ACTIVE LEARNING, INDIVIDUALISTIC-COLLECTIVISTIC CULTURAL

DIMENSIONS, TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION, AND STUDENT

ENGAGEMENT IN SAUDI ARABIAN HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTIONS

Introduction/Background
Saudi Arabian Vision 2030 focuses on improving higher education, research, and innovation. To
support this vision, the government of Saudi Arabia is providing funds to universities to enhance
the quality of education and encourage original scientific research. This approach will eventually
help students and instructors to adapt to a culture of innovation that will drive the country's
economic growth and diversification. Additionally, this aligns with improving the Kingdom's
educational policies, students' engagement, and sustainability.

Higher education in Saudi Arabia is mandated to the development of competent students

necessitating various measures to be introduced in order to provide quality education. This
entails judicious effort to develop effective teaching and learning processes that would enable
students to experience meaningful educational experience. One of the focus in developing this is
through providing good student engagement ecosystem.

Student engagement is defined as "the degree of attention, passion, and optimism students
exhibit while learning, along with the level of motivation and guidance they receive throughout
their education" (Govil, 2017). Student engagement has been found to be an important predator
for students’ educational outcome. For example,

1. Student engagement predicts student well-being in universities (Adedokun, O. A. et al.

2018)
2. Student engagement predicts academic performance. (Bakker, Vergel, & Kuntze, 2015;
Dotterer & Lowe, 2017).

It has also been found that student engagement is the result of several factors. For example,

1. High achieving students demonstrate a higher level of engagement in learning

(Fitzsimons, 2018).

1|Page
 2. Students living with psychosocial issues do not show a good level of engagement in
learning. Research has shown that university dropouts, substance abusers, and students with
mental health issues are less involved in active learning (Fin & Rock, 1997).

The above show that student engagement is integral in student learning especially among
university students, meriting it to be nurtured among university students.

Active learning is one of the most prominent factors in keeping students engaged. This learning
process involves engaging students in the social construction of knowledge. For institutions to
develop a student-centric learning model in which students are actively involved in learning and
developing their personalities and competencies, active learning approaches are essential.
According to Hartikainen et al. (2019), active learning focuses on student-centric, instructor-led
activities and is not a traditional teaching method. In this era of development, the learning
paradigm has shifted towards active learning and criticizes the traditional approach where
instructors were the sole source of knowledge for students. Modules created through active
learning approaches instill in students the consciousness that knowledge is self-learned, and it is
the responsibility of students to understand and explore new concepts to achieve success
(Fitzsimons, 2018), underscoring the efforts been placed to enhance student engagement in
learning process.

Despite the numerous benefits of active learning, such as increasing students' self-confidence,
providing access to knowledge, enhancing critical thinking skills, improving observational
capacities, and promoting cognitive development, there is a fear among faculty members of a
lack of student participation. Hence, many universities continue relying on the traditional
classroom approach to instruct their students (Sasikumar, 2014). Furthermore, faculty members
often hesitate to adopt active learning that entails heightened student engagement in their
teaching approach (Killian and Bastas, 2015). There is a need to transform from traditional
teaching and learning approach to online learning platforms that has become the norm in this
digital era.

Active learning-based instructional methods have significantly contributed to students'

behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement. Techniques such as group discussions,
learning cells, think-pair-share, collaborative learning groups, debates, and classroom games
have been particularly effective in meeting these engagement requirements (Schindler et al.,

2|Page
2017). One of the most favorable outcomes of active learning is the improvement of teacher-
student interaction, as students learn in a positive environment and develop critical thinking and
problem-solving skills, which are essential for a country's development.

This increase in interaction leads students to learn and engage more in the classroom. Research
indicates that increased student-teacher interaction promotes a positive environment and
accelerates educational outcomes (Schindler et al., 2017; Astin, 1993). In an experimental study,
Harpel and Endo (1982) demonstrated several types of student-teacher interaction and their
effect on learning outcomes and student engagement. The authors concluded that informal
interaction through active learning resulted in higher academic outcomes than formal interaction
(traditional learning approach). Similarly, the interactive university study by Austin (1993)
documented that the frequency of student-teacher interaction positively impacts students'
engagement in learning, including their desire to participate in classroom activity. To promote
and facilitate student engagement, faculties should be interactive and approachable for discussing
the exams and personal and mental health. Overall, teachers should play the role of mentor, not
an educator. With this approach, teachers will not only generate satisfaction among the students
but will increase the desire of students to learn and be academically successful. Active learning,
teacher student interaction and student engagement are the function of cultural dimensions of the
students and teachers (Goss & Sonnemenn 2017).

The fundamental components of the educational process can vary across societies, contingent
upon the specific needs and aspirations of each society to enhance student achievement. Saudi
Arabia is characterized by a pronounced inclination towards collectivism, as evidenced by its
adherence to traditional customs and social values (Alenezi, S. 2020). Consequently, Saudi
students are anticipated to exhibit marked collectivistic behaviors, influencing their perception of
interpersonal relationships within and beyond their immediate social circle ( Alamoudi, A. et al,
2021). This cognitive framework shapes their comprehension, emotions, and responses to their
circumstances within an individualistic societal context. Individuals deviating from this
orientation may encounter risks, as incongruence with societal norms can impact individuals,
particularly those with dependent personalities, leading to manifestations such as social anxiety,
obsessive–compulsive disorder, and various forms of depression (Darwish & Huber, 2003).

3|Page
Furthermore, students from collectivistic cultures, such as Saudi Arabia, may encounter
challenges in developing the necessary skills to form new social connections outside their
established group (Pak & Sands, 1996). Consequently, the situation of Saudi students, originating
from a deeply rooted Middle Eastern collectivistic culture, introduces several factors that
contribute to the intricate nature of their experiences, the obstacles they confront, and the
imperative for educational institutions to address these challenges. This proactive approach is
essential to facilitate the adjustment of these students and enhance the likelihood of their
academic success.

The Saudi government, through the Ministry of Education (MoE), has paid great attention to
Higher Education by providing free education for male and female students. Each year the MoE
grants budgets to the universities which they spend on delivering all that is in the interests of
education and facilitating teaching and learning, including any required teaching materials,
computers, printers, and training sessions and workshops for teachers. The context of student
engagement has become important to Saudi Higher Education, especially now with the Saudi
Vision 2030, a new comprehensive developmental plan launched by the Government of Saudi
Arabia. Higher universities of KSA are planning to develop a plan that will help the student
interaction and eventually improve the academic performance of the students.

Statement of the Research Problem

The higher authorities and institutions globally recognize student engagement and active
learning. Engaging students in various educational activities will undoubtedly enhance their
learning experience. A range of factors affecting student engagement have been enumerated in
studies and have been mentioned in theory. However, a few have been implemented. The role of
student engagement in quality education is a new concept in Saudi Arabia. Even though
numerous studies in Saudi Arabia have focused on students' performance and engagement, none
have focused on validating findings. Moreover, no valid, reliable instrument was studied or
developed to evaluate student performance via active learning. Hence, the present thesis aims to
evaluate and measure the student's engagement in active learning classrooms and interaction with
the faculty members within various cultural dimensions via a validated and reliable scale.

4|Page
Measure of student engagement

Universities worldwide have developed various systems to encourage students' engagement in

every sector (Trowel, 2010). For example, In Japan and China, the School engagement survey
(Fredricks et al.2005) and student engagement scale (Gunuc and Kuzu, 2015) are used to survey
students' engagement. These instruments focus on university course performance outcomes at
macro levels. Similarly, the "National Survey of Student Engagement" (NSSE, 2001) was
developed by American universities to evaluate the performance of students. The outcome of this
survey focused on the learning experience and students' participation at the university level. It
also measured the cognitive behavior of students and positive development throughout the
university years. A similar instrument, the "Australian Survey of Student Engagement"
(AUSSE), was developed by Australian and New Zealand universities in the year 2007
(Coates,2010, Coates 2015). This instrument was developed to promote student engagement at
the university level by collecting data on students' perception of learning experience and
satisfaction with university courses and services (Coates, 2010; Coates 2015). In European
Universities, "The ASPIRE-to-Excellence" initiative was launched by the International
Association of Medical Universities (AMEE) (AMEE 2017). "Student Engagement
Questionnaire (SEQ)," developed by Kember et al. (2009), was utilized in a study conducted
among the final year medical students at King Saud University Riyadh.

Objectives

1. Study the relationship between active learning and student engagement

2. Study the relationship between teacher-student interaction and student engagement
3. Study the relationship between individualistic/collectivistic culture dimension and student
engagement.
To achieve the objectives mentioned above, the following process will be performed:
1. Develop a scale to measure student engagement, entailing the process of conceptualizing
the construct of 'student engagement' (Behavioral, Emotional, and psychological)

5|Page
 2. Construct items to measure 'student engagement' (academic preparation, perseverance,
academic difficulty, academic help-seeking, collaborative learning, student-faculty
interaction, hours studying and working, campus support, and predicted graduation from
their current institution).
3. Conduct a Pilot testing of this instrument amongst the group of students.
4. Establish the reliability and validity of the instrument.

Significance

 The outcomes of this Ph.D. thesis will be valuable to the administrators, curriculum
designing committee, professors, and authorities at the university level.
 Designing and scaling a valid and reliable instrument to measure student engagement will
eventually help higher authorities measure these outcomes for other universities.
Furthermore, this will help universities design curricula that benefit students and
faculties.
 Authorities at the university will get a pathway to plan the semester according to the
requirements of students and faculty. They were, overall, aiming to engage students in
active learning. This approach will help universities in Saudi Arabia achieve a desirable
outcome and serve as a win-win situation for faculty and students.

A relevant literature review is discussed in the following section to follow the link between
student engagement and other selected factors.

Literature Review

Theories in literature

Numerous theories have been proposed in the literature to clarify how student engagement and
academic success can be promoted in university education Adedokun 2017;Choy, J. Deschaine
2018, M. E., & Whale, D. E 2017). According to the self-determination theory, students can
achieve optimal levels of engagement and accomplishment when they perceive that the
classroom environment and university facilities meet their psychological needs for competence,
autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Tas, 2016). Wang et al. (2020) further argue that
students' competence is more likely to improve when they believe their social surroundings are
well-organized and provide straightforward guidance for success. Additionally, individuals

6|Page
benefit from exercising autonomy when they are granted significant freedom to determine how
to employ their creativity within a well-defined set of guidelines (Fredricks et al., 2004). Lastly,
the need for connections is fulfilled when students participate in a psychologically and socially
supportive environment (Wang et al., 2020). Higher education institutions need to provide
classroom activities and institutional facilities that address the psychological demands of young
adults. Adolescence is a critical developmental period during which fundamental motivating
beliefs and behaviors are formed (Eccles & Roeser, 2009).

The stage-environment fit theory, developed by Eccles et al. (1993), aims to explain how higher
education institutions can encourage student engagement and achievement. The theory suggests
that students perform better in environments accommodating their needs and expectations. Reyes
et al. (2012) found that higher emotional climates in the classroom positively impact student
engagement and academic performance. Skinner et al. (2008) have identified teaching
pedagogies as essential factors influencing students' engagement and performance. Mitchell and
Carbone (2011) concluded that students' level of engagement is influenced by the design of
instructional activities and their involvement in the learning process. Wang and Holcombe (2010)
found evidence that instructional practices promoting in-depth investigation and student
participation can enhance students' engagement and performance. Yang et al. (2017) found that
student participation and academic achievement are influenced by factors associated with the
campus environment and facilities, such as safety and a sense of community.

The Campus-Class-Technology (CCT) theory, developed in higher education settings,

emphasizes the significance of technological infrastructure, classroom climates, and campus
facilities in enhancing student engagement and academic achievement (Rashid & Asghar, 2016;
Schuetz, 2008). This theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship
between ICT (Information and Communication Technology) resources and student engagement,
which, in turn, positively impacts learning outcomes. Gunuc (2021) highlights the importance of
higher education institutions (HEIs) effectively integrating technology into campus settings to
improve student engagement and academic performance. Rashid and Asghar (2016) proposed a
model that demonstrates the significant impact of students' technology use on their engagement
and performance. Previous research and literature consistently support using CCT to enhance
student engagement and performance in higher education. Patrick et al. (2007) suggests that

7|Page
campus facilities promoting students' social and emotional well-being can also enhance student
engagement.

Student Engagement Perspectives

Four significant perspectives are identified for student engagement at the university level. They
are psychological, behavioral, socio-cultural, and holistic (Kahu 2013). The researchers
identified ambiguous descriptions and relationships between student engagement and its short-
and long-term outcomes as significant issues. Transparency regarding these issues is necessary
for determining the metrics, measurements, or factors relevant to this matter. Therefore,
analyzing student engagement from these four perspectives is important to identify factors that
may affect or influence it. Each perspective holds significant value for designing a curriculum
favoring student engagement.

Psychological perspective

Student engagement is considered a psycho-social process that develops over time through
various experiences and varies in intensity. This approach incorporates engagement dimensions
such as behavior, cognition, emotion, and conation, with student antecedents being a significant
factor (Kahu, 2013). The behavior dimension encompasses active learning, time spent on tasks,
and attendance. The cognition dimension is associated with self-regulation and facilitating deep
learning (Fredricks et al., 2005). The emotion dimension is important as it is linked to students'
affective experiences, perceptions, and engagement with tasks to enhance their learning
outcomes. The conation dimension impacts the desire for achievement. Riggs and Gholar (2009)
propose a concept encompassing beliefs, commitment, and conviction, among other factors. This
perspective emphasizes the role of the student in motivating one another to achieve their goals by
enhancing their level of engagement.

Behavioral perspective

The behavioral perspective is widely acknowledged in the literature on university settings. Both
student behaviors and institutional factors influence student engagement. Chickering and
Gamson (1987) assert that institutions play a significant role in shaping student engagement, as
outlined in their seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. The NSSE (2010)
defines five scales that fall into this category: academic challenge, active learning, interactions,

8|Page
enriching educational experiences, and supportive learning environment. Coates (2010)
introduces a sixth scale, integrated learning. Additional studies have employed various
categories, levels, or scales within this framework (LaNasa, Cabrera, & Trangsrud, 2009; Pike,
2006). Despite its widespread acceptance, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the
classification of factors, principles, and levels of student engagement.

Socio-cultural perspective

The socio-cultural perspective is a theoretical framework that examines social and cultural
factors influencing individuals and their behavior. The main goal of the socio-cultural
perspective is to examine social interaction among students. Student engagement can vary based
on cultural background. Previous research indicates that students may experience disengagement
or a sense of separation that they find subjectively undesirable. This disengagement can be
attributed to various contextual factors, including an excessive emphasis on performance, the
dominance of specific social groups, ethnic disparities, and prevailing cultural differences
(Christie et al., 2008; Geyer, 2001; Griffiths, Winstanley & Gabriel, 2005; Mann, 2001; Thomas,
2002). Contextual factors and the characteristics of the new generation of students can influence
non-traditional students' perception and engagement levels, including international students,
first-year students, and minority ethnic groups.

Holistic perspective

This perspective shows student engagement as a comprehensive combination of numerous

factors, including perceptions, expectations, experiences, locations, academics, staff, institutions,
and resources, collectively contributing to student development. Bryson and Hand (2008) argue
that it is important to consider the concept of "becoming" and to look beyond a student's
qualifications and grades. Bryson, Cooper, and Hardy (2010) and Kahu (2013) argue that
engagement should be viewed as both a process and an outcome. The authors propose the
concept of "student engagement" to describe the actions universities should take and the
behaviors students should exhibit. This perspective considers the combination of a range of
factors discussed earlier, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging student motivation and
expectations.

Supportive learning environment (online learning and mixed learning)

9|Page
To maintain student engagement in studies and activities, creating a supportive learning
environment is essential. Pre-pandemic studies suggested that such an environment could be
fostered through various means, such as group projects, class plays, and interactive teacher-
student interactions. However, the use of multimedia networking was limited during this period,
and the classroom learning approach, while effective, often did not fully engage students,
resulting in outcomes like traditional teaching methods.

The post-COVID era changed the outlook of universities and faculties in teaching and
approaching students. Various approaches are adopted at the university level to engage students
and bring academic success. Studies have reported an increase of 5-7% in result outcomes
compared to the traditional learning approach. A blended learning approach is adopted at the
university level that incorporates online and traditional learning, eventually improving students'
academic and practical performance (Busebaia & John, 2020; Tang et al., 2017). However, these
studies have not evaluated the level of improvement in students' learning outcomes via online
learning platforms.

Moreover, a separate study showed that students focus less on online than on traditional or face-
to-face learning (Ramos-Morcillo et al., 2020). The authors concluded that the interaction
between teacher and student was limited in online lectures compared to classroom lectures.
Nonetheless, lecture recordings proved beneficial, offering students flexibility in learning and the
ability to access lectures conveniently.

In contrast, a study conducted during the pandemic revealed the efficacy of utilizing self-paced
video lectures in conjunction with immediate online activities and post-class assignments as a
successful approach for student engagement (Busebaia & John, 2020). Moreover, using YouTube
has shown remarkable promise in enhancing student engagement in learning activities and
elevating the overall quality of the learning experience. This is attributed to the flexibility it
offers students, allowing them to watch videos at their own pace, thereby allowing them to
reflect upon the content (Johnston et al., 2018). Furthermore, the innovative application of a
flipped classroom learning strategy and the incorporation of instant quizzes has actively engaged
students in a fully online course, particularly on a cognitive level (Chan et al., 2020).
Considering the myriad other innovations introduced during the pandemic's online learning

10 | P a g e
environment, further research is imperative to delve deeper into student engagement within
online education.

In a study by Carley (2015), when online platforms are used effectively, they can promote and
support students' learning activities. Web-based tools like Kahoot and Poll everywhere have
demonstrated the capacity to heighten student participation in lectures (Bond et al., 2020; Fotaris
et al., 2016). Furthermore, Broussard and Wilson (2018) reported that incorporating web-based
courses can strengthen student engagement, although the specific mechanisms underlying this
engagement were not outlined. One plausible path through which web-based technology may
encourage engagement is via asynchronous discussions, allowing students an active platform to
interact with the instructors and peers (Dixson, 2015). Conversely, a recent study postulates that
while asynchronous discussions facilitate ongoing connection with the instructor and peers,
students expressed reservations about the quality of these discussions (Ramos-Morcillo et al.,
2020). These insights align with the perspectives of Rodrigues and Zealand (2016), who
underscore that the mere deployment of technology, in the absence of pertinent pedagogical
strategies such as reflection, problem-based learning, and gamification, may not yield substantive
gains in student engagement.

University and student union support

Studies on the partnership between students, student organizations, and universities abounded in
literature, with a positive impact of these associations on the students' learning outcomes
(Pokorny & Warren, 2016). In the context of these partnerships, honesty, trust, and positive
sharing of trust and value are the goals. The stakeholders in this partnership not only share equal
responsibility but also acknowledge that all the stakeholders are legitimate and should pose equal
responsibility. Mentz and Oosthuizen (2016) believe that through collaborative efforts to attain a
common objective, higher education institutions can undertake measures to augment the
experiences of all stakeholders involved. Hence, the notion of students as partners embodies a
dynamic characterized by reciprocal esteem among higher education institutions, students, and
faculty members.

Framing and fostering academic discourse on the partnership require boundaries. Healey et al.
(2014) developed a conceptual model based on values derived from existing literature on
partnership in student engagement. Authenticity and reciprocity are two key factors in

11 | P a g e
establishing successful partnerships. Authenticity refers to partners having a meaningful
justification for engaging in the partnership and being transparent about their contributions and
involvement. Conversely, reciprocity involves the parties having a shared interest and benefiting
from the partnership, such as through mutual learning (Healey et al., 2014).

In addition to inclusivity, which refers to the acceptance of diverse skills, experiences, and
perspectives lacking cultural or structural barriers impeding partner involvement, other principal
factors in partnership dynamics are empowerment, which involves the equitable distribution of
power, and trust, which requires mutual knowledge, truthful communication, and a foundation of
respect and equity. The presence of a community that recognizes and appreciates the distinct
contributions of stakeholders is essential. Figure 1 depicts the student engagement continuum,
showing the stakeholders' responsibility.

Figure 1: Student Engagement Continuum

Classroom environment and ethics

According to Dietrich & Balli (2014) and Jang et al. (2010), high structure promotes student
engagement by clearly communicating expectations and providing guidance while allowing for
some learning options. One benefit of this approach is that it enables the management of

12 | P a g e
students' behaviors while preventing chaos during transitions (Jang et al., 2010). Jang and
colleagues primarily focused on examining teacher-provided structure within the teacher's
instructional style framework. However, this concept has also been extensively studied in the
context of classroom management as a socio-contextual factor that contributes to engagement,
which is one of the characteristics of a lesson (Dietrich & Balli, 2014). The structure can also be
analyzed regarding motivation as a classroom management style. According to Jang et al. (2010),
teacher-provided structure, or high structure, contributes to the development of student
motivation by fostering a sense of perceived control over school outcomes. This includes the
development of perceived competence, an internal locus of control, and an optimistic
attributional style. High structure in educational settings enhances engagement by fostering
increased student involvement in learning activities.

Student Engagement Framework

The four perspectives of student engagement developed by Kahu (2013) have provided initial
factors responsible for student engagement. Figure 2 presents the conceptual framework created
by Kahu, which will be utilized in this study. This conceptual framework will be explored and
used in the current PhD thesis.

13 | P a g e
Figure 2. Conceptual framework of engagement, antecedents, and consequences: Source
(Kahu 2013)

Material and Method

In the literature review, it was argued that there is limited data available regarding student
engagement in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, no validated instrument has been designed to assess
and demonstrate student engagement's positive and negative outcomes. Therefore, it is
imperative to understand the best practices currently employed by universities worldwide by
examining instruments used globally. To achieve the best possible outcomes for this study, we
have chosen brainstorming and focus group interviews with students and staff as the methods for
qualitative data analysis.

Study 1:

The data collected for this study will be by mixed method analysis, where we will incorporate
both qualitative and quantitative study design.

14 | P a g e
We will conduct brainstorming sessions in focus group interviews to understand the requirements
for increasing student engagement at the university level. The primary purpose of these
brainstorming sessions is to identify the key themes necessary for creating a validated
instrument. We will conduct focus group interviews involving both students and faculty members
to gather ideas for developing a questionnaire that universities can use to enhance student
engagement. Furthermore, we will collect data from random groups of students each semester to
assess the positive impact of involving students in various teaching activities. To facilitate these
focus group interviews, trained instructors will be engaged. Studies suggest that having a trained
instructor moderate the focus group interviews ensures that everyone in the group has an equal
opportunity to participate and prevents any one person from dominating the discussion (Cooper
& Schindler 2011; Gururajan et al. 2015; Krueger & Casey 2015; Litosseliti 2003; Sherriff et al.
2014; Silverman 2014; Zikmund, Babin & Griffin 2013).

Regarding managing the project, the instructor will explain the study to the participants and
suggest some ideas before starting the sessions. Participants will be given an equal opportunity to
express their thoughts on the topic. This approach will enable the engagement of participants so
that they can equally contribute to the discussion. This approach was recommended by (Krueger
Casey 2015; Hennink 2014; Sanders 2016; Stewart & Shamdasani 2015).

Participants

Students enrolled in universities in Saudi Arabia will be eligible to participate. There will be no
restrictions on the courses or degrees students are pursuing. G Power software will calculate the
required sample size for the participants. Once the sample size is finalized, an email will be sent
to potential participants explaining the study's objectives. The age limit for participants will be
17 to 30 years.

Reason for conducting a qualitative study

This thesis will collect qualitative data for two specific purposes. The first is to validate the
factors that influence student engagement, and the second is to refine the initial framework
developed by various governmental universities in the literature. The validation is necessary to
ensure the inclusion of content-sensitive questions in the questionnaire designed for this study,
which will involve all participants in tertiary education.

15 | P a g e
The second reason for conducting a qualitative study is to ensure the relevance of the designed
questionnaire. The literature on student engagement is extensive but often fails to address issues
related to curriculum design at the university level. Additionally, the Ministry of Higher
Education in Saudi Arabia has specific regulatory standards for curriculum design that all
universities must adhere to and follow. Since this study aims to incorporate a new questionnaire,
validation, and reliability checks are required to test the hypotheses.

Merits of the Qualitative Study

The qualitative method is utilized in this study for several reasons

1. They can provide specific themes and engage participants in discussion (Varpio L, 2021).
2. A qualitative approach improves the reliability and validity of the findings (Ayón et al.
2016; Huff et al. 2015; Varpio L, 2021).
3. This method can capitalize on the theme formation from the researchers' point of view,
and they can explore in-depth the topic with the participants' expertise (Ayón et al. 2016).

Moreover, the literature suggests using a qualitative study component to improve the validity of
results due to its ability to cross-reference and aggregate the findings (Arino, LeBaron &
Milliken 2016).

Data analysis

For qualitative data analysis, thematic analysis will be applied. Various themes will be developed
to support the development of the questionnaire. This method identifies, analyzes, and reports
themes within the data (Braun and Clarke, 2008). Thematic analysis is a systematic coding
analysis where data are categorized to determine the pattern and trends of words used, including
their frequencies and relationships (Mayring 2007).

Study 2:

The researcher will collect the evidence of validity and reliability of a signified version of
questionnaires utilized previously, which will be taken for a pilot study. The researchers will
report the instruments' internal consistency, which will eventually help them design the new
instrument. This study will be done in the second phase of this PhD study.

Method

16 | P a g e
The researcher will utilize a quantitative study design like cross-sectional to conduct the survey.
This analysis will clarify the relationship between student engagement, learning outcomes,
student-teacher interaction, and perceived student learning. This phase of the study will be
conducted after the preliminary phase.

The independent variables will be learning outcome, course interaction and structure, and
student-teacher interaction. The dependent or outcome variables will be an improvement in
learning outcome and student satisfaction, while it will be hypothesized that the student outcome
is a mediating variable (means responsible for learning, satisfaction, and improvement in the
outcome.

Procedures

The researchers will create an instrument by modifying items from multiple existing instruments
and themes expressed through focus group interviews. The data will be collected by the students
enrolled in various Saudi universities for graduate and post-graduate programs. A cross-sectional
study design will be employed. The student will be surveyed according to their belief about their
satisfaction and perceived learning in both online and face-to-face learning.

Instrumentation

The student satisfaction and engagement instrument will be created after reviewing various
available instruments, studies, and themes developed by qualitative findings. This questionnaire
will then be piloted among the sample of students. Based on the results of the pilot testing, items
will be rewarded, and additional items will be included. A positively packed rating scale will be
used to elicit data that will not violate the normality assumption and to elicit more variability in
the response.

Merits of Quantitative Study

1. Objectivity and Reproducibility: Quantitative research relies on empirical data that can be
measured and analyzed objectively. This makes the results more reliable and less
susceptible to bias, as the researcher's opinions or interpretations do not influence them.
Other researchers can replicate the study to validate findings.

17 | P a g e
 2. Large Sample Sizes: Quantitative research often uses larger sample sizes, which can
provide more representative and generalizable results. This can be especially valuable
when trying to reach a larger population.
3. Statistical Analysis: Quantitative research employs statistical techniques to analyze data.
These techniques allow researchers to detect patterns, relationships, and trends in the
data, which can lead to more robust and precise conclusions.
4. Precision and Accuracy: Quantitative research is known for its precision and accuracy. It
allows researchers to quantify and measure phenomena in detail, providing exact
numerical values for analysis.
5. Comparability: Quantitative data is well-suited for making comparisons. Researchers can
compare groups, variables, or conditions to identify significant differences and
relationships.
6. Data Collection Efficiency: Surveys, experiments, and structured observations are
common methods in quantitative research. These methods are often more efficient
regarding time and resources, especially when dealing with large samples.
7. Generalizability: Quantitative research results are often more generalizable to the broader
population because of the reliance on larger samples and statistical analysis. This can
have practical applications and inform policies or practices.
8. Hypothesis Testing: Quantitative research is well-suited for hypothesis testing.
Researchers can formulate and test clear hypotheses using statistical techniques, allowing
for more definitive answers to research questions.
9. Objective Decision-Making: In fields like medicine, economics, and social sciences,
quantitative research provides a basis for informed and objective decision-making.
Policymakers and practitioners can rely on quantitative data to guide their actions.
10. Longitudinal Analysis: Quantitative research can track changes over time, enabling
researchers to conduct longitudinal studies to examine trends and developments.
11. Cross-Cultural Studies: Quantitative research can be used for cross-cultural or cross-
national comparisons, helping to identify cultural or regional differences and similarities.

Data Analysis

18 | P a g e
The descriptive data of the study will be summarized by means, median, and standard deviations.
The relationship between the variables studied will result from the mediated variable's mean.
Bivariate and multivariate correlation analysis will be done to summarize the relationship and
draw conclusions. The P-value will be set at 0.05.

Reference
1. Endo, J. J., & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students'
educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16, 115-135.
2. Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:
Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231247.
3. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
JosseyBass.
4. Walker, C. O., & Greene, B. A. (2009). The relations between student motivational
beliefs and cognitive engagement in high school. The Journal of Educational Research,
102, 463-471
5. Adedokun, O. A., Parker, L. C., Henke, J. N., & Burgess, W. D. (2017). Student
perceptions of a 21st century learning space. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6, 1–13.
6. Al Zumor, A. (2019). Challenges of Using EMI in Teaching and Learning of University
Scientific Disciplines: Student Voice. International Journal of Language Education, 3(1),
pp.74-90.
7. Alamoudi, A. A., Fallatah, H. I., Eldakhakhny, B. M., Kamel, F. O., AlShawwa, L. A., &
Elsamanoudy, A. Z. (2021). Relationship between admission criteria and academic
performance in basic Science courses in health Science colleges in KAU. BMC Medical
Education, 21(1), pp.1-8.
8. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending,
flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–
236.
9. Deci, E. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-
determination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The

19 | P a g e
 role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
10. Choy, J. L. F., & Quek, C. L. (2016). Modelling relationships between students' academic
achievement and community of inquiry in an online learning environment for a blended
course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 106–124.
11. Deschaine, M. E., & Whale, D. E. (2017). Increasing student engagement in online
educational leadership courses. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1), n1.
12. Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online
student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), n4.
13. Fisher, R., Perényi, A., & Birdthistle, N. (2021). The positive relationship between
flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance, and satisfaction.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 97–113.
14. Fotaris, P., Mastoras, T., Leinfellner, R., & Rosunally, Y. (2016). Climbing up the
leaderboard: An empirical study of applying gamification techniques to a computer
programming class. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(2), 94–110.
15. Ghasemi, M. R., Moonaghi, H. K., & Heydari, A. (2020). Strategies for sustaining and
enhancing nursing students' engagement in academic and clinical settings: A narrative
review. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 32(2), 103–117
16. Gonzalez, T., De La Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S.,
& Sacha, G. M. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students' performance in
higher education. PLoS One, 15(10), e0239490.
17. Groccia, J. E. (2018). What is student engagement? New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2018(154), 11–20.
18. Haslam, M. B. (2021). What might COVID-19 have taught us about the delivery of nurse
education, in a post-COVID-19 world? Nurse Education Today, 97, 104707.
19. Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement:
Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 175–187.
20. Johnston, A. N., Barton, M. J., Williams-Pritchard, G. A., & Todorovic, M. (2018).
Youtube for millennial nursing students; using internet technology to support student
engagement with bioscience. Nurse Education in Practice, 31, 151–155.

20 | P a g e
21. Rodrigues, A., & Zealand, W. (2016). Use of the flipped classroom model in the clinical
learning curriculum for third year nursing students. In H. Hamerton & C. Fraser (Eds.),
Tetipuranga–growing capability: Proceedings of the 2015 national tertiary learning and
teaching conference (pp. 83–88). Bay of Plenty Polytechnic.
22. Huang, R.; Liu, D.; Tlili, A.; Knyazeva, S.; Chang, T.W.; Zhang, X.; Holotescu, C.
Guidance on Open Educational Practices during School Closures: Utilizing OER under
COVID‐19 Pandemic in Line with UNESCO OER Recommendation; Smart Learning
Institute of Beijing Normal University: Beijing, China, 2020.
23. Bozkurt, A.; Yazıcı, M.; Aydın, İ.E. Cultural diversity and its implications in online
networked learning spaces. In Supporting Multiculturalism in Open and Distance
Learning Spaces; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 56–81.
24. Tlili, A.; Wang, H.; Gao, B.; Shi, Y.; Zhiying, N.; Looi, C.K.; Huang, R. Impact of
cultural diversity on students’ learning behavioral patterns in open and online courses: A
lag sequential analysis approach. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2021, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1946565.
25. Wang, H.; Tlili, A.; Zhong, X.; Cai, Z.; Huang, R. The Impact of Gender on Online
Learning Behavioral Patterns: A Comparative Study Based on Lag Sequential Analysis.
In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT) IEEE, Online, 10 October 2023; pp. 190–194.
26. Hofstede Insights: Country Comparison. Available online: https://www.hofstede‐
insights.com/country‐comparison/ (accessed on 10 October 2023).
27. Messner, W. The institutional and cultural context of cross‐national variation in COVID ‐
19 outbreaks. Medrxiv 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047589
28. Denden, M.; Tlili, A.; Essalmi, F.; Jemni, M.; Chen, N.S.; Burgos, D. Effects of gender
and personality differences on students’ perception of game design elements in
educational gamification. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2021, 154, 102674.
29. Keller, J.M.; Ucar, H.; Kumtepe, A.T. Culture and Motivation in Globalized Open and
Distance Learning Spaces. In Supporting Multiculturalism in Open and Distance
Learning Spaces; Toprak, E., Kumtepe, E., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018,
pp. 146–165. http://doi:10.4018/978‐1‐5225‐3076‐3.ch008.

21 | P a g e
30. Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe L, O'Brien B, Rees C (2017) Shedding the cobra effect:
problematising t Department of Education NSW, Evaluating and analysing student
engagement measures, 2020,
31. Education, NSW, Australia, <https://education.nsw.gov.au/about
us/educational-data/scout/principals-and-school-leaders/evaluating-and-analysing-
student-engagement-measures>hematic emergence, triangulation, saturation, and member
checking. Med Educ 51:40–50
32. Cochran, JD, Baker, HM, Benson, D & Rhea, W 2016, 'Business Student Perceptions of
Online Learning: Using Focus Groups for Richer Understanding of Student Perspectives',
Organization Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 149-66.
33. Collins, KM, Onwuegbuzie, AJ & Jiao, QG 2006, 'Prevalence of mixed-methods
sampling designs in social science research', Evaluation & Research in Education, vol.
19, no. 2, pp. 83-101.
34. Collins, KM, Onwuegbuzie, AJ & Jiao, QG 2007, 'A mixed methods investigation of
mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research', Journal of mixed
methods research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 267-94.
35. Darling-Hammond, L, Chung, R & Frelow, F 2002, 'Variation in Teacher Preparation:
How Well Do Different Pathways Prepare Teachers to Teach?', Journal of Teacher
Education, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 286-302.
36. De Byl, P & Hooper, J 2013, 'Key attributes of engagement in a gamified learning
environment', in ASCILITE-Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education Annual Conference: proceedings of theASCILITE-Australian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, pp. 221-30.
37. De Maesschalck, R, Jouan-Rimbaud, D & Massart, DL 2000, 'The mahalanobis distance',
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1-18.
38. Dean, DL, Hender, JM, Rodgers, TL & Santanen, E 2006, 'Identifying good ideas:
Constructs and scales for idea evaluation', Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 646-98.
39. DeFour-Howard, J 2015, Research methods: A handbook for beginners, vol. 4, Outskirts
Press, Inc, Parker, Colorado, USA.

22 | P a g e
40. DeStefano, K 2016, 'A phenomenological exploration of children's experiences during
the therapeutic process', doctor of Philosophy (Psychology) thesis, Walden University,
USA.

41. Dilshad, RM & Latif, MI 2013, 'Focus group interview as a tool for qualitative research:
an analysis', Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 191-8.

42. Dimitrov, DM 2012, Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in
counseling and related fields, VA: American Counseling Association, Alexandria, Egypt.

43. Doody, O & Noonan, M 2013, 'Preparing and conducting interviews to collect data',
Nurse Researcher, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 28-32.

44. Doody, O, Slevin, E & Taggart, L 2013, 'Focus group interviews part 3: Analysis', British
Journal of Nursing, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 266-9.

45. Douglas, I & Alemanne, ND 2007, 'Monitoring participation in online courses', in

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Technology Based
Higher Education and Training (ITHET 2007), Kumamoto, Japan: proceedings of
theProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Technology Based
Higher Education and Training (ITHET 2007), Kumamoto, Japan.

46. Dresselhaus, L 2010, 'Global talent management and the role of social networks', master
(business administration) thesis, University of Twente, Netherlands.

47. Duarte, SA & Escobar, LA 2008, 'Using Adapted Material and its Impact on University
Students' Motivation*', Profile Issues in Teachers` Professional Development, pp. 63-88.

48. Dworkin, SL 2012, 'Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews',
Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 41, pp. 1319-20.

23 | P a g e
49. Alenezi, S. (2020). Exploring the Factors Affecting Saudi University Students’ In-Class
Willingness to Communicate in English. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(5)

24 | P a g e