraints, and the

environment (Moore & Diehl, 2019). Appropriate structuring and dialogue usage are demanding

for instructors (Yilmaz & Keser, 2017). Having the relevant technological tools is important for

creating an interactive online learning experience (Yilmaz & Keser, 2017). Distance education

requires a collaborative process among instructional designers, media specialist, and content

experts to develop a basis for dialogue between learners and teachers (Ahmed & Osman, 2020;

Best & Conceicao, 2017; Moore, 1993). Increasing dialogue and developing well-structured

materials lessens transactional distance (Moore & Diehl, 2019).

Dialogue defined in transactional distance theory (TDT) refers to positive interactions

between students and instructors, as well as among students, thereby reducing transactional

distance (Best & Conceico, 2017). Best and Conceico (2017) explored dialogue interactions
 26

among students in a blended learning environment for a master’s degree program across three

different European Universities. Regardless of physical distance, instructors were essential in

guiding discussions and learning. Through this study, student satisfaction was explored based

upon TDT in a multi-institutional program (Best & Conceico, 2017). Interactive dialogue can

impact student satisfaction (Best & Conceico, 2017). It is important for persons involved with

distance education either asynchronous online or blended synchronous to mitigate transactional

distance through interactive dialogue between the instructor and the students (Best & Conceico,

2017).

Learner autonomy refers to a situation where the learner is responsible for the decisions

regarding their learning and takes charge of their own learning (Moore, 1972). Autonomous

learners utilize the teacher support when they need help formulating problems or gathering

information without giving up total control (Moore, 1972). Teachers have a different kind of

relationship with autonomous learners than non-autonomous learners; with autonomous learners

the teacher is seen as a resource, with non-autonomous learners, the teacher is the director

(Moore, 1973). Teachers need to facilitate interactions to guide and resource the learners to

develop learner autonomy (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018).

Learners make the decision to be autonomous by exercising the powers of learning and

overcoming obstacles to complete difficult tasks. The teacher provides information, advice, and

reasons, so that the learner can decide and understand the reason (Moore, 1973). There needs to

be a distinction between utilizing teacher support, and the student giving up total control of their

own learning (Moore,1973). In autonomous learning, the learner receives a lot of help, but does

not give up control or responsibility of their own learning (Moore, 1972; Moore, 1973;

McMillion & King, 2017). Autonomous learners construct their own learning with minimal
 27

guidance and are motivated to learn. Distance learning is naturally suited for autonomous

learners (Moore, 1972). A balance between dialogue, structure, and autonomy are needed to

reduce transactional distance as advised by Moore (Moore, 1993; Stapleford & Lee, 2020).

Quong et al. (2018) explored reducing transactional distance using a closed social media

platform and found that undergraduate students struggled with the platform for self-directed

learning. From this information the researchers deduced the idea that public schools place more

emphasis on the teacher and structure, and less on student autonomy (Quong et al., 2018).

Student autonomy plays an essential role in reducing transactional distance which supported the

findings from Moore (1993) that both high structure and high dialogue can lessen transactional

distance. In contrast to the undergraduate students who did not prefer using a closed social media

platform, the graduate students included in the research sample did (Quong et al., 2018). This

response reinforces Moore’s (1993) idea that graduate students returning to school on their own

volition may have a stronger ability to set educational goals and be autonomous learners (Quong

et al., 2018).

Transactional distance can be bridged through student engagement and effective teaching

strategies (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018). Bolliger and Halupa (2018) explored student perceptions of

student engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes in online courses. The study included

graduate and undergraduate students from three different private institutions (Bolliger & Halupa,

2018). The results of this study showed that meaningful learning activities maximize student

engagement and outcomes, but instructors facilitate interactions that guide student learning and

build student engagement (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018).

 28

Theory of Involvement

The theory of involvement is rooted in the study of college student persistence developed

by Astin in 1973 (Milem & Berger, 1997) as both a guide for researchers and a tool for college

administration to create more effective learning environments for college students (Astin, 1984).

Astin (1984) defines involvement as the amount of physical and psychological energy a student

devotes to the academic experience. Astin’s work stemmed from his dissatisfaction of the

prevalent pedagogical theories of subject-matter, resources, and individualized theories (Astin,

1984; Ncube, 2020). These theories tended to treat students as a black box where the college

would input the policies and programs, and the output would be achievement based upon

standardized tests and grade-point average (Parker & Aldred, 1986). Astin sought to develop a

framework that would be useful for understanding the process of how students learn for

institutions’ resources to focus on a common objective (Parker & Aldred, 1986).

Astin utilized the three pedagogical theories to develop the theory of involvement:

subject-matter, resources, and individualized. Subject-matter states that student learning and

development depended on exposure to the right subject matter; resource theory maintains that if

appropriate resources are brought together, student learning and development will occur, and

individualized theory assumes no one approach is adequate for all students (Astin, 1984;

Srivastava & Beri, 2017; Zhou & Cole, 2017). Astin (1984) provided a link between the

pedagogical theories and his theory of involvement. The theory of involvement contrasted the

pedagogical theories in that the theory of involvement places an emphasis on what the student

does, rather than what the instructor does (Parker & Aldred, 1986). The theory of involvement

focuses on the process of development instead of developmental outcomes (Parker & Aldred,

1986).
 29

Astin argued that involvement requires an investment of psychosocial and physical

energy; continuous invested interest that varies from student to student; can be qualitative or

quantitative; student gains are proportional to the extent of involvement; and academic

performances are correlated with the student involvement (Astin, 1984; Milem & Berger, 1997;

Terenzini, 1987; Zhou & Cole, 2017). The word involvement is defined in active terms meaning

it requires an action on the part of a student. The more involved students are in their college

experience the more likely they will have institutional connectedness and more likely to succeed

(Astin, 1984; Jorgenson et al., 2018). Student involvement takes on many forms: absorption of

work, participation of activities, and interaction with personnel (Astin, 1984).

These forms of student involvement are behavioral in meaning (Astin, 1984). Astin

(1984) explains that the behavioral aspects are critical to understanding the involvement. It is not

so much what the individual thinks and feels, but rather what an individual does or how he or she

behaves (Astin, 1984; Milem & Berger, 1997).

In the study by Astin on student persistence, he associates noninvolvement as a

contributing factor to a student’s departure from college (Milem & Berger, 1997). The theory of

involvement explains how desired outcomes for institutions of higher education relate to how

students change and develop due to involvement in co-curricular activities (Richmond, 1986).

The theory of involvement focuses more on what the student does and how much time they

devote to the learning process (Astin, 1984; Parker & Aldred, 1986; Jorgenson et al., 2018). The

most precious resource for student involvement is student time.

Colleges that encourage student involvement provide a unifying construct instructional

personnel toward a common objective (Astin, 1984; Richmond, 1986). There are additional

elements that contribute to the theory of involvement. The elements are student’s inputs,
 30

student’s environment, and outcomes also referred to as the I-E-O model within theory of

involvement (Ncube, 2020; Richmond, 1986; Srivastava & Beri, 2017; Zhou & Cole, 2017). All

three of the elements affect a student’s involvement. Student input includes demographics,

background, and previous experience (Richmond, 1986). Environment includes all the

experiences a student has during their time attending college (Richmond, 1986). Outcomes relate

to characteristics, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and values that exist after graduation (Richmond,

1986). One way to involve students in the life of an institution and expand the environment is

through personal contact. Institutions need to increase personal contact between faculty and

students which has shown to be influential in expanding student involvement (Wirt & Jaeger,

2014; Zhou & Cole, 2017).

A qualitative study by Kahu et al. (2020), found first-year students from an Australian

regional university are utilized to illustrate student and university factors that interact and

influence student engagement. Variables utilized in the study do not guarantee student

engagement but provide potential for engagement to occur (Kahu et al., 2020). The four different

variables used were wellbeing, emotion, self-efficacy, and belonging (Kahu et al., 2020). The

study utilized narratives to provide information about student engagement in their first year

attending college (Kahu et al., 2020).

Being engaged, is an important part of performance and student engagement (Fisher et

al., 2018). Student engagement is also a cornerstone for quality higher education and academic

success (Ahmed & Osman, 2020; Fisher et al., 2018). Engagement is characterized by interest,

belonging, participation, time, and effort invested in the process of learning (Fisher et al., 2018).

Student engagement is foundationally laid by the instructors in both online and traditional classes

(Li & Lefevre, 2020), however, how students will interact with the content and with each other is
 31

determined individually (Ahmed & Osman, 2020). The earlier students develop relationships

with their peers, the stronger the ability students will have to collaborate in the learning process

(Jacobi, 2017).

It is important for higher education administration to realize that each student’s journey

in student engagement is idiosyncratic (Kahu et al., 2020). However, instructors can promote

student engagement using the four pathways of wellbeing, emotion, self-efficacy, and belonging

(Kahu et al., 2020). Student engagement may fall into one of the four pathways, but there may

be a wider context and range of other factors influencing students’ ability to engage within the

learning environment (Kahu et al., 2020).

Both transactional distance theory and the theory of involvement inform this study.

Transactional distance affects all different learning modalities. To lessen the transactional

distance, students need to maintain high structure and dialogue (Moore, 1993). Without high

structure and dialogue, there is potential misunderstandings caused by communication gaps

between the instructor and the students (Moore, 1993). Students who are not involved in their

own learning experience will struggle to be academically successful (Astin, 1984). Involvement

requires the student to do, rather than think about doing (Astin, 1984). Students who are studying

asynchronously or synchronously through WebEx need to engage with peers and faculty outside

of class time to develop a sense of community; involvement will aid in retention (Astin, 1984).

Being involved in the learning community and interacting with peers and instructors will build

student engagement and raise academic achievement (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018; Milem &

Berger, 1997).
 32

Conclusion

With transactional distance, the research sought to decrease the transactional distance

using a blended synchronous learning environment to increase student engagement and student

achievement. With theory of involvement, the research sought to advance the literature regarding

the degree to which blended synchronous students were involved in their institution and the

impact that it had on student achievement. In a blended synchronous learning environment, it is

possible for students with a high level of involvement to provide opportunities for engagement,

which can lead to higher academic achievement. This study will investigate non-traditional

graduate students in a theological institution to understand student engagement and student

achievement based upon the learning environment. The research from this study will advance the

existing literature and theories on transactional distance and involvement by adding to the

understanding of blended synchronous and asynchronous online education for non-traditional

students in a free-standing seminary.

Related Literature

Distance Education History

Distance education is in its infancy when compared to hundreds of years of higher

education (Kentor, 2015). Modern adult distance education began in 1840 with Issac Pitman’s

idea of distributing correspondence courses through mail (Phillips, 1998). This option provided

opportunities for students unable to come to a traditional college campus. Within 20 years, the

idea grew to have presence all over the world (Phillips, 1998). By the early 1900’s a whole

department was dedicated to the distribution of courses by mail at the University of Chicago

(Matthews, 1999).
 33

The internet, which dates to the 1960’s provided more options for higher education

(Kentor, 2015). In 1969, the Open University in Great Britain began a new era of distance

education with the addition of audio, video, television, radio, and personal tutors over the phone

(Matthews, 1999). In 1982, National Technical University in Colorado began to use satellites to

broadcast live and recorded lectures (Casey, 2008). The world wide web dating back to the

1990’s and the creation of learning management systems in the 2000’s provided institutions with

opportunities to distribute classes online to those with internet connections (Bourdeau et al.,

2018; Casey, 2008; Kentor, 2015). Video conferencing in higher education was first officially

used in 1995 (Al-Samarraie, 2019). Since then, video conferencing has evolved and become

more advanced for use in blended synchronous learning (Bower et al., 2015; Francescucci &

Rohani, 2019). Online education has evolved from print-based correspondence courses to

interactive classes that take place through the internet (Rehn et al., 2017).

Distance Education Currently

Online education is a descendent of distance education. Distance education has been

defined by three key elements for the delivery of curriculum to students not physically onsite:

non-contiguity, two-way communication, and communication mediated by technology (Kayode,

2018; Swinnerton et al., 2020). Distance education encompasses several different modalities

including, but not limited to, asynchronous online, synchronous online, and blended synchronous

learning. Asynchronous online is defined as students who complete course work online through a

learning management system at their own pace, lacking social presence and immediate feedback

(Wang & Huang, 2018). Synchronous online is defined as the student and the instructor not at

the same place but learning at the same time through computer technologies (Francescucci &

Rohani, 2019). Blended synchronous learning combines online students and face-to-face students
 34

into one class simultaneously through web conferencing (Angelone et al., 2020; Nortvig et al.,

2018; Wang et al., 2017). There is a range of definitions that conceptualize online learning, but a

consensus is online learning involves engagement of learning experiences facilitated through

technologies available (Burke & Lamar, 2021).

Although online higher education has been available for at least 20 years, several

negative stereotypes persist (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018). For example, online education is not as

rigorous as its face-to-face counterpart is a common stereotype (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018).

However, the development of learning management systems and web resources has drastically

transformed online education by speeding up the rate at which information is disseminated and

digested (Hurlbut, 2018). The time it takes to relay communication has decreased (Hurlbut,

2018). Researchers have pointed out that the online platform presents a distinctive challenge

engaging students and developing content but has become widely accepted as a common

learning option (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018). Enrollment in online education is outpacing traditional

face-to-face education for many accredited institutions (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018).

Increased broadband connectivity in the United States has rendered online learning

accessible to larger segments of the population (Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Students who

were once unable or unlikely to access higher education can access higher education resulting in

a stronger representation of the overall population (Burke & Lamar, 2021). This includes

providing access to education for minorities and disadvantaged groups (Liu et al., 2020). The

number of students participating in online courses has continued to rise for the 14th consecutive

year (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). 37.2% of all United States post-

secondary students are enrolled in at least one online course, and 17.6% are enrolled exclusively

in online courses (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). With the expansion of online
 35

courses, technologies used for communication have become a central part of both teaching and

learning in academia (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Blau et al., 2017).

Asynchronous Online Education

The trend toward growth in online enrollment has steadily increased despite an overall

decline in higher education enrollment (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). Higher education institutions

have included fully asynchronous online courses as an integral part of their curriculum for the

previous two decades (Abuhassna et al, 2020; Blau et al., 2017). For institutions to create

continued online opportunities, updates need to be completed. Comprehensive learning

experiences require continuous updating of technology to ensure integrity for delivering

instruction (Al-Samarraie, 2019).

Rapid expansion of online learning in higher education necessitates the ongoing review

of teaching and learning practices (Burke & Lamar, 2021). Online instructors require significant

training in online pedagogical skills to enhance and develop an engaging online environment

(Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). According to Netanda et al. (2019) the unavailability of

instructors, lack of interaction between students and instructors, and isolation of online students

can be addressed by developing engaging online learning environments. Student retention and

success rests upon new teaching methodologies that provide support services to a changing

demographic of student (Netanda et al., 2019; Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Not only do new

teaching methodologies need to be utilized, but changes to the students’ experience of learning

must be made.

Students in online learning programs benefit from being autonomous learners who

oversee their own learning process (Netanda et al., 2019). For both autonomous and non-

autonomous learners, the online courses need structure and clarity (Stapleford & Lee, 2020).
 36

Structure and clarity assist students in engaging meaningfully with the content (Stapleford &

Lee, 2020). The instructor must develop opportunities that promote interaction with peers and

opportunities for collaboration (Netanda et al., 2019; Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Online

learning experiences where peer-to-peer interaction is lacking leads to social isolation and

disengagement (Kayode, 2018; Lin & Gao, 2020).

Online Community

Within the online community there are three types of interaction that occur: learner-

instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content (Rehn et al., 2017). Opportunities for interaction

among students, and between students and their instructor are very important to overall student

satisfaction and learning outcomes, however, it takes time and a conscientious effort (Burke &

Larmar, 2021; Nortvig et al., 2018). For students in asynchronous classes, social interaction with

peers and the instructor are not immediate (Lin & Gao, 2020). Lack of immediate interaction or

feedback from the instructor can create challenges for students needing help (Kayode, 2018; Lin

& Gao, 2020; Young & Bruce, 2020). When it comes to interaction, the mindset needs to be

quality over quantity (Ahmed & Osman, 2020; Paulsen & McCormick, 2020).

Faculty need to reshape their availability to ensure online students have ways to connect

(Berry, 2019; Nortvig et al., 2018). Instructors need to interact often on discussion boards, and

assign group projects to facilitate interaction and reduce social isolation among students (Lin &

Gao, 2020). Office hours should be made available to meet with online students (Lin & Gao,

2020). Communication plays an important role in distance education success (Kayode, 2018).

With the expansion of online learning, it is important to implement approaches that

promote opportunities for students to have meaningful interactions with peers and provide

opportunities for collaborative learning (Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Interactions are
 37

important in the online learning process to ensure quality of online learning and to create a

feeling of connectedness (Blau et al, 2017; Li & Lefevre, 2020; Truhlar et al., 2018; Watts,

2016). Interactions and collaborative activities are not the only prerequisites for online learning

students to feel as though they are part of the learning community (Li & Lefevre, 2020). The

connection to the learning community, the ability to interact with other students and teachers,

and developing areas for community in the online environment are part of creating a positive

learning community.

Online Learning Benefits

One of the reasons online learning has continued to grow is flexibility and convenience

that this modality offers (Shi et al., 2021). Students are increasingly requesting flexible options

to complete their education due to their inability to attend classes face-to-face (Clark & Post,

2021; Shi et al., 2021). Studying online is widespread because it is not determined by time and

location (Bornschlegl & Cashman, 2019). Using online courses, students avoid problems like

traffic and work schedules. The learning does not need to be limited to certain times of the day or

week. Online learning does not require the student to be physically present so, it suits introverted

learners (Kotrikadze & Zharkova, 2021). Introverts express themselves more freely in the online

environment (Blau et al., 2017). Students feel comfortable discussing differing viewpoints on a

discussion thread (Lin & Gao, 2020). Asynchronous online classes create a strong classroom

community through interacting, discussing, and sharing on a discussion board when facilitated

by the instructor(s) (Lin & Gao, 2020).

Online learning potentially increases educational offerings, reduces the cost of the

program, and increases enrollment; providing people with access to affordable higher education

(Liu et al., 2020; Poulin & Straut, 2018). It provides students with the development of skills for
 38

employment that can be transferred to innovation in the workplace (Liu et al., 2020; Noreen,

2020), such as the ability to collaborate, which is considered an important skill necessary in the

21st century work environment (Ahmed & Osman, 2020; Sobko et al, 2020). Instructors have a

quicker turnaround on feedback to their students (Noreen, 2020; Paulsen & McCormick, 2020).

Instructors and students have access to the latest online learning material available (Noreen,

2020).

Online education provides many opportunities including the ability to engage outside of

one’s home country spreading to global audiences, and removing geographical barriers to

learning (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Kim; 2017; Li & Lefevre, 2020). Students can become self-

directed lifelong learners regardless of location (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Ahmed & Osman,

2020). The ability to self-regulate one’s study-related behaviors and cognitions is linked to

educational achievement and career advancements (Broadbent & Lodge, 2021).

Online Learning Barriers

The educational technology revolution has many benefits, but there are also barriers. The

barriers include, but are not limited to insufficient support, ineffective pedagogy, technology

problems, inaccessibility, and retention issues (Liu et al., 2020; Swinnerton et al., 2020).

Instructors lack training in the development of online content (Kayode, 2018; Noreen, 2020).

The development of electronic content takes more time for instructors leading to barriers in the

quality of online content (Kayode, 2018; Noreen, 2020). Instructors face difficulties using the

learning management system to create instructional methods that engage learning (Kayode,

2018).

Several inequalities, presupposing reliable connectivity, devices that persons own, and

digital and learning skill sets exist in higher education (Noreen, 2020; Swinnerton et al., 2020).
 39

Perspective students and institutions should not assume that a digital divide does not still exist as

inequalities are still looming (Kotrikadze & Zharkova, 2021; Swinnerton et al., 2020). Students

in online courses must stay abreast of the latest technology and be technologically savvy, so they

can use, maintain, and troubleshoot (McMillion & King, 2017). Technology provides capability

and capacity to increase access to education, however, the development and implementation of

the technology occurs at a pace that does not allow for proper evaluation of the outcomes

(Kotrikadze & Zharkova, 2021). Access to student support services and informal interactions

with the instructor and classmates are additional potential barriers (Young & Bruce, 2020).

Despite the popularity of distance education, this learning modality suffers from high

dropout rates effecting both students and institutions (Bornschlegl & Cashman, 2019). Degree

completions were at least 20% lower for fully online students (Dyment et al., 2020). The

facelessness and lack of personhood within online learning environments have been identified as

isolating and challenging for many students which may attribute to dropout rates (Burke &

Larmar, 2021). Institutions need to look at dropout rates from all angles. In this instance, the

students are the customers and ultimately the only one to judge the quality of the courses

(MacLeod et al., 2019).

Transactional Distance Online

Transactional distance is the perceived psychological, cognitive, and affective distances

between learners and instructors in online learning environments that can impact learning

engagement and attaining academic achievement (McMillion & King, 2017). In online

education, transactional distance is important to take into consideration because the teaching

environment is separate from the learner environment which require specific teaching-learning

techniques to be employed (Kayode, 2018). The theory of transactional distance states that as the
 40

interaction between the teacher and the student decreases, the learner autonomy must increase

(Quong et al., 2018). Transactional distance and learner autonomy are different for every student

but can be bridged through student engagement and effective teaching strategies (Bolliger &

Halupa, 2018). Faculty who reshapes their availability to provide access to online students

reduce the feelings of isolation and lessen the transactional distance between faculty and students

(Berry, 2019; Nortvig et al., 2018).

Student engagement breaks down transactional distance through effective contact with

other peers even without effective contact with all peers in a class (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018).

Effective teaching strategies bridge the transactional distance gap. The strategies include the

teaching experience of the faculty, choosing the appropriate teaching method, and selecting the

best educational technology tools for the online learning environment (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018;

Yilmaz & Keser, 2017). Communicating with the instructor and peers through a digital space

lacks human-like nuances that lead to feeling disconnected creating a larger transactional

distance gap (Quong et al., 2018).

According to Bolliger and Halupa (2018) transactional distance can be bridged through

student engagement and effective teaching strategies. They explored student perceptions on

engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes in online courses. In their research of graduate

and undergraduate students from three different private universities, students did not report a

high level of transactional distance with the instructor or content, but they did with their peers

(Bolliger & Halupa, 2018). Results showed that meaningful learning activities maximize student

engagement and outcomes, but that instructors need to facilitate interactions to guide student

learning (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018). Online learning has broken the geographic barriers;

transactional distance remains a barrier in online learning (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018).
 41

Student Involvement Online

Students who are more involved in the academic and social aspect of college life learn

more (Astin, 1984). Academic involvement refers to a student’s capacity to have an active role in

their learning, creating a high-quality learning experience (Dyment & Downing, 2018; Jacobi,

2017). Asynchronous student involvement requires multiple pedagogies, variety of learning

resources to meet different learners’ needs, high instructor presence, quality of faculty-student

interactions, academic support outside the classroom, and the promotion of class cohesion in the

online learning environment is shown to create higher student achievement and satisfaction

(Lockman & Schirmer, 2020). According to Paulsen and McCormick (2020) course design and

instructor’s involvement through assignment feedback and responsiveness to students is

associated with student engagement and achievement. Teachers help students maintain a

sustained pace in learning by diversifying activities to foster behavioral and emotional

engagement (Heilporn et al., 2021), given that engagement does not automatically develop

within a learning community (Li & Lefevre, 2020). Student engagement is malleable through

pedagogy therefore student engagement is influenced by teaching strategies (Heilporn et al.,

2021).

Online students need purposeful and regular engagement with faculty members (Olt,

2018; Shoepe et al., 2020). The relationship with both their peers and their instructor needs to be

developed at the beginning of the class (Jacobi, 2017). The quality and effectiveness of student-

faculty interaction is proven to raise academic performance in asynchronous online courses

(Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Student engagement in online classes primarily takes place

through discussion boards (Dyment et al., 2020). Greater interaction with the content relates to

higher student achievement and overall satisfaction (Lockman & Schirmer, 2020). Interactivity
 42

leads to improved engagement and active participation (Ahmed & Osman, 2002; Kayode, 2018),

however mandatory postings to discussion boards clog the learning management system with

threads that lack coherence, structure, and logic (Dyment et al., 2020). Online learning

communities have disjointed conversations (Broadbent & Lodge, 2021). Students are left waiting

for a response which can negatively impact the academic experience especially if the question

requires an immediate response (Broadbent & Lodge, 2021).

The student’s relationship with both their peers and their instructor needs to be developed

at the beginning of the class (Jacobi, 2017). One way to develop deeper community to aid in

student engagement is through small groups, which allows students to have more in-depth

conversation with a smaller amount of people (Berry, 2019; Jacobi, 2017). Students’ academic

needs have to be met, but also the desire for support and interaction; this will help students have

a more active role in the learning process (Berry, 2019; Nortvig et al., 2018). Interaction is the

heart of distance learning, so it is important to develop an online course that provides regular

transactions that are varied (Dockter, 2016). Instructors with instructional designers need to

develop the curriculum that will allow for maximum student engagement (Sobko et al., 2020).

Online programs have started to develop strategies to monitor student involvement, such

as frequency of logging into the learning management system, posting to online discussions, or

downloading course information and materials (Dyment & Downing, 2018). Student experience

predicts a large amount of variance in student’s overall satisfaction; entertainment positively

affected satisfaction while interaction with other students negatively affected satisfaction

(Bornschlegl & Cashman, 2019). User friendly technology tools, providing an orientation to

online instruction, and developing greater interaction with course content also led to student
 43

satisfaction and achievement (Lockman & Schirmer, 2020). Student satisfaction with their

experiences influence their plans to continue studies online (Young & Bruce, 2020).

In online education, social involvement in college life is limited due to distance. Students

need opportunities to collaborate in the online environment, as it raises motivation and provides

opportunity for social involvement (Ahmed & Osman, 2020; Olson & McCracken, 2015). A lack

of personal connection in online courses give negative student experiences resulting in social

isolation and lower student achievement (Jacobi, 2017). The quality of the courses effect both

student satisfaction and academic success (Burke & Larmar, 2021; MacLeod et al., 2019).

Synchronous Learning

Synchronous learning takes place when the instructor and students are at different

locations but learning simultaneously through computer-mediated technologies at specific times

(Francescucci & Rohani, 2019; Olt, 2018). During a synchronous online class, information is

disseminated from the instructor to the students directly and in real-time (Ahmed & Osman,

2020; Lin & Gao, 2020). Synchronous learning requires a distinct pedagogical approach, and the

instructors need to pay attention to their roles (Cakiroglu, 2019; Dyment & Downing, 2018).

When instructors are planning for synchronous learning, they need to plan carefully to avoid

downtime and maintain a high level of interaction (Heilporn et al., 2021) that includes providing

instant feedback (Ahmed & Osman, 2020). These methods could include, but are not limited to

problem solving exercises, case studies, role-playing, or small group discussions (Heilporn et al.,

2021).

This learning modality is gathering more traction than asynchronous learning due to

advances in technology that increase students’ feeling of connection to other students and the

instructor (Francescucci & Rohani, 2019; Watts, 2016). Interaction is a key element affecting
 44

learning outcomes (Kara, 2021; Yilmaz & Keser, 2017). Incorporating synchronous learning

requires a significant investment in technology infrastructure for an institution, as well as faculty

and student technical development (Cakiroglu, 2019; Dyment & Downing, 2018; Olson &

McCracken, 2015). Synchronous online education relies upon stable functions on both the

student and faculty side regarding software, hardware, the cloud, internet connections, power

outages, equipment failure all effect student engagement (Blau et al., 2017; Lin & Gao, 2020).

The technologies available and working properly create interpersonal interactions to create a

positive social environment (Blau et al., 2017; Lin & Gao, 2020; Olson & McCracken, 2015).

Synchronous Learning Benefits

Synchronous learning provides benefits to students. Students attending synchronous

sessions benefit from instant feedback and the privilege of interacting with their peers in real-

time (Lin & Gao, 2020). Classes that take place in real-time help students feel less distanced

from their peers and assist in building a learning community (Lin & Gao, 2020). Synchronous

learning gives the feeling of a traditional face-to-face learning environment (Lin & Gao, 2020).

Students in the natural learning conditions report greater enjoyment from the social interactions

with their peers and the instructor (Blau et al., 2017). Social interactions with their peers are

positively associated with students’ perceived learning (Abuhassna et al., 2020).

Synchronous Learning Barriers

Synchronous learning offers many benefits to students, but there are also barriers. This

learning modality requires students log in at a specific time, students who do not have a flexible

schedule cannot navigate the time needed to attend sessions (Lin & Gao, 2020). Students who

rely on public access to technologies are prevented from attending synchronous sessions (Lin &

Gao, 2020; Reisdorf et al., 2020). Synchronous sessions, like traditional classes do not provide
 45

enough time for students to reflect on the content before being required to respond (Lin & Gao,

2020; Olson & McCracken, 2015).

Barriers exist for the instructors as well. Teachers need to be familiar with the

technologies being utilized in synchronous learning (Olson & McCracken, 2015). When

instructors are familiar with the technologies, they can take full advantage of possibilities; by

inviting real-world practitioners into class sessions (Blau et al., 2017; Nortvig et al., 2018).

Checking body language for understanding is challenging, especially if students turn off their

camera (Olson & McCracken, 2015; Nortvig et al., 2018). Microphones when not muted cause

background noise that is distracting to other students and the instructor (Lin & Gao, 2020; Raes

et al., 2020).

Students’ backgrounds, experiences, and educational techniques contribute to students’

achievement in online classes (Abuhassna et al, 2020; Li & Lefevre, 2020). Achievement in

synchronous online classes is influenced by the educational methods that are utilized, not

necessarily the technology made available (Abuhassna et al., 2020). However, there are

synchronous tools that include real-time communication between the instructor, learners, and

among learners for discussion and collaborating (Cakiroglu, 2019), to create active engagement

that raises student motivation and commitment to learning (Ahmed & Osman, 2020; Lin & Gao,

2020; Olson & McCracken, 2015). Academic achievement and student satisfaction depend on

prior knowledge and experience when it comes to online learning (Abuhassna et al., 2020).

Students who also develop a stronger feeling of connection with peers and the instructor feel less

distanced and have better engagement (Francescucci & Rohani, 2019; Lin & Gao, 2020). Adding

synchronous portions to online classes do not necessarily increase students’ level of achievement

(Ahmed & Osman, 2019; Blau et al., 2017). Achievement is dependent on many items, not just
 46

technology. According to a study by Al-Samarraie (2019) there was not any difference between

students who participated in traditional classes and those that participated in synchronous online

classes.

Blended Synchronous Learning

Blended synchronous learning is a combination of face-to-face learning and online

learning formats where online students participate with students in the classroom simultaneously

through web conferencing (Angelone et al., 2020; Nortvig et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). While

the definition is straightforward, in practice, blended learning takes many forms with differences

in time dedicated to each modality, expectations of face-to-face or online interactions, and other

variables depending on the institution, learning outcomes, and learners (McKenna et al., 2020).

Blended synchronous learning is gaining more attention in higher education because of

overall cost-savings through the reduction of space needed on campus and the number of staff

required (Lakhal & Belisle, 2020; Luna & Winters, 2020), it is important to align the blended

synchronous learning environment with the overall mission and vision of the institution (Groen

et al., 2020). Institutions reach a broader base of potential students by offering the possibility to

attend either face-to-face or through online media technologies (Angelone et al., 2020; Raes et

al., 2020) as students are continuing to request flexible options for learning due to their inability

to attend face-to-face classes on campus (Clark & Post, 2021). Blended synchronous learning

provides a meaningful opportunity for students to attend classroom instruction through a two-

way video conference in real-time (Angelone et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2017). In a post pandemic

world blended synchronous learning provides a good alternative to reduce the number of

students in face-to-face activities (Lakhal et al., 2021; Samson, 2020).

 47

The blended synchronous learning modality evolved from distance and open education

movements (Serranto et al., 2019) and takes full advantage of both online and face-to-face

benefits (Baker et al., 2020; Bower et al., 2015). The classroom is crucial for learning and cannot

be simply replaced with technology supported environments, but rather a new learning approach

(Wang & Huang, 2018). It requires an appropriate instructional design for the content to support

the fruitfulness of blended synchronous learning (Prasetya et al., 2020). The learning approach

must be grounded in learning theory and shifted from a teacher-centered approach to a learner-

centered approach (Kastner, 2020) and from passive learning to active learning with human

touch to facilitate interactive content (Prasetya et al., 2020). Instructors must utilize emerging

media technologies rather than strictly conventional teaching strategies in a blended synchronous

environment (Alsalhi et al., 2021). Blended synchronous learning requires more than replicating

classroom activities in online versions, it should be thought of as transformative, and the results

should be more advanced and meaningful learning than achieved in the previous modes of

delivery (Kastner, 2020). It is important to adjust teaching strategies because the educational

field has shifted to a constructive learning approach instead of a knowledge transfer approach

(Alsalhi et al., 2021).

Creating a seamless blended synchronous learning environment requires careful

consideration to avoid technological issues that occur in this type of environment (Angelone et

al., 2020). Classes rely on the quality of real-time audio and video communications, and

selection of the software and tools chosen (Yang et al., 2019). Experience with the digital

technology helps to eliminate the awkwardness of merging the environments (Angelone et al.,

2020). Technologies implemented by the institution need to provide training to the participants

on how to use and troubleshoot (Angelone et al., 2020; Bower et al., 2015). The success of
 48

blended synchronous classes depends on the instructor’s access to and use of the technology

provided (Anthony et al., 2019; Lakhal et al., 2020).

The learning mode in blended synchronous is based on the availability to access live

classes, instructor responsiveness, and communication among students and stable

communication among students and the instructors (Anthony et al., 2019). To incorporate a

blended synchronous environment requires effectively balancing attention paid to both students

online and students in the classroom (Wang et al., 2017). When merged the online students and

face-to-face students still saw the class as two distinct groups (Angelone et al., 2020; Wang et

al., 2018), however, participants had a more authentic experience when they were face-to-face or

included within the video than when they were off camera (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Angelone et

al., 2020).

Blended Synchronous Benefits

Blended synchronous learning benefits both the instructor and the students. Instructors

know immediately what needs to be covered again (Serrano et al., 2019). Interaction between the

instructor and the students is beneficial to blended synchronous learning (Groen et al., 2020).

There are several benefits afforded to students who study in a blended synchronous learning

format. According to Thai et al. (2019) students studying in a blended learning modality report

more satisfaction. Academic and social integration is strengthened by students’ satisfaction in

blended synchronous learning which aids in persistence and retention (Lakhal et al., 2020).

Blended synchronous learning diminishes remote students’ sense of isolation and allows

them to get to know other students better than in the asynchronous online modality (Lakhal et al.,

2020). This method allows users to share video and audio files in real-time (Al-Samarraie, 2019;

Blau et al, 2017). Students have an increase in grades, participation, and enhanced relationships
 49

with other students (Groen et al., 2020). This learning modality provides a practical solution to

facilitate the learning process that cannot exclusively be completed in the classroom, because of

work, location, or undesirable circumstances such as disasters and diseases (Prasetya et al.,

2020), and it is an alternative way for absent students to take part in the classroom instruction in

real-time (Wang et al., 2017; Wang & Huang, 2018).

There is a boost in self-efficacy because students receive timely feedback which

improves student expectation in the future (Clark & Post, 2021; Thai et al., 2019). Lectures are

delivered at a set time, but they become a permanent resource when recorded (Clark & Post,

2021; Thai et al., 2019). These resources benefit the students from being able to replay, pause,

and jump forward or backward to gain a deeper understanding (Clark & Post, 2021; Thai et al.,

2019). Students are provided access to high quality learning resources for which improves the

overall quality of their education (Shi et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019).

Blended learning provides opportunities for synchronous activities between students in

the classroom and students online (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). This increases students’ confidence

and interaction to engage in live learning practices to enhance the understanding of complex and

challenging topics (Al-Samarraie, 2019). Using this method can help students to overcome the

feelings of isolation and separation that occurs in asynchronous learning (Dyment & Downing,

2018). Synchronous activities enhance student-student, and student-instructor interactions which

is valuable in online classes (Martin & Bolliger, 2018; Yang et al., 2019). Synchronous

discussions help to foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Dyment & Downing,

2018).
 50

Blended Synchronous Barriers

There are barriers that occur in blended synchronous learning for both the instructor and

the students. These deficiencies relate to the misunderstandings and misuse (Angelone et al.,

2020; Bower, 2011). Deficiencies can be overcome through support and training. Offering an

introductory tutorial session outside of class time or provide just-in-time learning is another

strategy (Angelone et al., 2020). Without adequate support and training the results of blended

synchronous learning will be unsuccessful.

Institutions need to provide instructors with the time to develop the course design (Lakhal

& Belisle, 2020). Instructors need to take into consideration that some students may lack

technological skills, feel overwhelmed by the number of activities and resources to manage

especially when instructors do not estimate the time students need to spend on each task,

accessing course materials, or technological issues the arise (Lakhal & Belisle, 2020). One way

is by improving the design of the blended synchronous learning environment (Halverson &

Graham, 2019).

Blended synchronous learning is dependent on the teacher’s competency in using the

technology; instructors need to pay attention to both locations and perform certain operational

actions on the learning platform (Raes et al., 2020). Instructors must adapt to the new learning

environment such as talking to the camera and using a mobile device to present (Wang et al.,

2018). Additional barriers that exist for instructors is the lack of shared resources, lack of

collaboration with other instructors, and an underdeveloped strategic plan for implementing

blended synchronous learning into an institution (Kastner, 2020).

Synchronous communications can be affected by weather; it is easy to be interrupted with

network delays which affect teaching efficiency and student (Shi et al., 2021). Communication
 51

can be insufficient due to instructor’s microphone and video producing poor resolution or sound

quality (Shi et al., 2021). Even with the advancement of technology, challenges still exist.

Technical setup and bandwidth stability can potentially affect the audio and video quality, which

negatively impacts both the teaching and learning (Al-Samarraie, 2019). Beyond bandwidth

stability and technical setup, technical hitches and incompatible machines will frustrate students

who are not technologically oriented (Al-Samarraie, 2019; Dyment & Downing, 2018).

Barriers exist for students also. Students may face time delays, background noises, and

other hitches that could interfere with their learning (Al-Samarraie, 2019). Learning at multiple

sites inevitably presents varied experiences and challenges, for example, technical difficulties

due to the absence of a teacher or technical assistant, and a lack of classroom atmosphere

resulting in increased social isolation (Wang et al., 2018). It is difficult for the remote students to

make the teacher aware that they want to answer, which makes the online student frustrated and

uninvolved (Raes et al., 2020).

Blended Community

Successful collaboration occurs when the teacher takes responsibility for ensuring

students have adequate prerequisite technological competencies (Angelone et al., 2020; Berry,

2019). Students need to know not only how to receive and transmit information, but to

collaborate with other students (Angelone et al., 2020). Learning requires the capacity to use the

technology synchronously by enabling online presentations, video screen sharing, polling, and

chat to enhance online engagement (Angelone et al., 2020). It is the instructor’s responsibility

guide students during the first session to develop competencies with web conferencing

technology and establish a sense of community among the students (Angelone et al., 2020). Less

efficient collaboration leads to total communication breakdown (Angelone et al., 2020).

 52

Transactional Distance in Blended Learning

Transactional distance in blended learning is measured by students’ subjective perception

considering their performances (Elyakim et al., 2019). The environment affects the student’s

thinking and perception, and the student’s perception affects the environment (Elyakim et al.,

2019). Moore (1993) includes dialogue between students and teachers, and among students.

Dialogue is said to create positive interactions and will enhance the learner’s understanding (Best

& Conceicao, 2017). Enhanced interactions will lessen the transactional distance among students

(Best & Conceicao, 2017; Sobko et al. 2020). Blended learning may be able to lessen the impact

of transactional distance upon student satisfaction (Best & Conceicao, 2017).

Student Involvement in Blended Learning

Blended learning as suggested by the literature has potential to optimize student

engagement (Heilporn et al., 2021). Student involvement is one of the most crucial issues in

learner satisfaction and success (Starr-Glass, 2020). Engagement cannot be sparked by others, it

needs to be an individual’s ability (Starr-Glass, 2020). Learner engagement is defined as a

student’s cognitive and emotional energy to accomplish a learning task, which correlates with

educational outcomes, academic achievement, persistence, satisfaction, and sense of community

(Anthony et al., 2019; Halverson & Graham, 2019). There are three dimensions that are

interrelated as it pertains to student involvement and they are: behavioral, emotional, and

cognitive (Heilporn et al., 2021).

Student behavioral engagement focuses on participation in activities that comply with

rules or norms (Heilporn et al., 2021). To ensure that students are engaged in their course work,

engagement needs to be facets that can be observed (Starr-Glass, 2020). Emotional engagement

refers to reactions to their peers, teacher and the overall sense of belonging (Heilporn et al.,
 53

2021). Students who can engage with both the content and peers will contribute to student

success and create rich dialogue (Sobko et al., 2020; Starr-Glass, 2020). Lastly, cognitive

engagement refers to the mastery of knowledge using metacognitive strategies (Heilporn et al.,

2021). To sustain student involvement educators and designers need to work together to develop

an innovative learning experience (Sobko et al., 2020).

Blended learning may lead to more fully engaged students (Halverson & Graham, 2019;

Young & Bruce, 2020). Improving the design to blended learning requires when students are

engaged in their learning, and when students begin to disengage (Halverson & Graham, 2019).

Instructors play an essential role in blended learning from course design, to facilitating

interactions, and supporting student achievement (Heilporn et al., 2021). There are three

challenges to learner engagement in blended settings. They are the nature of blended learning,

combining human and technology mediated instructions, and the ability to measure engagement

under different conditions (Halverson & Graham, 2019; Starr-Glass, 2020).

Engagement is influenced by contextual variations that include, but are not limited to,

environments or strategies that are deployed by the instructors (Heilporn et al., 2021). Faculty

who offers face-to-face office hours through web conferencing provide students time to consult

and receive additional assistance increasing student success (Kastner, 2020). Instructor presence

and the interaction between instructors and students through active learning activities on student

engagement and achievement is important to blended synchronous learning (Groen et al., 2020),

better communication exists between the instructor and the students (Thai et al., 2019).

Communication increases engagement and provides the space for feedback, to increase student

achievement (Groen et al., 2020; Serranto et al., 2019; Thai et al., 2019).
 54

Blended learning aims to extend thinking and discourse over time and space to enhance

student engagement (Heilporn et al., 2021; Lakhal & Belisle, 2020; Lakhal et al., 2020). Students

who engage do more than attend and perform academically, they put forth an effort and persist

(Heilporn et al., 2021). However, low levels of engagement for remote students need to be taken

seriously as student engagement is associated with positive learning outcomes and higher

retention rates (Raes et al., 2020).

Students appreciate being able to respond in a timely manner, offer their perspectives,

exchange information and feedback, share personal experiences, and experience a unique

identity in their learning community which encourages a sense of involvement (Young & Bruce,

2020). Blended synchronous learning assists students in having stable communication, staying

on task, feeling a greater sense of participation, and tending to experience better task and course

completion rates (Lin & Gao, 2020).

Summary

The theoretical lens of transactional distance theory and student involvement theory was

used to ground this study. Transactional distance theory was developed by Michael Moore

(1972), but the work of this theory can be traced all the way back to Dewey (1896). The basis of

the transactional theory is indicted by the geographical distance between the student and the

instructor. Student involvement theory developed by A.W. Astin (1984), is associated with the

amount of growth and learning based on the quality of the students’ involvement in the learning

process. Both theoretical lenses provided the foundation for this study.

Online education is continuing to grow in popularity and breaking geographical barriers.

For institutions to keep up with the growing demand, they need to keep up with the technology

demands and changes. Technology advances have allowed for institutions to offer synchronous
 55

online options, blended, synchronous blended, and fully virtual classes through

videoconferencing. Videoconferencing technology has advanced to allow for synchronous

blended virtual classes through web conferencing. Students and the instructors in a classroom

can be connected to online students virtually anywhere through a web conference in real-time. It

provides an opportunity to build community.

Student engagement is a cornerstone of academic success. The engagement is developed

by instructors for both the online and traditional classes. Online engagement can be developed

through discussion boards. Discussion boards create interaction which is at the heart of online

learning. Traditional engagement allows for students to build relationships during synchronous

class time. The engagement still needs to be learner-centered to promote active learning. The

developing of student engagement is enhanced through the instructor. Students in a blended

synchronous session through web conferencing also need to build engagement between both

traditional and virtual students.

 56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

Overview

This chapter introduces the research methodology of the study on different delivery

methods of instruction in higher education. The purpose of this quantitative causal-comparative

study was to determine if there was a deeper understanding of student engagement and student

achievement in a blended synchronous learning environment. This chapter includes the research

question and hypothesis, participants and setting, instrumentation, procedures, and data analysis.

Design

This quantitative study examined the differences in blended synchronous learning and

asynchronous online learning with respect to student engagement and student achievement for

non-traditional students using a causal-comparative design. A causal-comparative design

investigates the possible cause-and-effect relationship between a non-manipulated independent

variable, which in the present study is the learning environment, and two dependent variables,

which were student engagement and student achievement within a specific population (Gall et

al., 2007). Causal-comparative research is a nonexperimental study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018)

and the best option for this study because the groups had already been formed without the

researcher assigning the participants to a specific group (Gall et al., 2007).

The independent variable, the learning environment, contains two categories: blended

synchronous and asynchronous online. Blended synchronous learning combines online students

and face-to-face students into one class simultaneously through computer technologies

(Angelone et al., 2020; Nortvig et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Asynchronous online learning

allows students to complete course work online through a learning management system at their

own pace, without social presence or immediate feedback (Wang & Huang, 2018). Dependent
 57

variables in this study were student engagement and student achievement. Student engagement is

defined as the amount of energy a student devotes to their studies and how that relates to student

persistence (Astin, 1984). Student achievement is defined as the amount of academic content a

student learns during a set time and the extent to which a student has reached their short-or-long

term goals (Top Hat, 2019). A non-traditional student population was chosen because of the lack

of research on post-secondary, non-traditional students utilizing blended synchronous learning

(McKenna et al., 2020). Non-traditional students meet one of seven characteristics: delayed

enrollment into post-secondary education, attends college part-time, works full time, is

financially independent for financial aid purposes, has dependents other than a spouse, or is a

single parent (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019).

Research Question(s)

This study sought to answer the following research question:

RQ1: Is there a difference in student engagement and student achievement for students

participating in blended synchronous learning or asynchronous online learning for non-

traditional students?

Hypothesis(es)

The null hypothesis for this study is:

H0: There is no statistically significant difference in student engagement as measured by

the Distance Education Learning Environment Survey, or student achievement measured

by the Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire, for non-traditional students

participating in blended synchronous learning or asynchronous online learning.

 58

Participants and Setting

Population

The population was drawn from a seminary in a low-income city of southwest Ohio.

Students are geographically located across the United States and around the world from varying

economic and social backgrounds. Seminary students include non-traditional students who attend

seminary classes in either asynchronous online or blended synchronous learning modalities. The

total enrollment at the seminary is 412.

Participants

The participants for this study were drawn from a convenience sample of students. A

convenience sample was chosen because the groups of students were naturally occurring,

available, and easy to study (Gall et al., 2007). The researcher did not manually assign students

to the asynchronous online or the blended synchronous courses (Gall et al., 2007). Students

opted for the learning environment that was conducive to their needs.

The survey link was provided to the students during summer, 2022. The number of

participants sampled was 160 which exceeded the required minimum of 72 students per group

with the statistical power of 0.7 at the .05 alpha level when assuming a medium effect size.

According to Gall et al. (2007), 144 students is the required minimum for a MANOVA. A total

of 182 possible surveys were delivered.

The sample came from five different courses. Each course was offered in an

asynchronous online and a blended synchronous modality. Students were selected from courses

required by all students attending seminary, and included the following introductory courses, Old

Testament, New Testament, Church History, Theology, and Pastoral Care. After the data was

collected, 144 surveys were needed to meet the criteria. Surveys were randomly chosen from the
 59

total surveys collected. Demographic statistics for this study were derived from data collected.

Participants’ self-reported demographic information regarding age, gender, degree program, and

the number of asynchronous online and blended synchronous classes taken overall are recorded

in Table 1.

Table 1
Demographic Statistics
Asynchronous Online Blended Synchronous
Gender
Male 38 40
Female 28 20
Did not disclose 6 12
Age Range
35-39 10 23
40+ 62 49
Degree Program
MDiv 49 49
MACM 2 10
MMin 14 10
MTS 4 3
MA 3 0
Number of Asynchronous
Courses Taken
1-5 15 37
6-10 22 12
11-15 18 19
16-20 17 4
Number of Blended
Synchronous Courses Taken
1-5 62 57
6-10 8 10
11-15 0 3
16-20 2 2

The faculty for this study comprised of five different faculty members in the fall semester

and six different faculty members in the spring semester. There were four males and one female,

three Caucasians, one Asian, and one African American. The spring semester contained two

female and four males. There were two African American, three Caucasian, and one other. All
 60

faculty are full-time residential faculty who teach both asynchronously online and blended

synchronously. The faculty have completed an online teaching and learning certificate program

to aid them with the necessary skills to teach asynchronously online.

Setting

The free-standing accredited seminary used in this study is in southwest Ohio. The

seminary is accredited through The Association of Theological Schools and the Higher Learning

Commission to offer degrees in theological education. This seminary was founded in 1871. It

derived from a seminary for the United Brethren in Christ Church, to the Evangelical United

Brethren Church, and more recently The United Methodist Church. The seminary offers several

master’s degrees, a Doctor of Ministry degree, and several non-degree options. The master’s

degrees are the only program that offers courses in both asynchronous online and blended

synchronous modalities (United, 2022).

Asynchronous online and blended synchronous graduate courses were used in this study.

Courses delivered in fall of 2021 began on September 13th and ended on December 17th. Spring

2022 courses were delivered between February 7th and May 13th. Each semester was fourteen

weeks in length. The survey link was provided to the students who attended the introductory

classes in the fall of 2021 and spring of 2022 during the summer of 2022.

The courses were delivered asynchronously via the internet through the learning

management system (LMS), Canvas. At the time of the study, Canvas was a popular LMS, with

over 30 million users (“Instructure’s Company Story”, n.d). Instructure is the parent company

that owns Canvas (“Instructure’s Company Story”, n.d.). According to “Instructure’s Company

Story” (n.d), Instructure is a large company with a market value of over 1 billion dollars. Based

on this information, Canvas was a prominent LMS in online learning.

 61

Canvas LMS was used to deliver content, post student grades, and provide opportunities

for student engagement and communication among students and the instructor. This was where

students gathered information, turned in assignments, and participated in discussion forums. The

primary engagement in the asynchronous environment was weekly discussion forums. Students

engaged in the weekly discussions, for each of the fourteen weeks of the course. The weekly

discussions began by students responding to the posed open-ended question(s). Students then

responded to other student posts to engage in dialogue. Discussions allowed for threaded replies

for all who were involved in the discussion. The instructor requires that students interact with

one another. Some discussions received numerous responses and others received no responses.

The instructor interjected or made corrections as they saw necessary.

The courses that were delivered in the blended synchronous modality used Cisco WebEx

and Canvas LMS. At the time of the study, Cisco WebEx had 324 million users (“WebEx”,

2021). The Cisco WebEx platform was trusted by 85% of Fortune 500 companies (“WebEx”,

2021). It provided a flexible, inclusive, and secure platform for participants to have virtual

conferences, or in the case of the study, live classrooms.

Cisco WebEx provided the platform for the students in the classroom and the instructor to

participate together during class time. Live discussions took place. Students and the instructor

shared content, sessions were recorded for later reviewing, and emoji’s were used to convey

expressions during the live session. Cisco WebEx provided different ways of engaging during

the sessions, including polling, Q&A, and chat. Students in the blended synchronous session

used Canvas LMS to access the lecture recordings, turned in assignments, received feedback, and

dialogued with other students and the instructor outside of class time.
 62

Instrumentation

Distance Education Learning Environment Survey

For the purposes of this study, the researcher gathered a variety of data. The Distance

Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES) was used to gather data on student

engagement (Walker & Fraser, 2005). See Appendix A. The purpose of the instrument’s

development was to emerge and validate a new learning environment questionnaire for distance

education in higher learning measuring two distinctively different fields: social ecology and

distance education (Walker & Fraser, 2005). The new instrument investigated the association

between the nature of distance education environment and student’s enjoyment of their studies

(Walker & Fraser, 2005).

DELES used a three-stage approach (Walker & Fraser, 2005). Stage one identified

learning environment scales to address the three social organizational dimensions of relationship,

personal development, and system maintenance and change that consisted of a literature review,

review of previous instruments, develop scales, and expert reviews (Walker & Fraser, 2005).

Stage two involved a three-step process to write individual items, including considering

negatively worded items, adopting items previously validated, and subjecting the entire set of

items for validation by experts (Walker & Fraser, 2005). The third stage was field testing and

analysis which required two steps using a large sample of the target audience to remove items to

enhance the instrument (Walker & Fraser, 2005). Responses were collected from 186

undergraduate students, 364 masters, and 130 doctoral students (Walker & Fraser, 2005).

The survey was designed to assess an important learning environment that had not

previously existed (Walker & Fraser, 2005). This study contributes to distance education

research, higher education studies, and learning environments (Walker & Fraser, 2005).
 63

Instructors and instructional designers seeking to develop high quality distance education must

look further into strategies for student interaction and collaboration. The instrument was used in

numerous studies (Ferrer-Cascales et al., 2011; Sahin, 2008; Wickersham & McGee, 2008). For

this study, the DELES was a valid instrument, Cronbach’s alpha was greater than .7 see table 2

below.

Validity

In the development of the survey, the target population was that of higher education

students in both public and private universities. During the development of the DELES an

intuitive-rational strategy was used to keep only items with high internal consistency in the final

instrument (Walker & Fraser, 2005). According to Walker and Fraser (2005), validity was

determined using factor analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. The highest

proportion of variance is the scale of Student Interaction and Collaboration at 14.31%, followed

by Instructor Support at 14.10%, Personal Relevance at 13.88%, and then Authentic Learning at

10.35% (Walker & Fraser, 2005). Those four scales account for over half of the variance within

the instrument. Student Autonomy accounts for 8.50%, and Active Learning for 6.01% (Walker

& Fraser, 2005). A cumulative variance for all subscales is 67.15% leaving approximately 33%

of variance unaccounted for (Walker & Fraser, 2005).

 64

Reliability

Table 2

DELES Subscales and Alpha (Walker & Fraser, 2005)

Subscale Cronbach’s Alpha

Instructor Support .84

Student Interaction and Collaboration .94

Personal Relevance .92

Authentic Learning .89

Active Learning .75

Student Autonomy .79

Student Satisfaction .95

Note. Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and Validation of an Instrument for

Assessing Distance Education Learning Environments in Higher Education: The Distance

Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3),

289–308. [Link]

The internal reliability ranged from .75 to .94 for each of the six DELES scales (Walker

& Fraser, 2005). To ensure reliability, Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for this study.

The DELES consist of 34-question survey was used to assess participants engagement

based on six different areas. A final area with eight questions on student satisfaction were

included bringing the total number of questions to 42 on the survey. Students responded to a

five-point Likert scale (5-always, 4-often, 3-sometimes, 2-seldom, 1-never) to a variety of

questions divided into the six different areas mentioned above. Each of the six subsets calculates

a mean score, each of the mean scores are combined into a total mean. The lowest possible mean

score is 1.2 indicating that a participant marked never for all 42 items. The highest possible mean
 65

score is 6 revealing that a participant marked always for all 42 items on the DELES. See table 3

below for potential scores of each subsection.

Table 3
DELES Scales and Potential Scores

Scale Total Questions 5-Point Likert Potential Scores

Scale
Instructor Support 8 1.6 to 8

Student Interaction and

6 1.2 to 6
Collaboration

Personal Relevance 7 1.4 to 7

Authentic Learning 5 1 to 5

Active Learning 3 0.6 to 3

Student Autonomy 5 1 to 5

Student Satisfaction 8 1.6 to 8

Total 8.4 to 42
42
Average Mean 1.2 to 6

Note. Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and Validation of an Instrument for

Assessing Distance Education Learning Environments in Higher Education: The Distance

Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3),

289–308. [Link]

The DELES was provided by Scott Walker, who owns the copyright for the DELES.

Permission to use the survey was granted and can be found in Appendix B.

Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire

The Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ) was used to gather data on

student achievement (Barnard et al., 2009). See Appendix C for instrument. The purpose of this
 66

instrument was to measure self-regulation in the online learning environment because the

understanding of teaching and learning in the online environment was lagging traditional

teaching and learning (Barnard et al., 2009). The goal was to develop an instrument to measure

student’s ability to self-regulate their learning in an environment wholly or partially web-based

(Barnard et al., 2009).

This instrument was developed across two main studies. The first study consisted of

students enrolled in blended courses (Barnard et al., 2009). It consisted of 434 students enrolled

in a course having a blended or hybrid format at a large public university located in the

southwestern portion of the United States (Barnard et al., 2009). The OSLQ was administered

online; after the questionnaire was completed some items were recoded and reversed per

instructions, but no modifications were made to the instrument (Barnard et al., 2009). The second

study consisted of students enrolled in fully online courses (Barnard et al., 2009). It consisted of

628 students enrolled in online courses at a large public institution in the southwestern portion of

the United States (Barnard et al., 2009). The same procedure was followed as in study one, the

survey was administered online (Barnard et al., 2009). Based upon study one and two, the

evidence indicated reliability and validity in the OSLQ instrument for assessing self-regulation

learning skills for both students in blended environments and online environments.

The instrument was used in numerous studies (Fung et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2021; Vilkova

& Shcheglova, 2021). For this study, the OSLQ survey was a valid instrument, Cronbach’s alpha

was greater than .8 see table 4 below.

Validity

Two studies were utilized to determine the validity and reliability. In study one a

confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to construct validity (Barnard et al., 2009). There were
 67

five statistics reported to reflect fitness. Chi-square goodness of fit was significant with p<.05;

ratio of chi-square statistic to degrees of freedom with a value of 3.08, which is acceptable fit,

the root mean square error of approximation with a value of 0.04 which is acceptable, Tucker

Lewis Index with a value of .95, and the Comparative Fit Index with a value of .96 both of which

indicate a good fit (Barnard et al., 2009).

The second study used the same five statistics to test validity. Chi-square goodness fit

was significant with p<.05, ratio of chi-square statistic to degrees of freedom with a value of 2.77

which is an acceptable fit, the root mean square error of approximation with a value of 0.06

which is acceptable, Tucker Lewis Index with a value of .93, and the Comparative Fit Index with

a value of .95 both of which indicate a good fit (Barnard et al., 2009).

Reliability

A reliability .70 or better is acceptable (Barnard et al., 2009). Each of the subsets, the

internal consistency was examined ranging from .67-.90 which revealed a sufficient score for

reliability in the first study (Barnard et al., 2009). The internal consistency scored .90 during

study one. In the second study, each of the subsets, the internal consistency was examined and

ranged from .87 to .96 revealing a sufficient score for reliability (Barnard et al., 2009). The

internal consistency scored a .92 during study two.

 68

Table 4
OSLQ Subscales and Alpha Values

Subscale Cronbach’s Alpha

Goal Setting .88

Environment Structuring .92

Task Strategies .85

Time Management .91

Help-Seeking .92

Self-Evaluation .89

Note. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-

regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education,

12(1), 1–6. [Link]

The internal reliability ranged from .85 to .92 for each of the six OSLQ scales (Barnard et

al., 2009). To ensure reliability, Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for this study.

The OSLQ, 24-question survey was used to assess participants achievement based on six

different areas: environment structuring, goal setting, time management, help seeking, task

strategies, and self-evaluation (Barnard et al., 2009). This instrument measures achievement

upon their ability to understand and control the learning environment. The survey is broken

down into six-subsets: goal setting, environment structuring, task strategies, time management,

help seeking, and self-evaluation (Barnard et al., 2009). Students responded to a five-point Likert

scale (5-strongly agree, 4-agree, 3-neutral, 2-disagree, 1-strongly disagree) to a variety of

statements divided into the six-subsets listed above (Barnard et al., 2009). The lowest possible

mean score is 1.2 meaning low levels of self-regulated learning and the highest is 6.0 meaning

high levels of self-regulation.

 69

Table 5
OSLQ Scales and Potential Scores

Scale Total Questions 5-Point Potential Scores

Likert Style
Goal Setting 5 1 to 5

Environment Structuring 4 1 to 5

Task Strategies 3 0.6 to 3

Time Management 3 0.6 to 3

Help-Seeking 4 1 to 5

Self-Evaluation 4 1 to 5

Total 5.2 to 26
23
Mean Average .087 to 4.33

Note. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-

regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education,

12(1), 1–6. [Link]

The OSLQ does not require permission for use. See Appendix D for the survey.

Procedures

Prior to the study beginning the researcher obtained permission from Liberty University’s

Institutional Review Board (IRB). See Appendix E for approval. Written approval from the IRB

office at the seminary for the research site was obtained (see Appendix F). Once the approvals

were met participants were secured, and the research was conducted. All students who registered

for the introductory courses of New Testament, Old Testament, Theology or Church History in

either the asynchronous or blended synchronous courses received a recruitment email requesting

their participation in the study. In the recruitment email, the researcher explained to the students

that their participation was completely voluntary, confidential, and will not impact their standing
 70

with the seminary. See Appendix G for a copy of the recruitment email.

The students were provided a link to the survey in Evaluation Kit, during the summer of

2022 through Canvas, which contained the consent form. The consent form described the

purpose of the study, explained the procedures, and provided a space for participants to agree to

the participation. See Appendix H for consent form. The survey stayed open for four weeks.

Students who had not completed the survey received weekly reminders until the survey closed.

Data Collection

The researcher entered the DELES and OSLQ items into one combined survey on

Evaluation Kit for distribution. The link to the survey was provided through the Canvas LMS

course sites for the students participating in the study. The survey took approximately 20-25

minutes to complete which was explained on the informed consent. After the survey was

administered, the responses were downloaded from Evaluation Kit in four different formats. This

included the raw statistical data, the mean score, and the percentage of completion.

Data Security

At all stages of the data collection, all information that could identify individual

participants were protected. The data was stored securely with a password only the researcher

had access to the records. Data stored on a password protected computer, in a password protected

file. When not utilized, the password protected file was closed and the computer locked. The data

was retained for three years after the completion of this research study.

Data Analysis

The null hypothesis was tested through a multivariate analysis (MANOVA). A

MANOVA is a tool for measuring the statistical significance of an independent categorical

variable, learning environments (blended synchronous and asynchronous online) and multiple
 71

dependent variables, student engagement and student achievement (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;

Gall et al., 2007). The MANOVA provided the inferential statistics and the descriptive statistics

for each group in the independent variable (Gall et al., 2007). Since this study is causal

comparative, the inferred results will show a possible statistically significant relationship

between the type of learning environment, student engagement and student achievement.

Data screening included a visual screening to check for missing data points and

inaccuracies. A box and whisker plot were used to determine if the data was skewed or if there

are extreme outliers that needed to be removed from the data (Warner, 2021). After the

completion of the data screening, assumptions then will need to be tested.

The assumption of normality was assessed with the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,

with the sample size greater than 50, and a Mahalanobis distances value. To assess the

assumption of multivariate normal distribution a scatterplot matrix was created between each

pair of dependent variables for each group of the independent variable. Each scatterplot of the

matrix was examined for the classic “cigar shape.”

The Assumption of Homogeneity of Variance-Covariance matrices will test this

assumption in SPSS using Box's M test of equality of covariance. If the data fails this assumption

with p < .05, then the SPSS would be used to carry out Levene's test of homogeneity of

variance to determine where the problem lies. The null hypothesis was rejected at the 95%

confidence level. The absence of multicollinearity was assessed by examining the correlation

between dependent variables.

The SPSS software package was used by the researcher to evaluate the relationship

between student engagement and the asynchronous online course based on the DELES survey

results. Then, the researcher used the SPSS software to evaluate the relationship between student
 72

achievement and the asynchronous online course based on the OSLQ survey results. The

researcher then used the SPSS software package to evaluate the relationship between student

engagement and the blended synchronous online course based on the DELES survey results.

Lastly, the researcher used the SPSS software package to evaluate the relationship between

student achievement and the blended synchronous online course based upon the OSLQ survey

results.

Ethical Considerations

The students’ identities remained anonymous. No identifying information was collected,

and the researcher did not have access to the names of the student participants. The survey was

distributed through Evaluation Kit in Canvas that provided access to only students who meet the

qualifications of New Testament, Old Testament, Theology, and Church History. Using a third

party to distribute the survey helped avoid any potential conflict of interest between the

researcher and the participants.

The respondents were all adult age, participants acknowledged privacy rights and

informed consent as part of the electronic survey process prior to beginning the survey. Informed

consent was accomplished by responding to item one of the surveys on the opening page. A

negative response to item one ended the survey. After responding affirmatively to item one,

participants were directed to an electronic version of the DELES and OSLQ.

 73

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Overview

The purpose of this quantitative, causal-comparative study was to investigate graduate

students’ engagement and achievement based on content delivery mode. The researcher utilized

the results of the DELES and the OSLQ survey administered for the 2021-2022 academic school

year. This chapter includes the research question, null hypothesis, descriptive statistics, and the

results of this study.

Research Question(s)

RQ1: Is there a difference in student engagement and student achievement for students

participating in blended synchronous learning or asynchronous online learning for non-

traditional students?

Null Hypothesis(es)

H0: There is no statistically significant difference in student engagement as measured by

the Distance Education Learning Environment Survey, or student achievement measured by the

Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire, for non-traditional students participating in

blended synchronous learning or asynchronous online learning.

Descriptive Statistics

The final participants in this study consisted of 144 students from the seminary. 182

students completed the survey, but only 144 were valid for the data analysis. Of the 144 students,

54% were male, 33% were female, and 13% did not disclose. Descriptive statistics were obtained

on the dependent variables for each group of the independent variable. Descriptive statistics are

found in Table 6.
 74

Table 6
Dependent Variables: Student Engagement and Student Achievement

Environment M SD n
Asynchronous 3.5023 .89578 72
Online
Student Blended 3.7292 1.01724 72
Engagement Synchronous
Total 3.6157 .96184 144

Asynchronous 3.7161 .41685 72

Online
Student Blended 3.5724 .30155 72
Achievement Synchronous
Total 3.6443 .36963 144

Results

Hypothesis: The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in student

engagement as measured by the DELES, or student achievement measured by the OSLQ, for

non-traditional students participating in blended synchronous learning or asynchronous online

learning. Data analysis was conducted to address this null hypothesis and answer the research

question.

Data Screening

Data screening was conducted on each group’s dependent variable, and data were

scanned for entry errors and inconsistencies. No data errors or inconsistencies were identified.

Students who did not meet the requirements (age and non-traditional) were removed from the

data file. All data points were retained.

Assumptions

MANOVA requires that the following assumptions be tenable:

o linearity (Use scatterplots)

 75

o no multicollinearity (Use Pearson correlations between the dependent variable. The

assumption is tenable if the correlation is moderate and less than .9).

o no univariate or multivariate outliers (Use Box plots to check for univariate outliers

and use Mahalanobis distance test for multivariate outliers)

o multivariate normality (Use Wilk’s Lambda)

o homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices (Use Box’s M)

o homogeneity of variances (Use Levene’s test of equality of variance)

Assessment of Linearity

Scatterplot matrices were used to determine if there was a linear relationship between the

dependent variables and each group of the independent variable. The scatterplots show a linear

relationship between the dependent variables in each group; therefore, the assumption of

linearity is tenable. Refer to Figure 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1
Scatterplot Matrix: Asynchronous Online and Dependent Variables
 76

Figure 2

Scatterplot Matrix: Blended Synchronous and Dependent Variables

Assumption of No Multicollinearity

Pearson correlations between the dependent variables were used to test this assumption.

The dependent variables should show a slight correlation. The assumption is tenable if the

correlation is moderate and less than .9. As seen in Table 7, the correlations are both less than .9;

therefore, the assumption of multicollinearity is tenable.

 77

Table 7
Pearson Correlations
Dependent
Variables
Student Student
Engagement Achievement
Student Pearson 1 .078
Engagement Correlation
Sig. (2- .351
tailed)
η 144 144

Student Pearson .078 1

Achievement Correlation
Sig. (2- .351
tailed)
η 144 144

Note. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Assumption of no Univariate Outliers or Multivariate Outliers

Box plots were used to detect extreme univariate outliers in each dependent variable. The

Boxplot revealed no extreme outliers. See Figure 3 and Figure 4 for box and whisker plots.

Figure 3
Box Plots: Student Achievement
 78

Figure 4

Box Plots: Student Engagement

Mahalanobis distance was used to test the assumption of no multivariate outliers. To

determine if a calculated Mahalanobis distance was a concern, the computed value was

compared to a chi-square (x2) distribution with degrees of freedom equal to 2, the number of

dependent variables and an alpha level of .001 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). The chi-square

critical value is 13.82. The largest Mahalanobis distance was 7.03 which is less than 13.82.

Therefore, the assumption of no multivariate outliers was tenable.

Assumption of Multivariate Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test for multivariate normality as the sample size

was greater than 50. Table 8 provides the results of all Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. The p value

for student achievement, blended synchronous is .073 which is greater than .05. Only student

engagement, blended synchronous’ value of .024 is less than .05. Further normality tests were

conducted using Q-Q plot for student engagement, blended synchronous, see Figure 5. All other

Kolmogorov-Smirnov values are tenable.

 79

Table 8
Test of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic df p
Groups
Blended Student .113 72 .024
Synchronous Engagement
Student .100 72 .073
Achievement
Asynchronous Student .091 72 .200*
Online Engagement
Student .089 72 .200*
Achievement
*This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a Lilliefors Significance Correction

Figure 5
Normal Q-Q Plot of Student Engagement: Blended Synchronous

Normal Q-Q Plot of Student Engagement

2
1.5
1
Expected Normal

0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Observed Value

Assumption Homogeneity of Variance Covariance Matrices

Box’s M, also called the Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices, was used to test

the assumption of equality of variance-covariance. There was homogeneity of variance-

 80

covariance matrices as assessed by Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices (p = .009): the

assumption of equality of variance-covariance was not tenable. See Table 9. Because this

assumption was not met, a Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was completed.

Table 9

Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices

Box’s M 11.751

F 3.857

df 1 3

df 2 3629520.000

Sig. .009
Tests the null hypothesis that the observed
covariance matrices of the dependent variables are
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Learning_Environment

Assumption of Homogeneity of Variance

The assumption of homogeneity of variance was examined using the Levene’s test. The

assumption of homogeneity of variances showed that p > .05 for the dependent variable student

engagement. This resulted in no statistical significance for that dependent variable and equal

variances. However, the variable student achievement was .01, thus violating the assumption of

variance for that variable (see Table 10). MANOVA is robust to some violation of the

assumption of homogeneity of variance when the sample size is sufficiently large, and the groups

are of equal size.

 81

Table 10
Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances

Levene df1 df2 p

Statistic

Student Based on 1.560 1 142 .214

Engagement Mean

Based on 1.359 1 142 .246

Median

Based on
Median and 1.359 1 139.857 .246
with adjusted
df

Based on
1.454 1 142 .230
trimmed
mean

Student Based on
6.881 1 142 .010
Achievement Mean

Based on
6.615 1 142 .011
Median

Based on
Median and
6.615 1 132.770 .011
with adjusted
df

Based on
trimmed 6.890 1 142 .010
mean

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + Learning Environment

Results for null hypothesis

Wilk’s Lambda was used to test the null hypothesis that there was no significant

difference in student engagement and student achievement for non-traditional students based
 82

upon learning environment. The statistical significance was between learning environments and

the dependent variables where F (2, 141) = 4.184, p .017; Wilks’ = .944; partial η2 = .056. This

showed that there was a statistical significance where p < .05, therefore the researcher rejected

the null hypothesis stating there was no significant difference between student engagement and

student achievement based on learning environment (See Table 11). The researcher chose to

continue with post hoc testing in the form of univariate one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Table 11
Multivariate Testsa
Hypothesis

Effect Value F df Error df p Partial

Eta
Squared
Intercept Pillai’s .991 7712.823b 2.000 141.000 <.001 .991
Trace
Wilk’s .009 7712.823b 2.000 141.000 <.001 .991
Lambda
Hotelling’s 109.402 7712.823b 2.000 141.000 <.001 .991
Trace
Roy’s 109.402 7712.823b 2.000 141.000 <.001 .991
Largest
Root
Learning Pillai’s .056 4.184b 2.000 141.000 .017 .056
Environment Trace
Wilks’ .944 4.184b 2.000 141.000 .017 .056
Lambda
Hotelling’s .059 4.184b 2.000 141.000 .017 .056
Trace
Roy’s .059 4.184b 2.000 141.000 .017 .056
Largest
Root

a. Design: Intercept + Learning_Environment

b. Exact statistic
 83

Post Hoc Testing

To further examine where statistically significant differences existed, the researcher

conducted between-subjects tests, or multiple one-way ANOVAs. Results for this test are shown

in Table 12.

Table 12
Univariate One-Way ANOVAs

Source DV Type III df MS F p η p2

SS
Corrected Student 1.853a 1 1.853 2.017 .158 .014
Model Engagement
Student .744b 1 .744 5.618 .019 .038
Achievement
Intercept Student 1882.596 1 1882.596 2049.428 <.001 .935
Engagement
Student 1912.418 1 1912.418 14449.647 <.001 .990
Achievement
Learning Student 1.853 1 1.853 2.017 .158 .014
Environment Engagement
Student .744 1 .744 5.618 .019 .038
Achievement
Error Student 130.441 142 .919
Engagement
Student 18.794 142 .132
Achievement
Total Student 2014.889 144
Engagement
Student 1931.956 144
Achievement
Corrected Student 132.293 143
Total Engagement
Student 19.537 143
Achievement
a. R Squared = .014 (Adjusted R Squared = .007)
b. R squared = .038 (Adjusted R Squared = .031)

Tests of between-subjects effects revealed that the variable of student achievement, p =

.029, was contributing to the statistical significance, F (2, 242) = 5.618, p < .05, partial η2 = .038.
 84

Participants in the asynchronous online learning environment scored higher on student

achievement (M = 3.72 SD = .42) than participants in the blended synchronous learning

environment (M = 3.57 SD = .30).

Since there are two dependent variables, a Bonferroni correction was made, meaning to

assert statistical significance, p < .025, instead of p < .05. Even with this correction, student

achievement for the two groups showed statistically significant differences, p < .0005. The

researcher rejected the null hypothesis stating no statistically significant difference when

comparing student engagement and student achievement based on learning environment.

 85

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Overview

The current study was conducted to fill a gap in the literature that exists comparing blended

synchronous and asynchronous online courses based on student engagement and achievement for

non-traditional students. Recent research has focused on comparing a learning modality to either

student engagement or student achievement, and only a few studies have focused on comparing

learning modalities to student engagement and student achievement. The following chapter

addresses a discussion of results from the current study, implications from those results,

limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.

Discussion

The purpose of this quantitative causal-comparative study was to investigate graduate

student engagement and student achievement based on content delivery model. The research

hypothesis stated that there was no statistically significant difference in student engagement as

measured by the DELES, or student achievement as measured by the OSLQ, for non-traditional

students participating in blended synchronous learning or asynchronous online learning. Analysis

of the data indicated there was a statistically significant difference between the dependent

variables of student engagement and student achievement and the learning environment, see

Table 11. Post hoc testing was conducted to determine where the statistical differences existed

and found that student achievement was contributing to the statistical significance, F (2, 242) =

5.618, p < .05, partial η 2 = .038. A Bonferroni adjusted α level of .025 was used for both

dependent variables. Even with this correction, student achievement for both groups showed

statistical significance. The research hypothesis was rejected.

 86

According to current research on student engagement, Bolliger and Halupa (2018)

transactional distance and student autonomy are different for every student but can be bridged

through student engagement and effective teaching strategies. The current study supports these

findings as the smaller transactional distance existed in the blended synchronous environment

which resulted in higher student engagement thus supporting Bolliger and Halupa (2018)

research. Bolliger and Halupa (2018) and Best and Conceico (2017) showed that learning

activities maximized student engagement, but instructors need to facilitate interactions and build

student engagement strategies into all different learning modalities. In the current study,

instructors facilitated interactions among the students in the blended synchronous modality

where student engagement was higher, further supporting Bolliger and Halupa (2018) and Best

and Conceico (2017) study. Neither Bolliger and Halupa (2018) or Best and Conceico (2017)

specifically looked at student engagement from varying learning modalities or types of students

therefore this current study helped to fill the gap in research.

Yang et al. (2019) revealed that students who attended courses online had better student

achievement than those who attended traditional classes. The results of the current study further

support the research by Yang et al. (2019) by demonstrating student achievement in the

asynchronous online courses. Permanent video content posted online provide students with the

ability to replay, pause, and jump forward or backward to aid students in higher achievement.

The current study further supports the research by Yang et al. (2019) by showing that students

having access to instructional content that they can refer to result in higher student achievement

than those participating in the blended synchronous learning environment. A study by Zhou and

Cole (2017) found that student achievement was influenced by student involvement within the

institution, including contact between students and their faculty which refuted the findings of the
 87

current study. In the current study, students in the blended synchronous courses had greater

contact with their faculty and the institution, but the student achievement was lower statistically

when compared to the asynchronous online courses.

TDT comprised of distance teaching and student autonomy (Moore, 1972). It was one of

the theories within the theoretical framework for the current study. TDT was demonstrated in the

blended synchronous learning environment where students and instructors have regularly

scheduled time together. Lessened transactional distance suggests a higher level of student

engagement within blended synchronous courses. Based on this current study, the transactional

distance was lessened in the blended synchronous learning environment, and student engagement

was a higher mean score of 3.73 when compared to those participating in the asynchronous

online learning modality with a mean score of 3.50. This means that the transactional distance

was lessened in the blended synchronous courses resulting in better student engagement, adding

Moore’s TDT.

Student involvement theory was the other theory within the theoretical framework for this

study in relationship to student achievement. Astin (1984) defined student involvement as the

amount of physical and psychological energy a student devoted to their academic experience.

Increased student involvement would suggest that student achievement would have been higher

in the blended synchronous courses where students are required to show up at a specific time.

However, the results of the current study found that student achievement was statistically lower

in the blended synchronous courses where students had greater physical access to the institution,

instructor, and students. This refutes Astin’s student involvement theory as the students

participating together physically did not result in statistically higher student achievement, 3.57 as

compared to 3.72 in the asynchronous online modality according to the OSLQ.

 88

Learner preference in both blended synchronous and asynchronous online plays a role in

both student engagement and student achievement (Heilporn et al., 2021; Lakhal et al., 2020;

McKenna et al., 2019). In the current study participants chose their preferred learning method.

The results of the DELES and the OSLQ surveys in both learning environments indicated that

students probably chose their preferred environment and engaged and achieved at a level typical

for them. When comparing the independent variable - learning environment, participants had an

average mean of 3.50 for student engagement and 3.72 for student achievement in the

asynchronous online courses as compared to 3.73 for student engagement and 3.57 for student

achievement in the blended synchronous courses. The overall total average mean was 3.61 for

asynchronous online and 3.65 for the blended synchronous. This suggests that the participants

surveyed had an overall higher average of student engagement and student achievement in the

blended synchronous learning environment than the asynchronous online learning environment.

According to Lockman and Schirmer (2020), greater interaction with the content relates

to higher student achievement and overall satisfaction. A lack of personal connection in

asynchronous courses gave negative student experiences resulting in social isolation and lower

student achievement. This data supported research that student engagement and student

achievement are influenced by course design, instructional context, and instructor guidance

(Heilporn et al., 2021; Kara, 2021; Lakhal et al., 2020; Samson, 2020). Additionally, instructors

and students could both hinder and encourage the academic and social interaction of

asynchronous online learners and blended synchronous learners (Lakhal et al., 2020). This

current study supported Lakhal et al. (2020) that without further information from the

participants about the type of interactions that existed between the instructors and the students

one cannot prove that students’ engagement or achievement results of this study were neither
 89

hindered nor engaged in the participating courses.

Implications

This study provides a starting point for institutions to leverage areas around faculty and

course development to create the best learning environment for students regardless of the

learning modality. This study addressed the gap in research comparing the learning environments

to student engagement and student achievement for non-traditional students. The significant

difference that was found illustrates the need to better understand the factors that affect a

students’ engagement in the asynchronous online, and the students’ achievement in the blended

synchronous learning environment. Several implications raise student engagement in the

asynchronous online courses. Instructors facilitate interaction to guide student learning and build

student engagement (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018).

It is important for educators and policymakers in higher education institutions to

understand the needs of their students to provide learning environments that will aid in the

highest levels of engagement and achievement. Both asynchronous online and blended

synchronous courses have continued to grow despite the overall drop in higher education (Kara,

2021) increased student engagement and student achievement improve student retention.

Without research to understand the ways that instructors facilitate courses to create learning

environments that maximize student engagement and achievement, institutions will not be able

to fully realize the benefits of the different learning modalities. Student engagement and student

achievement are influenced by course design, faculty involvement, and social interaction within

the course (Heilporn et al., 2021; Kara, 2021; Lakhal, 2020; Samson, 2020), therefore, this

information should not be ruled out.

 90

Data from this study yielded mixed results where student engagement was higher in

blended synchronous courses, but student achievement was higher in asynchronous online

courses. The researcher does not believe that this means blended synchronous courses have

better engagement and asynchronous courses have higher achievement. Much of student

engagement and student achievement is driven by the individual student, how they learn best,

what instructional method works best for them, and whether they are able in each semester to

devote enough time to any type of class they are attending. However, overall student

involvement increases through personal contact between faculty and students (Wirt & Jaeger,

2014; Zhou & Cole, 2017). Students in the blended synchronous classes should have a higher

level of student involvement due to the required class session, however, the results for the study

refute that. The current study did not support that student engagement and student achievement

was greater in blended synchronous courses. Educators should continue to ask questions about

what is needed to improve the learning environment.

Limitations

There were several limitations of this study. First, participants were from a convenience

sample as the students self-selected their preferred learning modality based upon personal

preference and/or availability. This means that participants could have been in an asynchronous

online course due to the timing and not necessarily preference. Second, a larger number of

participants would ensure greater power for the data analysis and a random sampling of

participants in the blended synchronous courses. Third, generalizations of this study are limited

because the study examined a particular population of students in a completely religious

curriculum. A similar study in a different context and a different population could yield entirely

different results. Lastly, the use of a causal comparative design is a limitation because it can only
 91

investigate the possible cause-and-effect relationship and the groups are already formed not

allowing for manipulation of the variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

The statistical analysis revealed a limitation in that the variable of student achievement

was .01, thus violating the assumption of variance for that variable. Also, the correlation between

student engagement and student achievement was 0.1, suggesting a strong correlational

relationship between these two variables, which should be considered when analyzing the data.

A strong correlation does not equal a causation meaning that just because there is a strong

relationship between student engagement and student achievement does not mean that one

variable caused the other.

Recommendations for Future Research

The aim of this study was to address the gap in the literature regarding student

engagement and student achievement based on different learning modalities for non-traditional

students. The following are recommendations for future research:

1. Conduct a similar study with a larger sample population across different institutions.

2. Administer a mixed-method or qualitative study to focus on individual participants’

experiences in each of the learning environments.

3. Organize a similar study with different demographics to see how traditional students or

undergraduate students’ asses the learning environments.

4. Conduct a similar study over an entire degree program to reveal how learning modalities

impact student engagement and student achievement throughout a program.

5. Administer a similar study using a different testing instrument for student achievement.

6. Organize a study comparing blended synchronous to asynchronous online for non-

traditional students at a different type of institution (2-year, 4-year).

 92

REFERENCES

Abuhassna, H., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahya, N., Zakaria, M. A., Kosnin, A. B., & Darwish, M.

(2020). Development of a new model on utilizing online learning platforms to improve

students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational

Technology in Higher Education, 17(38), 1-23. [Link]

00216-z

Ahmed, A. M. & Osman, M. E. (2020). The effectiveness of using wiziq interaction platform on

student’s achievement, motivation and attitudes. Turkish Online Journal of Distance

Education, 21(1), 19-29.

Al-Samarraie, H. (2019). A scoping review of videoconferencing systems in higher education:

Learning paradigms, opportunities, and challenges. International Review of Research in

Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3), 121-140.

Alsalhi, N. R., Eltahir, M. E., Al-Qatawneh, S., Ouakli, N., Antoun, H. B., Abdelkader, A. F. I.,

& Jumaili, L. A. (2021). Blended learning in higher education: A study of its impact on

students’ performance. iJET, 16(14), 249-268.

Angelone, L., Warner, Z. & Zydney, J. M. (2020). Optimizing the technological design of a

blended synchronous learning environment. Online Learning Journal, 24(3), 222-240.

Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A.F.M., Danakorn, N., Abdullah, A., Ming,

G.L., Shukor, N.A., Nordin, M.S. & Baba, S. (2019). Exploring the role of blended

learning for teaching and learning effectiveness in institutions of higher learning: An

empirical investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 3433-3466.

[Link]
 93

Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal

of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.

Baker, D., Unni, R., Kerr-Sims, S., & Marquis, G. (2020). Understanding factors that influence

attitude and preference for hybrid course formats. E-Journal of Business Education &

Scholarship of Teaching, 14,(1), 174-188. [Link]

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation

in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1),

1–6. [Link]

Berry, S. (2019). Faculty perspectives on online learning: The instructor’s role in creating

community. Online Learning Journal, 23(4), 181-191.

Best, B. & Conceicao, S. (2017). Transactional distance dialogic interactions and student

satisfaction in a multi-institutional blended learning environment. European Journal of

Open, Distance and e-learning, 20(1), 138-152.

Blau, I., Weiser, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2017). How do medium naturalist and personality

traits shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of

face-to-face and synchronous e-learning. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1-23.

Bolliger, D.U. & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional

distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299-316.

[Link]

Bornschlegl, M. & Cashman, D. (2019). Considering the role of the distance student experience

in student satisfaction and retention. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and

e-Learning, 34(2), 139-155. [Link]

 94

Bourdeau, D. T., Griffith, K. V., Griffith, J. C. & Griffith, J. R. (2018). An investigation of the

relationship between grades and learning mode in an English composition course.

Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 15(2), 1-15.

Bower, M. (2011). Synchronous collaboration competencies in web-conferencing environments

– their impact on the learning process. Distance Education, 32(1), 63-83

Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M.J.W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and

implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a

cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.

Broadbent, J. & Lodge, J. (2021). Use of live chat in higher education to support self-regulated

help seeking behaviours: A comparison of online and blended learner perspectives.

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(17), 1-20.

[Link]

Budevici-Puiu, L. (2020). The necessity of change and development of the higher education

institution in the age of globalization. Romanian Journal for Multidimensional

Education, 12(1), 350-356.

Burke, K. & Larmar, S. (2021). Acknowledging another face in the virtual crowd: Reimagining

the online experience in higher education through an online pedagogy of care. Journal of

Higher Education, 45(5), 601-615. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2020.1804536

Cakiroglu, U. (2019). Community of inquiry in web conferencing: Relationships between

cognitive presence and academic achievements. Open Praxis, 11(3), 243-260.

[Link]
 95

Casey, D. M. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education

through technology. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning,

52(2), 45-51.

Clark, C. E. J. & Post, G. (2021). Preparation and synchronous participation improve student

performance in a blended learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 37(3), 187-199. [Link]

Conklin, S., Lowenthal, P., & Trespalacios, J. (2019). Graduate students’ perceptions of

interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: A case study. The Quarterly

Review of Distance Education, 20(4), 45-59.

Digest of education statistics. (2019). National Center for Education Statistics.

[Link]

Dockter, J. (2016). The problem of teaching presence in transactional theories of distance

education. Computer and Composition, 40, 73-86.

Dyment, J. & Downing, J. (2018). There was nowhere to hide…: The surprising discovery of

how weekly web conferences facilitated engagement for online initial teacher education

students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4), 399-418.

[Link]

Dyment, J., Stone, C. & Milthorpe, N. (2020). Beyond busy work: Rethinking the measurement

of online student engagement. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(7),

1440-1453. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1732879.

Elyakim, N., Reychav, I., Offir, B., & McHaney, R. (2019). Perceptions of transactional distance

in blended learning using location-based mobile devices. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 57(1), 131-169.

 96

Ferrer-Cascales, R., Walker, S.L., Reig-Ferrer, A., Fernandez-Pascual, M.D. & Albaladejo-

Blazquez, N. (2011). Evaluation of hybrid and distance education learning environments

in Spain. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1100-1110.

Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., & Birdthistle, N. (2018). The positive relationship between flipped and

blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning

in Higher Education, 146978741880170. [Link]

Francescucci, A. & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The

impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing

Education, 4(1) 60-69.

Fung, J. J.Y., Yuen, M. & Yuen, A.H.K. (2018). Validity evidence for a Chinese version of the

online self-regulated learning questionnaire with average student and mathematically

talented student. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 51(2),

111-124. [Link]

Gall, J.P., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2007). Educational Research. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Groen, J., Ghani, S., Germain-Rutherford, A. & Taylor, M. (2020). Institutional adoption of

blended learning: Analysis of an initiative in action. The Canadian Journal for the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 1-17. [Link]

rcacea.2020.3.8288

Halverson, L.R. & Graham, C.R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments:

A conceptual framework. Online Learning Journal, 23(2), 145-178.

Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S. Belisle, M. (2021). An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster

student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of

 97

Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(25), 1-25.

[Link]

Hurlbut, A. R. (2018). Online vs. traditional learning in teacher education: A comparison of

student progress. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), 248-266.

[Link]

Jacobi, L. (2017). The structure of discussions in an online communication course: What do

students find most effective? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice,

14(1), 1-16.

Jorgenson, D. A., Farrell, L. C., Fudge, J. L. & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: The

student perspective. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75-95.

doi: 10.14434/josotl.v18i.22371

Kahu, E.R., Picton, C. & Nelson, K. (2020). Pathway to engagement: A longitudinal study of the

first-year student experience in the educational interface. Higher Education, 79, 657-673.

[Link]

Kara, M. (2021). Transactional distance and learner outcomes in an online EFL context. Open

Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36(1), 45-60.

[Link]

Kastner, J.A. (2020). Blended learning: Moving beyond the thread quality of blended learning

and instructor experiences. Journal of Educators Online, 17(2), 1-18.

Kayode, B. K. (2018). Effect of communication management on distance learners’ cognitive

engagement in Malaysian institutions of higher learning. International Review of

Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 17-32.

 98

Kentor, H. E. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United

States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1), 21-34.

Kidd, T. T. (2010). Online Education and Adult Learning: New Frontiers for Teaching

Practices. IGI Global.

Kim, D. (2017). The impact of learning management systems on academic performance: Virtual

competency and student involvement. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice,

17(2), 23-35.

Kotrikadze, E. V. & Zharkova, L. I. (2021). Advantages and disadvantages of distance learning

in universities. Current Context of Education in Europe and Asia, 9(3), 1-7.

Lakhal, S. & Belisle, M. (2020). A continuum of blended and online learning. The Canadian

Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 1-8.

[Link]

Lakhal, S., Mukamurera, J., Bedard, M., Heilporn, G. & Chauret, M. (2020). Features fostering

academic and social integration in blended synchronous courses in graduate programs.

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(5), 1-22.

[Link]

Li, N. & Lefevre, D. (2020). Holographic teaching presence: Participant experiences of

interactive synchronous seminars delivered via holographic videoconferencing. Research

in Learning Technology, 28, 1-13.

Lin, X. & Gao, L. (2020). Students’ sense of community and perspectives of taking synchronous

and asynchronous online courses. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 169-179.
 99

Liu, Zi-Yu., Lomovtseva, N. & Korobeynikova, E. (2020). Online learning platforms:

Reconstructing modern higher education. iJet, 15(13), 4-21.

[Link]

Lockman, A.S. & Schirmer, B.R. (2020). Online instruction in higher education: Promising,

research-based, and evidence-based practices. Journal of Education and e-Learning

Research, 7(2), 130-152. doi: 10.20448/journal.509.2020.72.130.152.

Lu, M., Cui, T., Huang, Z., Zhao, H., Li, T., & Wang, K. (2021). A Systematic Review of

Questionnaire-Based Quantitative Research on MOOCs. The International Review of

Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 285-313.

[Link]

Luna, Y. M. & Winters, S. A. (2020). Student perceptions on blended/flipped and traditional

face-to-face: A course redesign assessment. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 9(3), 1-

12. [Link]

MacLeod, K. R., Swart, W. W. & Paul, R. C. (2019). Continual improvement of online and

blended teaching using relative proximity theory. Decision Sciences Journal of

Innovative Education, 17(1), 53-75.

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

Matthews, D. The origins of distance education and its use in the United States. T.H.E. Journal,

27(2), 54-67.

McKenna, K., Gupta, K., Kaiser, L., Lopes, T., & Zarestky, J. (2019). Blended learning:

Balancing the best of both worlds for adult learners. Adult Learning, 31(4), 139-149.
 100

McMillion, T. & King, C. S. T. (2017). Communication and security issues in online education:

Student self-disclosure in course introductions. Journal of Interactive Online Learning,

15(1), 1-25.

Milem, J.F. & Berger, J.B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring

the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student

departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387-400.

Mood, T. A. (1995). Distance Education: An Annotated Bibliography. Libraries Unlimited.

Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning.

Convergence, 5(2), 76-88

Moore, M. G. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. The Journal of

Higher Education, 44(9), 661-679. [Link]

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory in transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.). Theoretical

principles of distance education. (pp.22-28). Routledge.

Moore, M. G., & Diehl, W. C. (2019). Handbook of Distance Education (4th ed.). Routledge.

[Link]

michael-grahame-moore-william-diehl/e/10.4324/9781315296135

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view.

Thomson/Wadsworth.

Ncube, M. (2020). Quality assurance-student involvement confluence: Exploring gaps and

implications for higher education institutions in Zimbabwe. South African Journal of

Higher Education, 34(5), 47-60. [Link]

Netanda, R. S., Mamabolo, J. & Themane, M. (2019). Do or die: Student support interventions

for the survival of distance education institutions in a competitive higher education

 101

system. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 397-414.

[Link]

Noreen, S. (2020). Implementation of learning management system: A way ahead on the digital

journey in distance learning. Open Praxis, 12(3), 329-342.

Nortvig, A., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing

e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and

engagement. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), 46-55.

Olson, J. S. & McCracken, F. E. (2015). Is it worth the effort? The impact of incorporating

synchronous lectures into an online course. Online Learning, 19(2), 73-84.

Olt, P.A. (2018). Virtually there: Distant freshman in classes through synchronous online

education. Innov High Educ, 43, 381-395. [Link]

Our Story. (n.d). Instructure. [Link]

Parker, R. & Aldred, K. E. (10, April, 1986). Involvement in learning: The role of student affairs

professionals [Paper Presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American College Personnel

Association. New Orleans, LA.

Paulsen, J. & McCormick, A. C. (2020). Reassessing disparities in online learner student

engagement in higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 20-29. doi:

10.3102/0013189X19898690

Phillips, R. (1998). Models of learning appropriate to educational applications of information

technology. In Black, B. and Stanley, N. (Eds), Teaching and Learning in Changing

Times, 264-268. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The

University of Western Australia, February 1998. Perth: UWA.

[Link]
 102

Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2018). The economics of distance education: Boxing match of

productive dialogue? Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, 50(1), 14-23. doi:

10.1080?00091383.2018.1413900

Prasetya, D.D., Wibawa, A.P., Hirashima, T. & Hayashi, Y. (2020). Designing rich interactive

content for blended learning: A case study from Indonesia. The Electronic Journal of e-

Learning, 18(4), 276-287. [Link]

Quong, J., Snider, S.L., & Early, J. (2018). Reducing transactional distance in online and blended

courses through the use of a closed social media platform. Journal of Educational

Technology Systems, 47(1), 79-100.

Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I. & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on

synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23, 269-

290. [Link]

Ramirez, D. M. & Gillig, S. (2018). Computer technology and twitter for online learning and

student engagement. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(2), 137-153.

Rehn, N., Maor, D., & McConney, A. (2017). Navigating the challenges of delivering secondary

school courses by videoconference. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3),

802-813.

Reisdorf, B.C., Triwibowo, W. & Yankelevich, A. (2020). Laptop or bust: How lack of

technology affects student achievement. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(7), 927-949.

doi: 10.1177/0002764220919145.

Richmond, J. (1986). The importance of student involvement: A dialogue with Alexander Astin.

Journal of Counseling and Development. 65,92-95.

 103

Sahin, S. (2008). The relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and

their perceptions and satisfaction in web-based courses in higher education. Turkish

Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 123-138.

Samson, P. J. (2020). Student behaviors in a blended synchronous course. Journal of Geoscience

Education, 68(4), 324-333. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2020.1768002

Seaman, J., Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the

United States. Babson Survey Research Group.

[Link]

Serrano, D. R., Dea-Ayuela, M. A., Gonzalez-Burgos, E., Serrano-Gil, A. & Lalatsa, A. (2019).

Technology-enhanced student-engagement through blended learning. European Journal

of Education, 54, 273-286. [Link]

Shi, Y., Tong, M. & Long, T. (2021). Investigating relationships among blended synchronous

learning environments, students’ motivation, and cognitive engagement: A mixed

methods study. Computer & Education, 168, 1-15.

[Link]

Shoepe, T.C, McManus, J.F., August, S.E., Mattos, N.L., Volliucci, T.C. & Sparks, P.R. (2020).

Instructor prompts and student engagement in synchronous online nutrition classes.

American Journal of Distance Education, 34(3), 194-210.

[Link]

Sobko, S., Unadkat, D., Adams, J., & Hull, G. (2020). Learning through collaboration: A

networked approach to online pedagogy. E-learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 36-55.

Srivastava, A. & Beri, A. (2017). Student engagement framework in higher education. AGU

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences & Humanities, 5, 201-205.

 104

Stapleford, K. & Lee, K. (2020, October). Re-examining the theory of transactional distance

through the narratives of postgraduate online distance learners [Paper Presentation].

European Conference on e-Learning, Kidmore End. doi: 10.34190/EEL.20.019

Starr-Glass, D. (2020). Encouraging engagement: Video-conference augmentation of online

distance learning environments, 28(3), 125-132.

Swinnerton, B., Coop, T., Ivancheva, M., Czerniewicz, L., Morris, N. P., Swartz, R., Walji, S., &

Cliff, A. (2020). The Unbundled University: Researching Emerging Models in an

Unequal Landscape. In N. B. Dohn, Jandrić Petar, T. Ryberg, & M. de Laat (Eds.),

Mobility, data and Learner Agency in networked learning (pp. 19–34). essay, Springer.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd

ed.). Sage Publications

Terenzini, P. T. (1987, November). A review of selected theoretical models of student

development and collegiate impact [Paper Presentation]. Annual Meeting of the

Association for the Study of Higher Education, Baltimore, MD.

Thai, N. T. T., Wever, B. D. & Valcke, M. (2020). Face-to-face, blended, flipped, or online

learning? Impact on learning performance and student cognitions. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 36, 397-411. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12423

Top Hat. (2019, September 27). Student Achievement Definition and Meaning.

[Link]

Truhlar, A. M., Walter, M. T., & Williams, K. M. (2018). Case study: Student engagement with

course content and peers in synchronous online discussions. Online Learning, 22(4), 289-

312. doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i4.1389

 105

United. (2022, January 5). Home-United Theological Seminary in Dayton, OH. Retrieved

January 30, 2022, from [Link]

Vilkova, K. & Shcheglova, I. (2021). Deconstructing self-regulated learning in MOOCs: In

search of help-seeking mechanism. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 17-33.

[Link]

WebEx. (2021, June 29). Webex by Cisco. Webex. Retrieved October 2, 2021, from

[Link]

Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and Validation of an Instrument for

Assessing Distance Education Learning Environments in Higher Education: The Distance

Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research,

8(3), 289–308. [Link]

Wang, Q., Quek, C. L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and improving a blended synchronous

learning environment: An educational design research. International Review of Research

in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 99-118.

Wang, Q. & Huang, C. (2018). Pedagogical, social and technical designs of a blended

synchronous learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3),

451-462.

Wang, Q., Huang, C., & Quek, C. L. (2018). Students’ perspectives on the design and

implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 34(1), 1-14.

Warner, R. M. (2020). Applied Statistics I: Basic Bivariate Techniques (3rd ed.). SAGE

Publications, Inc.
 106

Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review

of the literature. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23-32.

Wickersham, L.E. & McGee, P. (2008). Perceptions of satisfaction and deeper learning in an

online course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(1), 73-83.

Wirt, L.G. & Jaeger, A.J. (2014). Seeking to understand faculty-student interaction at community

college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(11), 980-994.

[Link]

Yang, J., Yu, H. & Chen, N. Using blended synchronous classroom approach to promote

learning performance in rural. Computers & Education, 141, 1-13

Yilmaz, R. & Keser, H. (2017). The impact of interactive environment and metacognitive

support on academic achievement and transactional distance in online learning. Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 95-122. doi: 1-.1177/0735633116656453

Young, S. & Bruce, M.A. (2020). Student and faculty satisfaction: Can distance course delivery

measure up to face-to-face courses? Educational Research: Theory and Practice, 31(3),

36-48.

Zhou, J. & Cole, D. (2017). Comparing international and American students: Involvement in

college life and overall satisfaction. High Educ, 73, 655-672. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-

9982-2.

Zydney, J.M., Warner, A. & Angelone, L. (2020). Learning through experience: Using design

based research to redesign protocols for blended synchronous learning environments.

Computers and Education, 143, 1-14. [Link]

 107

APPENDIX A: Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES)

Survey has been removed due to permissions

 108

APPENDIX B: Permission to Use DELES

 109

APPENDIX C: Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ)

Uses a 5-point Likert-type response format having values strongly agree (5), agree (4), neither
agree nor disagree (3), disagree (2), strongly disagree (1).

Goal Setting Subscale

1. I set standards for my assignments in online courses.
2. I set short-term (daily or weekly) goals as well as long-term goals (monthly or for the
semester).
3. I keep a high standard for my learning in my online courses.
4. I set goals to help me manage studying time for my online courses
5. I don’t compromise the quality of my work because it is online.
Environment Structuring Subscale
6. I choose the location where I study to avoid too much distraction.
7. I find a comfortable place to study.
8. I know where I can study more efficiently for online courses.
9. I choose a time with few distractions for studying for my online courses.
10. I try to take more thorough notes for my online courses because notes are even more
important of learning online than in a regular classroom.
Task Strategies Subscale
11. I read aloud instructional materials posted online to fight against distractions.
12. I prepare my questions before joining in the chat room and discussion.
13. I work extra problems in my online courses in addition to the assigned ones to master the
course content.
Time Management Subscale
14. I allocate extra studying time for my online courses because I know it is time-demanding.
15. I try to schedule the same time every day or every week to study for my online courses,
and I observe a schedule.
16. Although we don’t have to attend daily classes, I still try to distribute my studying time
evenly across days.
Help Seeking Subscale
17. I find someone who is knowledgeable in course content so that I can consult with him or
her when I need help.
18. I share my problems with my classmates online so we know what we are struggling with
and how to solve our problems.
19. If needed, I try to meet my classmates face-to-face.
20. I am persistent in getting help from the instructor through e-mail.
Self-Evaluation Subscale
21. I summarize my learning in online courses to examine my understanding of what I have
learned.
22. I ask myself a lot of questions about the course material when studying for an online
course.
23. I communicate with my classmates to find out how I am doing in my online classes.
24. I communicate with my classmates to find out what I am learning that is different from
what they are learning.
 110

APPENDIX D: Permission to use Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ)

No permission was needed.

 111

APPENDIX E: Institutional Review Board Approval (Liberty)

July 1, 2022

Heather Shellabarger
Laura Mansfield

Re: IRB Exemption - IRB-FY21-22-1062 A QUANTITATIVE STUDY ON STUDENT

ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT BASED ON LEARNING ENVIRONMENT:
ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE AND BLENDED SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE

Dear Heather Shellabarger, Laura Mansfield,

The Liberty University Institutional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed your application in accordance
with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulations and finds your study to be exempt from further IRB review. This means you may begin your
research with the data safeguarding methods mentioned in your approved application, and no further IRB
oversight is required.

Your study falls under the following exemption category, which identifies specific situations in which
human participants research is exempt from the policy set forth in 45 CFR 46:104(d):

Category 2.(i). Research that only includes interactions involving educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic,
aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior
(including visual or auditory recording).
The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human
subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.

Your stamped consent form(s) and final versions of your study documents can be found under the
Attachments tab within the Submission Details section of your study on Cayuse IRB. Your stamped
consent form(s) should be copied and used to gain the consent of your research participants. If you plan to
provide your consent information electronically, the contents of the attached consent document(s) should
be made available without alteration.

Please note that this exemption only applies to your current research application, and any modifications to
your protocol must be reported to the Liberty University IRB for verification of continued exemption
status. You may report these changes by completing a modification submission through your Cayuse IRB
account.

If you have any questions about this exemption or need assistance in determining whether possible
modifications to your protocol would change your exemption status, please email us at irb@[Link].

Sincerely,
G. Michele Baker, MA, CIP
Administrative Chair of Institutional Research
Research Ethics Office
 112

APPENDIX F: IRB Approval from research site

 113

APPENDIX G: Recruitment Email

Dear Student:
As a graduate student in the School of Education at Liberty University, I am conducting research
as part of the requirement for a doctoral degree, and I would value your assistance. The purpose
of my research is to explore whether there is a relationship between student engagement and
student achievement based on learning environment. I am writing to invite you to join my study.

You are receiving this email because you were enrolled in an introductory course during the
2021-2022 academic school year.

Participants must be non-traditional graduate students, age 35 and above, must have been
enrolled in one of the following courses during the 2021-2022 academic school year: Old
Testament, New Testament, Introduction to Theology, or Introductory Church History.
Participants will be asked to complete an online survey which consists of the Distance Education
Learning Environment Survey (DELES) and the Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire
(OSLQ). You can expect the survey to take approximately 20-25 minutes. Participation will be
completely anonymous, and no personal, identifying information will be collected.

To participate, please click on the survey link provided in this email. A statement of informed
consent is available at the survey link. The consent document contains additional information
about my study, and no signature is required. If you choose to proceed with the survey, please
respond “yes” to item one on the survey indicating that you have read the consent information
and would like to take part in the survey.

Click on link to survey to begin the survey.

If you choose to participate, you may be compensated for participating in this study. Participants
who complete the survey within the first two weeks of receiving the initial recruitment email will
be qualified to enter a raffle for a $20 Starbucks gift card. If participants want to be entered into
the raffle, they should respond yes to the last question on the survey and click on the link to a
new survey to maintain anonymity, where they can enter their name and email address.

Please feel free to contact me at or my advisor, Dr. Mansfield, at

if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Heather Shellabarger
Ph.D. Candidate
 114

APPENDIX H: Participant Informed Consent Form

Participant Consent Form

Title of the Project: A Quantitative Study on Student Engagement and Student Achievement
Based on Learning Environment: Asynchronous Online and Blended Synchronous
Principal Investigator: Heather Shellabarger, Ph.D. Candidate, Liberty University School of
Education

Invitation to be Part of a Research Study

You are invited to participate in a research study. To participate, you must have been enrolled in
an introductory course (Church History, New Testament, Old Testament, Theology) during the
2021-2022 academic school year and be a non-traditional graduate student over the age of 35.
Taking part in this research project is voluntary.
Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in
this research.

What is the study about and why is it being done?

The purpose of the study is to investigate graduate student engagement and student achievement
based on content delivery model. The study is being done to improve online learning
environments for non-traditional adult students.

What will happen if you take part in this study?

If you agree to be in this study, I will ask you to do the following things:
1. Respond to the combined Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES)
and the Online Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ). You can expect the
survey to take approximately 20-25 minutes.

How could you or others benefit from this study?

Participants should not expect to receive a direct benefit from taking part in this study.

Benefits to society include supporting research that seeks to approve online learning
environments for non-traditional adult students.

What risks might you experience from being in this study?

The risks involved in this study are minimal, which means they are equal to the risks you would
encounter in everyday life.

How will personal information be protected?

The records of this study will be kept private. Research records will be stored securely, and only
the researcher will have access to the records.
• Your survey responses will be anonymous and any published reports, journal article, etc.
will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject.
 115

• Research records will be stored securely until destroyed. Only the researcher will have
access to the records. Data will be stored on a password protected computer, in a
password protected file. After three years, all electronic records will be destroyed.

How will you be compensated for being part of the study?

Participants may be compensated for participating in this study. Participants who complete the
survey within the first two weeks of receiving the initial recruitment email will be qualified to
enter a raffle for a $20 Starbucks gift card. If participants want to be entered into the raffle, they
should respond yes to the last question on the survey and click on the link to a new survey to
maintain anonymity where they can enter their name and email address. Participants who
complete the survey more than 2 weeks after the initial recruitment email will not be entered into
the raffle.

Is study participation voluntary?

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether to participate will not affect your
current or future relations with Liberty University or United Theological Seminary. If you decide
to participate, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time prior to
submitting the survey without affecting those relationships.

What should you do if you decide to withdraw from the study?

If you choose to withdraw from the study, please exit the survey and close your internet browser.
Your responses will not be recorded or included in the study.

Whom do you contact if you have questions or concerns about the study?
The researcher conducting this study is Heather Shellabarger. You may ask any questions you
have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at
. You may also contact the researcher’s faculty sponsor, Dr. Laura J.
Mansfield, at .

Whom do you contact if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone
other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Institutional Review Board, 1971
University Blvd., Green Hall Ste. 2845, Lynchburg, VA 24515 or email at irb@[Link].

Disclaimer: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is tasked with ensuring that human subjects
research will be conducted in an ethical manner as defined and required by federal regulations.
The topics covered and viewpoints expressed or alluded to by student and faculty researchers
are those of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of
Liberty University.
Your Consent
Before agreeing to be part of the research, please be sure that you understand what the study is
about. You can print a copy of the document for your records. If you have any questions about
the study later, you can contact the researcher using the information provided above.