LECTURERS’ USE OF TECHNIQUES IN ENHANCING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE EFL CLASSES = các PHƯƠNG PHÁP THU hút SINH VIÊN TRONG GIẢNG dạy TIẾNG ANH TRỰC TUYẾN

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

LECTURERS’ USE OF TECHNIQUES IN
ENHANCING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’
ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE EFL CLASSES

Supervisor: Nguyễn Tuấn Anh (MA)
Student: Nguyễn Thị Huyền Mi
Course: QH2017.F1.E1

HÀ NỘI – 2021


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

CÁC PHƯƠNG PHÁP THU HÚT SINH VIÊN
TRONG GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG ANH TRỰC TUYẾN

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Th.S Nguyễn Tuấn Anh
Sinh viên: Nguyễn Thị Huyền Mi
Khóa: QH2017.F1.E1

HÀ NỘI – 2021

LECTURERS’ USE OF TECHNIQUES IN
ENHANCING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’
ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE EFL CLASSES

Submitted by Nguyễn Thị Huyền Mi
Course: QH2017.F1.E1

Signature of Approval

_______________________________
Nguyễn Tuấn Anh


ACCEPTANCE PAGE
I hereby state that I: Nguyen Thi Huyen Mi, class QH2017.F1.E1, being a
candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (programme) accept the requirements
of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper
deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the
library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance
with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or
reproduction of the paper.
Signature

Nguyễn Thị Huyền Mi
Date: 04/05/2021

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to my supervisor,
Mr. Nguyen Tuan Anh for his constructive recommendations and generous
support. He has assisted me greatly throughout the whole duration of this study,
guiding me until the very last pages.
Secondly, I want to express my gratitude to Ms. Tran Thi Lan Anh and Mr.
Nguyen Huy Hoang for their helpful and practical advice. Thanks to their
comments on my research proposal and report 1 respectively, I managed to
complete this study successfully.
Thirdly, I would like to thank Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Phuong for her
constructive feedback on my questionnaire. Without her critical remarks, the
questionnaire could not have been distributed with suitable items, appropriate
format and suitable wording.
Fourthly, I want to acknowledge the assistance of 42 lecturers from English
departments at the chosen university. Without their participation, no reliable
findings could be concluded to answer the research question.
Last but not least, I feel grateful for all my family members, and my
classmates for their continuous support and unparalleled encouragement. Their
support plays an important role in motivating and encouraging me to accomplish
this research.

ii


ABSTRACT
Online engagement can be identified as a meta-construct as it involves five
different elements namely social, cognitive, behavioural, collaborative and
emotional engagement (Redmond et al., 2018). Students will be fully engaged if
they can feel a sense of belonging, while being offered opportunities to think
critically, develop skills, or interact with others. Also, expectations or assumptions

should be clarified to motivate students to achieve their goals. Within the concept
of online learning, teachers play an important role in creating engaging virtual
classes for learners, and thus, it is incontrovertible that they might employ different
engagement techniques.
Carried out with an aim to analyse the most typical techniques used to retain
students’ attention in online EFL classes, this research took place in one language
university in Vietnam. Both quantitative and qualitative research design adopting
questionnaire and observation respectively were utilised. Lecturers (n=42) from
English apartments at this university were invited to complete the questionnaire,
then observation of three online EFL classrooms was conducted.
It was shown that engagement techniques in the questionnaire were
effective for the lecturers. Specifically, three stages of online classes observed
different techniques. Before classes, material-related techniques focusing on
student-to-material interaction were favoured. However, during classes, lecturers
prioritised fostering student-to-student and student-to-lecturer interaction via
different groupings and calling students by name. After classes, feedback and
reflection were utilised to allow students to reflect on their learning experience.
Recommendations for each technique were proposed, with the introduction
of a web-based platform called Edmodo and Google Classroom, assisting lecturers
in the pre and post-class stages by allowing them to create classes for online
discussions, quizzes, assignments; share materials or inform students of important
deadlines via the add-in calendar. In the second phrase called during classes, all
participants can continue with Zoom to conduct online lessons.
Keywords: online learning, engagement, online EFL classes, engagement techniques
iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...…......……........................................

1

1.1 Problem statement and rationale of the study ...…......……...................

1

1.2 Aims and objectives ...…......……............................................…......…

2

1.3 Scope of the study ...…......……............................................…......…...

3

1.4 Significance of the study ...…......……............................................…...

3

1.5 Outline of this study ...…......……............................................…......…

4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...…......……...........................

5

2.1 Student engagement ...…......……............................................…......…

5

2.2 Online student engagement ...…......……...........................................…

9

2.3 Techniques to engage students in EFL classes ...…......…….................

12

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...…......……................ 15
3.1 Research design ...…......……............................................…......……...

15

3.2 Research population ...…......……............................................…......…

15

3.3 Sampling ...…......……................................................….......……......... 16
3.4 Research participants ...…......……...............................................…...... 16
3.5 Instruments ...…......……..................................…......……....................

17

3.6 Data collection procedure ...…......……..............................................… 18
3.7 Ethical issue ...…......…….............................................…......……........ 19
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...…......……................... 21
4.1 Results ...…......…….............................................................…......……

21

4.1.1 Engagement techniques employed before classes ...…......…………..

21

4.1.2 Engagement techniques employed during classes ...…......………….. 24
4.1.3 Engagement techniques employed after classes ...…......……………. 29
4.2 Discussion ...…......………….....…......……………...…......………….. 30
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...…......…………….....…......…………..

47

5.1 Summary of findings ...…......………….....…......…………….......…...

47

iv


5.2 Limitations …………………………………….………………………. 49
REFERENCES ...…......………….....…......……………….....…......……

51

APPENDICES …………………………………….……………………...

59

APPENDIX A: Strategies to facilitate interactions among learners,
instructors and content by Martin & Bolliger (2018) ……………………..

59

APPENDIX B: Engagement techniques employed pre-class …...……..….

61

APPENDIX C: Engagement techniques employed during-class ..……..….

63

APPENDIX D: Engagement techniques employed post-class ….……...…. 66
APPENDIX E: Observation form …………………………………….…… 68
APPENDIX F: Consent form and Questionnaire …………………………. 69

v


LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS
List of tables
Table 1

Engagement framework proposed by Fredericks et al. (2004)….

Table 2

An Online Engagement Framework for Higher Education
provided by Redmond et al. (2018)…………………….....…...

7

10

Table 3

A summary of participants based on their years of experience.. 16

Table 4

Items on the pre-class techniques subscale……………………. 22

Table 5

Items on the during-class techniques subscale………….……..

25

Table 6

Items on the post-class techniques subscale…………………...

29

Table 7

Summary of engagement prioritised pre-class…………….…... 31

Table 8

Summary of engagement prioritised in-class……………….…. 35

Table 9

Summary of engagement prioritised post-class…………….…. 42

Table 10

Summary of engagement techniques in online classes……..…. 47

List of figures
Figure 1

Five levels of engagement by Phillip Schlecty (2002)……......

Figure 2

Three factors supporting online student engagement proposed

Figure 3

by Garrison et al. (1999)………………...…………………....

9

Edomo interface and its features…………………..…….....…

49

List of abbreviations
EFL:

6

English as a Foreign Language

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem statement and rationale of the study
“Online learning has been a major area of application in information and
communication technology, it has been used over the past two decades by many
higher educational institutions around the world.” (Khaddage et al., 2020). This
can be partially put down to the convenience and flexibility of the delivery of
online education. Several stakeholders who can reap benefits from this virtual
situation can be referred to as students, teachers and institutions. Learners are given
chances to be present for online classes anywhere as long as they have their
technical devices connected to the Internet, while teachers are able to deliver the
lessons in the comfort of their own home, saving money on commuting on a daily
basis. Schools themselves can also manage their budgets more efficiently as there
will be less demand for electricity, teaching aids or studying locations.
Lately, the deadly virus called COVID-19, first discovered in a seafood
market in China, has been spreading massively over the world, posing a health
threat on human’s lives. Since people can contract this virus simply via close
contact with the infected people, social distancing has emerged as a solution to
help prevent COVID-19. As a result, myriad institutions are forced to be
temporarily closed to reduce the interaction among students, teachers and
administrators. Online learning, hence, is undoubtedly a suitable crisis-response
method, allowing the maintenance of education in the midst of this pandemic. In
other words, it is considered “a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis" (Dhawan,
2020).

However, online education is regarded as a “good-to-have alternative but
not a serious-mission model to guarantee steadiness of instructional activities"
(Ribeiro, 2020) despite its benefits. Also, the abrupt transformation from brickand-mortar classrooms into virtual ones due to the pandemic has challenged the
education system all over the world, specifically educators, due to a number of
difficulties like not being trained properly (AlBaadani & Abbas, 2020); providing
feedback (Kim et al., 2005) or engaging students (Dhawan, 2020). As teachers

1


have no control of what students are doing behind the camera, the situation is even
harder.
The same situation can be found in many higher education institutions in
Vietnam. Being an alternative to classroom-based learning during the pandemic,
E-learning is both an exciting and demanding experience for students and lecturers
owing to its novelty. Previously, classrooms, except for some at international or
private schools, were mostly held offline. Furthermore, despite the development
of technology, only a few blended, or sometimes online, courses were open to be
registered. It was not until 2020 that teachers were required to perform digital
teaching, the nature of which was so different from traditional one. Therefore, the
practice of conducting distance learning programs might be daunting for many
lecturers at first. They needed to come up with different yet suitable techniques to
retain students’ attention in online platforms like Zoom or Google Classroom,
since those adopted in offline classes could not be transferred to online ones
without modifications.
Though teaching online has been ongoing for more than a year, the topic of
engagement techniques in online environments has not been touched on too
extensively in Vietnam due to limited time and inconsistency of online classes.
Consequently, considering the current situation, this study is conducted with the
aim to bridge the gap, proposing and examining the typical engagement techniques

used by lecturers at one university in Hanoi. However, the context will be within
online EFL classes only.
1.2 Aims and objectives
With the aforementioned rationale, this study aims to explore the teaching
techniques employed by EFL lecturers in order to engage students in learning.
Accordingly, one following research question is to be addressed: What are the
typical engagement techniques employed by lecturers in online EFL classes?. At
the end of this research, not only is the research question answered, but suggestions
for English teachers to improve their teaching practice in online environments are

2


also proposed. Limitations are put forward as well for further in-depth research
into other aspects concerning internet-based engagement techniques.
1.3 Scope of the study
The study is carried out to identify the techniques utilised by the participants to
engage students in virtual classrooms. It takes place at one university focusing on
languages, in Hanoi, Vietnam for around six months. Due to time constraints,
current EFL lecturers during their academic year 2019-2021 at this university will
be potential participants in this research.
1.4 Significance of the study
The research is hoped to contribute to the development of both the research field
and society. Regarding the educational field, as stated before, this topic is still
fairly new to the field due to the lack of online instructional practice in the past.
Therefore, not only does this research help bridge the gap that has barely been
explored by researchers, particularly those in Vietnam, but it can also act as a
reference for future study.
Furthermore, the results are also expected to enhance the understanding of
stakeholders at this university, and other higher education institutions in general,

such as the teachers, students and university administrators - the key participants
in this online learning process. For lecturers, they are given chances to look back
on their online teaching experience and reflect on the adopted methods. Hence,
they are able to modify a more appropriate approach to online teaching while
revising their engagement strategies for more upcoming online classes.
Secondly, considering students, especially pre-service teachers, they can
regard this research as a guide for their future career path. To clarify, they can gain
knowledge about effective e-classroom techniques in engaging pupils, then
flexibly apply it in their lessons to help with students' achievement.
Lastly, in terms of university administrators, being in charge of the
university, it is their responsibility to provide a proper training for their employees
so as to maximise their capability for teaching. This research can be a source of
3


information to help with the design of the training programs in terms of proposing
efficient engagement techniques.
1.5 Outline of this study
This research is divided into five chapters:
Chapter 1 presents the introduction to the study, in which 4 elements are
covered namely problem statement and rationale of the study, aims and objectives,
significance and outline.
Chapter 2 reviews past literature for the researcher to decide on a
framework to guide this study.
Chapter 3 clarifies stages in conducting this study, ranging from choosing
research design, population to instruments to collect data.
Chapter 4 focuses on the results and discussion on the collected data.
Chapter 5 includes the summary of findings, along with the limitations of
the study.

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Student engagement
“Student engagement” emerged a long time ago as “the indicator of successful
teaching and learning activities" (Rahayu, 2018). In fact, this is a broad term that
is defined in different ways by researchers since it is “not simply about good
classroom behaviour or attendance, but students’ connection with learning” (Carini
et al., 2006).
In general meaning, “engagement" can be understood as one's agreement to
do something at a particular time, especially something official. Therefore, it is
reasonable to say that this word, if being placed within the educational context,
will be used to refer to students' agreement to their own learning. To be specific,
according to The Glossary of Education Reform (2016), “engagement" is
described as “the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism and passion
students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the level
of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education”. Hu and Kuh
(2002) share the same opinion as they define “engagement" as “the quality of effort
students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that contribute
directly to desired outcomes”. Also, the research carried out by Krause and Coates
(2008) presents a similar explanation, linking students' participation in activities to
high-quality learning outcomes.
In contrast, some researchers believe that engagement is not merely related
to one's own involvement throughout the learning environment. Specifically,
Martin and Torres (2016) emphasise that engagement emerges from the
relationship between pupils themselves and some elements like a school
community, adults at school, students' peers, instruction and curriculum. It is also
“what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities" (Kuh,
2001).

Levels of engagement should also be taken notice of when defining pupil
engagement. One of the most popular ones to be mentioned is the five levels of
engagement suggested by Schlecty (2002).

5


Figure 1
Five levels of engagement by Phillip Schlecty (2002)
Authentic Engagement
(High Attention - High Commitment)
Strategic Compliance
(High Attention - Low Commitment)
Ritual Compliance
(Low Attention - No Commitment)
Retreatism
(No Attention - No Commitment)
Rebellion
(Diverted Attention - No Commitment)

Authentic engagement (high attention - high commitment) is the highest
level, in which learners are autonomous in perceiving that activities are personally
meaningful, and willing to learn despite difficulty. In the lower level called
strategic compliance, students here still have high attention but low commitment.
In other words, they complete the activity with a view to achieving high grades,
marks, rank only, rather than valuing the benefits of learning. From the third level,
students will no longer be committed to their studying anymore, and their attention
degrades from low (ritual compliance) to no (retreatism) and diverted (rebellion).
They work only to meet the minimum requirements, or even worse, are disengaged
in the classroom task. Some even refuse to attend to the lessons and disrupt other

peers' learning process by performing some annoying actions.
Also, a number of other researchers decide to adopt a different approach
other than pinning a direct meaning to the term. Instead, they opt for analysing the
definition based on indicators of engagement. A framework proposed by
Fredericks et al. (2004) includes three key dimensions namely cognitive,
behavioural and emotional. Each merits a short review.
6


Table 1

Engagement framework proposed by Fredericks et al. (2004)
Three components
Cognitive engagement

Behavioural engagement
Emotional engagement

Key features
●
●
●
●

Psychological investment in academic tasks
Motivation
Persistence
Deep processing of information

● Participation in learning activities

● Collaboration with others
●
●
●
●

Feelings
Emotions
Preferences
Sense of belonging

Cognitive engagement, though hard to be explained clearly, can be
considered as “student's psychological investment in academic tasks” (Fredericks
et al., 2004). The findings of some extant research refer directly to students’
dispositions toward school work like the effort exerted towards homework (Birch
& Ladd, 1997) or the extent to which they persist when encountering difficult
academic work (Corno, 1993). This form of engagement is even examined while
students participate in learning tasks. Specifically, these studies focus on how
students deeply think about ideas and concepts, how they make meaning of the
provided materials and how they use self-regulating and metacognitive strategies
to master academic content and tasks (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012; Corno, 1993).
Agreement between these viewpoints and five levels of engagement
suggested by Schlecty (2002) points out that students with high levels of cognitive
engagement are likely to exhibit the highest level of engagement named authentic
engagement. Once students have engaged cognitively, they are likely to
concentrate on the goals while being flexible in their work and cope with failure.
On the other hand, behavioural engagement reflects students' participation
in academic, social and co-curricular activities, which includes student conduct
like obeying behaviour rules, attending lessons, arriving at classes on time,
collaborating and communicating with peers or even participating in

7


extracurricular activities and school social life (Fredericks et al., 2004).
Behavioural engagement ensures students' readiness and willingness to learn,
which helps boost the aforementioned type of engagement. In contrast, individuals
with conduct problems “are more likely to experience poor educational and social
outcomes than students whose behaviour better fits the norms and expectations of
school” (Bowers et al., 2011; Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Henry et al., 2012; Rumberger
& Rotermund, 2012).
Concerning the last component, emotional engagement highlights students’
social, emotional and psychological attachments to school. Results of previous
studies classify this indicator into two categories. The first kind focuses on
“students' levels of interest, enjoyment, happiness, boredom and anxiety during
academic activity" (Ainley, 2012) while the other holds a broader view.
Specifically, it concentrates on the relationships between students and their
teachers, classmates and school. Students feel more motivated to pursue and
complete academic tasks (Dornbusch et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2012; Voelkl, 2012)
if they can sense their belonging to a community and their emotional bond with
surrounding people. More importantly, without emotional connections, not only
are students less engaged, but they also may go through behavioural challenges
like attendance or disciplinary problems as they get older (Finn, 1989; Finn &
Zimmer, 2012).
It can be seen that definitional clarity has still been elusive. In this research,
the researcher will take the definition of Coates (2007) for engagement, which is
“a broad construct intended to encompass salient academic as well as certain nonacademic aspects of the student experience.” Students being engaged in classes do
not only learn actively and collaboratively or join in demanding academic
activities, but also have communication with academic staff, involve themselves
in enriching their own educational experiences while feeling supported by the
learning communities. In this way, engagement is conceptualised as a metaconstruct (Lawson & Lawson, 2013), consisting of three primary indicators

namely cognitive, behavioural and emotional.

8


2.2 Online student engagement
When comparing between offline and online classes, Dixson (2010) claims that
students in latter ones are more engaged and achieve higher scores. This rise in
engagement and achievement can be put down to the fact that “greater emphasis is
placed on online students to self-engage with their learning” (Wickersham &
Dooley, 2006). However, students themselves cannot take full responsibility for
their online learning experience because there are other factors that have
significant influence on learners’ engagement in online classes.
According to Garrison, Anderson & Archer’s (1999) community of inquiry
model, a range of factors that enhance student engagement in online contexts are
social, cognitive and teaching presence.
Figure 2
Three factors supporting online student engagement proposed by Garrison et al.
(1999)
Social Presence

Teaching
Presence

Cognitive
Presence

Social presence refers to “the degree to which online participants feel
connected to one another'' (Swan & Shih, 2005). It is important for teachers to
build strong relationships with their students as “connectedness leads to students’

feeling emotionally comfortable and therefore engaged in the learning
environments” (Louwrens & Hartnett, 2015). It is even argued by Gibb and Poskitt
(2010) that this is a requirement for cognitive engagement.
Regarding the second factor namely cognitive presence, it is “the extent to
which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry
are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al.,
9


1999, p.89). The key to establish this type of presence is through interaction and
collaboration, which are effective strategies to engage students even in face-toface classes.
Concerning the last kind teaching presence, “it encompasses the design and
facilitation of the educational experience (Garrison et al., 1999). The choice of
activities or materials significantly influence students’ learning. For example,
disengagement is likely to occur when “activities are too easy for learners'' or
“tasks are uninteresting or irrelevant” (Burger et al., 2012). Hence, teachers need
to be critical in choosing and adapting activities in online courses in order to trigger
students’ interest in learning.
However, in order to be as specific as possible, this study will follow a
broader overview of online engagement suggested by Redmond et al. (2018). This
framework is built on the framework by Fredericks et al. (2004) (reviewed in the
previous section), but more detailed. To clarify, five, other than three, elements for
teaching and learning in virtual classes are: social engagement, cognitive
engagement, behavioural engagement, collaborative engagement, and emotional
engagement. Indicators for such elements are specified in the following table:
Table 2

An Online Engagement Framework for Higher Education provided by Redmond
et al. (2018)
Online Engagement Element

Indicators

Social engagement

●
●
●
●

Building community
Creating a sense of belonging
Developing relationships
Establishing trust

Cognitive engagement

●
●
●
●
●

Thinking critically
Activating metacognition
Integrating ideas
Justifying decisions
Developing deep discipline understandings

Behavioural engagement

●
●
●
●

Developing academic skills
Identifying opportunities and challenges
Upholding online learning norms
Supporting and encouraging peers

10


Collaborative engagement

Emotional engagement

● Learning with peers
● Relating to faculty members
● Connecting to institutional opportunities
●
●
●
●

Managing expectations
Articulating assumptions
Recognising motivations
Committing to learning

Social engagement can be understood as “students' social investment in the
collegiate experience" (Knight, 2013, p.73), including participation in both
academic and non-academic tasks. In virtual classrooms, this type of engagement
can be presented through such activities as building community via social forums
or open communication platforms (Redmond et al., 2018, p.191) or developing
relationships with peers and instructors. Social engagement includes “building
rapport, respect, and trust to create a sense of belonging and group cohesion within
a learning community” (Sinha et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2013).
Cognitive engagement is considered the most fundamental form (Bowen,
2005). In an online environment, students with deep cognitive engagement “have
a psychological investment in learning, a preference towards learning as well as a
desire to go beyond base requirements” (Redmond et al., 2018, p.192). Other than
generally agreeing with knowledge without further questions, they know how to
integrate information from multiple sources to form new ideas or judgements
(Henri, 1992). Also, they “use metacognitive strategies to plan, monitor, and
evaluate their cognition when accomplishing tasks” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 64).
Behavioural engagement, the same as Fredericks et al. (2004) proposed,
refers to “students' positive conduct, class participation, involvement in the
learning tasks, high effort and persistence, positive attitudes, and self-regulation of
their learning" (Young, 2010, p.2). Also, they support and encourage peers to
“follow procedures, actively participate in the learning process, reduce disruptive
behaviours and complete academic tasks” (Fredricks et al., 2004). Besides learning
behaviours, students who are engaged behaviourally sharpen academic skills like
reading, writing, speaking, listening, planning, time management and goal setting
(Pittaway & Moss, 2014) to achieve successful learning outcomes.
11


Collaborative engagement focuses on various relationships and networks

that reinforce learning between students with peers, instructors or institutions.
Learners collaborate with classmates by taking part in discussion or group tasks,
tutoring, and studying in groups. For faculty and institution, instructors are advised
to use “groups” or “team activities and assessment” (Redmond et al., 2018, p.194)
to support collaborative learning.
Emotional engagement highlights students' emotional reaction towards
learning. This form of engagement can be observed through their “attitude,
enthusiasm, interest, anxiety or enjoyment in the learning process.” Learners who
appreciate the acquisition of knowledge and skills will display positive emotional
engagement (Redmond et al., 2018, p.195).
2.3 Techniques to engage students in online EFL classes
One of the greatest challenges facing teachers is to deal with disengaged students.
Nobody feels motivated to carry on with the classes if they look out into a class
full of pupils whose eyes are glued to screens scrolling through Facebook or
Instagram. The situation is proven to be worse in online environments when classes
are filled with students with turned-off cameras and audio. In fact, more attentive
students stand higher chances of achieving better academic results compared to
their uninterested peers. Therefore, it is fundamental for teachers to implement
efficient methods while conducting online classes so as to keep students stay
focused, boosting their knowledge acquisition.
In the research conducted by Kohnke & Moorhouse (2020), the researchers
emphasise the utilisation of many online synchronous meeting tools in the
COVID-19 pandemic, one of which is Zoom. Specifically, this online learning
platform provides features like annotation tools, polls, breakout rooms,
video/screen sharing that facilitate learning, which foster behavioural and
collaborative engagement. Teachers are suggested to encourage students to use
non-verbal icons when they want to ask questions, display agreement or indicate
the needs for speeding up, slowing down and taking a break since these icons
inform students’ attentiveness to the language content presented. Furthermore, if
12

icons are not enough for learners to get their message across, they should be
allowed to ask questions privately or to the whole class by typing into the chat box.
“Breakout room" function of Zoom also allows teachers to foster students'
engagement in learning as they need to use language productively to interact with
peers and produce meaning-focused output. Other features like screen sharing,
whiteboard or built-in recording helps with students' understanding and ownership
of their learning.
On the other hand, engagement occurs when there are interactions among
learners, instructors and content (Moore, 1993). The framework proposed by
Moore et al. (2018) specifies 29 items to support three types of interaction: learnerto-learner, learner-to-instructor and learner-to-content (Appendix A). Learner-tolearner interaction includes more than just communication and collaboration, as
students need to self-control their learning like moderate discussion, choose
materials or comment on peers’ answers. Learner-to-instructor interaction
highlights the assistance of lecturers such as varying their teaching methods (use
videos), reminding students of important deadlines or communicating with
students about their expectations or performance. The last kind of interaction refers
to students’ understanding of the content, in which they do not only read, but also
observe live situations and apply knowledge in discussions or scenarios. It can be
noted that while the two former interaction kinds put more emphasis on increasing
social, collaborative and behavioural engagement, the latter focuses on cognitive
and emotional engagement.
Another useful technique in facilitating online learning to be mentioned is
peer feedback, besides comments from expert teachers. Learners need to pay
attention to peers’ answers or performance, or else they cannot give any remarks.
Developing social presence and connectedness with students, providing feedback,
providing scaffolding, and being available (Ertmer et al., 2007) have all been
proven to support emotional engagement (Dixson, 2010).
In the study by Robinson et al. (2008), the researchers list out several mental
activities to improve cognitive engagement. Specifically, these activities are (1)

memorising facts, ideas or methods; (2) analysing an idea, experience, or theory;
13


(3) synthesising and organising ideas or experience; (4) making judgements about
the value of information; (5) applying theories and concepts. Overall, learners are
suggested to be provided with opportunities to learn and make sense of what they
are learning on their own.
Regarding social engagement, it highlights building a community for
learners and instructors to learn. For doing it, instructor presence is a critical factor,
which can be shown in a number of activities like “being responsive and present,
being well-organised and consistently enforcing rules” (Young & Bruce, 2011).
Also, students can develop relationships with their classmates by “committing to
working with classmates, interacting and helping fellow friends and sharing
personal concerns” (Young & Bruce, 2011).
To conclude, each researcher proposes his or her own techniques to engage
students in online classes. Overall, behavioural and collaborative engagement
seems to receive more attention than others as a larger number of researches
suggests activities to sharpen them. In this study based on the framework for online
engagement for higher education by Redmond et al. (2018), the researcher will
critically utilise and adapt the reviewed techniques to design a suitable
questionnaire.

14


CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
In this research, quantitative adopting the questionnaire as survey design, and
qualitative research design using observation were implemented. The use of survey

design particularly fitted the aims of the study for the following reasons. Firstly,
participants would encounter less difficulty in recalling the used techniques as they
had been presented on paper for the participants to choose. Secondly, it would be
easier for the researcher when analysing the data thanks to the uniformity. Lastly,
it would be time and cost-saving as the questionnaire could be distributed both
online and offline to the respondents, without requiring the researchers to spend
too much time collecting data. Regarding the second type of research design,
observation allowed the researcher to observe while collecting data objectively.
Moreover, a comparison between teachers' survey answers and their hands-on
application of the engagement techniques could also be noticed via the
combination of two methods.
3.2 Research population
The research was conducted with the participation of lecturers at a university
majoring in languages in Hanoi, Vietnam. The chosen setting and population
helped achieve the objectives of this study for a number of reasons. Firstly, as this
university provided courses teaching eight foreign languages, with English being
the dominant one, students were all required to use their learnt language inside
classrooms most of the time. Therefore, a large number of EFL classes were
available through the whole course, which suited the scope of this study. Secondly,
being in charge of these EFL classes, all teachers in the English-major departments
must have been familiar with engagement techniques so as to retain students’
attention to the lessons. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have them take part
in this research as they could simply reflect on their online classes and complete
the questionnaire. Lastly, due to time and resources constraints, this intended
population was of great help for the researcher as the researcher was able to collect
the data and complete the study on time.
15


3.3 Sampling

The study investigated the strategies applied by lecturers in order to boost student
engagement in online EFL classes. It was undeniable that many tertiary institutions
in Vietnam, as well as other countries where English was not a dominant language,
had integrated EFL classes into the curriculum, with the majors ranging from
business, management, medicine to language. However, due to time constraints
and limited resources, this university was a suitable option for researchers due to
the availability and variety of teachers here. By choosing this university, the
researcher used “convenience sampling”, in which “members of the target
population that meet certain practical criteria, such as easy accessibility,
geographical proximity, availability at a given time" (Etikan et al., 2016).
As stated before, a wide range of EFL classes were available at this
university. However, the researcher decided to contact only those from three
English departments namely advanced English programs, English 1 and English 2.
A random number of teachers from each department were chosen for participation.
By doing this, “disproportionate random stratified sampling” was utilised.
3.4 Research participants
In total, 42 EFL lectures at this language university took part in this research. These
participants were all teaching English during the time the study was conducted.
Table 3

A summary of participants based on their years of experience
Years of experience
Major

English

<5 years

6-10 years

>10 years

Others

28,6%

28,6%

28,6%

14,2%

Based on table 3, it could be concluded that other than 6 people not providing the
information, three groups (less than 5, 6 to 10 and more than 10 years) received
the same number of answers (around one third).

16