Version Changes
Revised. Amendments from Version 1
Based on the recommendations of reviewers, I have made the following changes in the text of manuscript: · I have included a column of country-wise analysis for all the 31 identified papers in Table 5 as it will give an idea as to which continent had contributed to the similar area of research and would also pave the way to increase the scope of the research. · Secondly, I have strengthened the manuscript by providing the limitation of terminologies used in the online database search process. The inclusion of this limitation in the enhanced manuscript will be helpful for the future research. · Thirdly, I have strengthened the discussion on the limitations based on the identified 31 research papers. This will enhance the quality of research gaps discussion. · Lastly, I have included the discussion of theoretical and practical implications of this research in the sections of findings and conclusion.
Abstract
Background: Higher education institutions (HEI) are not spared from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The closure of campuses because of the movement control order (MCO) to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 has forced HEIs to adopt online learning, especially synchronous online learning (SOL). Although teaching and learning can be continued via SOL, retaining students’ interest and sustaining their engagement have not been sufficiently explored. This study presents a systematic review of the research pertaining to SOL associated with students’ interest and engagement in HEIs during the MCO environment.
Methods: Five major online databases, i.e., EBSCOhost, Science Direct, Emerald, Scopus and Springer were searched to collect relevant papers published between 1st January 2010 to 15th June 2021 including conference proceedings, peer-reviewed papers and dissertations. Papers written in the English language, based in full-fledged universities, and with these five keywords: (i) synchronous online learning, (ii) engagement, (iii) interest, (iv) MCO/Covid-19 and (v) HEI, were included. Papers focussing on synchronous and asynchronous online learning in schools and colleges were excluded. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers in order to confirm the eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Results: We found 31 papers of which six papers were related to SOL, engagement and interest in HEIs in the MCO environment. Our review presents three major findings: (i) limited research has been conducted on SOL associated with students’ engagement and interest, (ii) studies related to the context of HEIs in the MCO environment are limited, and (iii) the understanding of the new phenomena through qualitative research is insufficient. We highlight the SOL alignment with students’ engagement, interest, style preference, learner interaction effectiveness, behavior and academic performance.
Conclusions: We believe that the findings of this study are timely and require attention from the research community.
Keywords: Interest, Engagement, Synchronous Online Learning, Higher Education Institution, Movement Control Order, Pandemic, Covid-19, Malaysia
Introduction
The Malaysian online learning movement started in the 1990s with the objective of providing learners access to quality education and lifelong learning opportunity. 1 Despite the growing online learning trend, physical learning remains the mainstream learning mode for full-time undergraduate students because most of the Malaysian universities’ infrastructures, facilities and program structures are built for physical teaching and learning. 2 However, the eruption of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2019 changed this norm. The enforcement of movement control order (MCO) in Malaysia has pushed universities towards online learning. Therefore, synchronous online learning (SOL) has been adopted as a temporary solution in the time of the pandemic to ensure the continuity of academic activities. Even though literature abounds regarding online learning for adult learners in the normal environment, synchronous online learning (SOL) for undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic is a new phenomenon that warrants the attention of research community. Therefore, a systematic literature reviews will help the researchers to identify the research gaps in this new environment.
Synchronous online learning (SOL)
SOL is a form of online learning where teaching and learning occur simultaneously and at the same place. 3 In SOL, students and instructors can login remotely from any location in the world and concurrently participate in the learning process. 4 , 5 The advancement of online learning technologies, such as audio, video, and text, has allowed instant feedback and real-time interaction between students, instructors and fellow students. 6 - 11 These features of SOL that resemble physical learning are well accepted by students. 12 , 13 Despite the benefits of live session, immediacy and real-time guidance and feedback, SOL has its limitations. 6 , 14 , 15 For instance, technical difficulties, availability of electronic devices, internet connection, interface and bandwidth and students’ interest and engagement are issues related to SOL in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the MCO environment. 16
Engagement
Engagement is referred to as the interaction between the time, effort and relevant resources invested to optimize student’s experience, learning outcomes and performance. 17 Engagement is also related to student’s attitudes towards the learning process and psychological involvement in the learning activities to attain positive learning outcomes, such as satisfaction, achievement and performance. 18 , 19 Behavioral, cognitive and emotional engagement are the three main engagement components. 20 Behavioral engagement requires students to comply with the behavioral norms, where students do not demonstrate disruptive or negative behavior. Students with positive behavioral engagement will attend classes and participate enthusiastically in the learning process. Next, students with emotional engagement demonstrate interest and enjoyment in the learning process. Lastly, students with cognitive engagement will go the extra mile in the learning process to perform beyond expectation.
Interest
Interest is the underlying psychological factor of being engaged or engrossed in an activity and a guiding factor in energising learning and academic performance. 21 , 22 Next, continuing interest requires students to endure and reengage in the learning activities over time. 23 Therefore, educational activities that meet individual students’ needs can catch students’ attention, such as by varying the novelty, complexity and incongruity of visual stimuli. 21 , 22 , 24 Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of individual interest and the large class size have made these tasks challenging. 25 Hence, creating situational interest in the learning process is the first step in developing students’ individual interest 26 , 27 because students with a positive individual interest are highly engaged and attentive to achieve good academic performance as individual interest is a psychological behavior of positive affect and persistency in the learning process. 28 , 29 When students’ individual interest matches the specific contextual affordances, students will be focused and enjoy learning. A study suggests that interest will develop into a self-sustained and well-developed interest with the passage of time. 21
Given this backdrop, the three research questions for this study are as follows:
-
1.
Do research gaps in SOL pertaining to students’ engagement and interest in HEIs in the MCO environment exist?
-
2.
What are the limitations in the current research within SOL in HEIs in the MCO environment?
-
3.
What is the conceptual framework for SOL pertaining to students’ engagement and interest in HEIs in the MCO environment?
The objectives of this proposal are as follows:
-
1.
To identify research gaps in SOL pertaining to students’ engagement and interest in HEIs in the MCO environment.
-
2.
To understand the limitations of the current research within SOL in HEIs in the MCO environment.
-
3.
To develop a conceptual framework for SOL pertaining to students’ engagement and interest in HEIs in the MCO environment.
Methods
Institutional review board statement
This study was approved by the Research Ethical Committee (REC) of Multimedia University (EA2742021).
Study design
This paper was designed to present a literature review, a research gap analysis and insights into SOL pertaining to undergraduate students’ engagement and interest in HEIs in the MCO environment. The five stages of literature review proposed by 30 were used in this process:
Stage 1: Planning the review
Stage 2: Identifying and evaluating studies
Stage 3: Extracting and synthesising data
Stage 4: Reporting descriptive findings
Stage 5: Utilising the findings to inform research and practice
This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. 62
Stage 1. Planning the review
The main purpose of this review is to identify research gaps in terms of theories, factors, methods and processes pertaining to SOL and the engagement and interest elements in HEIs in the MCO environment.
Stage 2. Identifying and evaluating studies
The main focus of this study is SOL. Therefore, papers on asynchronous learning were excluded in the selection and evaluation process. Nevertheless, the identification and evaluation were hampered because not all the papers used the term synchronous and asynchronous explicitly.
Selection process
Five major online databases, namely EBSCOhost, Science Direct, Emerald, Scopus and Springer were searched to collect relevant papers published between 1 st January 2010 to 15 th June 2021 including conference proceedings, peer-reviewed papers and dissertations. Papers written in the English language and based in full-fledged universities with these five keywords: (i) synchronous online learning, (ii) engagement, (iii) interest, (iv) MCO/COVID-19 and (v) HEI, were included in the selection process. Papers that focused on synchronous and asynchronous online learning in schools and colleges were excluded. The limitation of this selection process strategy is that other terminologies used for online learning such as hybrid-classroom, flipped-classroom, distance learning, E-learning, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) and etc. were excluded. Similarly, terms such as lockdown, circuit-breaker and etc. were not included in the search process. Figure 1 presents the paper selection process. Next, each paper was reviewed by two reviewers collectively in order to confirm the eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Figure 1. Paper selection process flow.
Search strategy
The search strategy was to sift through papers that discuss SOL pertaining to students’ engagement and interest in the time of MCO using the combination of keywords ( Table 1). However, the search strategy that based on the five identified keywords in the selection process may lead to publication bias risk. Therefore, future researchers may expand the selection of keywords in order to reduce the risk of missing some relevant articles.
Table 1. Search strategy.
| Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Date search |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement | Interest | Engagement | Engagement | Engagement | Engagement | 1 June 2021 to 15 June 2021 | |
| Interest | Interest | Interest | Interest | 1 June 2021 to 15 June 2021 | |||
| Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) | Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) | Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) | 1 June 2021 to 15 June 2021 | ||||
| Movement control order (MCO) | Movement control order (MCO) | 1 June 2021 to 15 June 2021 | |||||
| Higher education institutions (HEIs) | 1 June 2021 to 15 June 2021 |
Stage 3. Extracting and synthesising data
In this extraction process, only conceptual and empirical papers associated with SOL, engagement and interest in HEIs under MCO were selected for synthesis. Further, data on theories, methods, factors and limitations of the selected papers were reviewed and evaluated. Table 2 presents the focus areas in extracting and synthesising data from the selected papers.
Table 2. Paper search focus areas.
| Focus areas | Theory | Method | Factor | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | What theory/theories were used in this research? | What research method/methods were used to collect research data in this research? | What factor/factors were used to explain the research? | What were the limitation/limitations of this research? |
Figure 2 presents the papers extraction process.
Figure 2. Data extraction and synthesis process.
The Transfield stages 4 and 5 are presented in the following sections.
Results
Reporting descriptive findings
Table 3 presents the online databases search result. A total of 21,431 papers are listed as “synchronous online learning”. The number dropped to 4,970 (23%) after adding the word “engagement” and dropped further to 2,020 (9.4%) after adding the word “interest”.
Table 3. Summary of keyword search result.
| Keywords combinations | Synchronous online learning | Synchronous online learning | Synchronous online learning | Synchronous online learning | Synchronous online learning | Synchronous online learning | Synchronous online learning | Date search | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement | Interest | Engagement | Engagement | Engagement | Engagement | 6th June 2021 | |||
| Interest | Interest | Interest | Interest | 6th June 2021 | |||||
| Covid-19 | Covid 19 | Covid-19 | 6th June 2021 | ||||||
| MCO | MCO | 6th June 2021 | |||||||
| HEI | 6th June 2021 | ||||||||
| No | Online database | ||||||||
| 1 | EBSCOhost | 263 | 26 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6th June 2021 |
| 2 | Science direct | 11659 | 1808 | 3391 | 1078 | 67 | 17 | 7 | 6th June 2021 |
| 3 | Scopus | 393 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6th June 2021 |
| 4 | Springer | 8116 | 2251 | 360 | 159 | 14 | 8 | 7 | 6th June 2021 |
| 5 | Emerald | 1000 | 863 | 0 | 783 | 72 | 6 | 6 | 6th June 2021 |
| Grand total | 21431 | 4970 | 3752 | 2020 | 153 | 31 | 20 | ||
We examined 31 papers. However, as shown in Table 4, only six out of the 31 papers are associated with SOL in HEI in the MCO environment. Further, only two out of these six papers are related to engagement, and no paper is related to the interest element.
Table 4. Data extraction and synthesis process.
| No | Combination of keywords | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) + Higher education institutions (HEIs) | 6 |
| 2 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) + Higher education institutions (HEIs) + Movement control order (MCO) | 6 |
| 3 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) + Higher education institutions (HEIs) + Movement control order (MCO) + Engagement | 2 |
| 4 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) + Higher education institutions (HEIs) + Movement control order (MCO) + Interest | 0 |
| 5 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) + Higher education institutions (HEIs) + Movement control order (MCO) + Engagement + Interest + Qualitative methods | 0 |
| 6 | Qualitative methods | 7 |
Table 5 summarizes the theories, methods and factors used in these 31 papers. Only 8 papers (26%) used qualitative methods, 8 papers (26%) are associated with SOL, 5 papers (16%) are related to engagement, no paper (0%) is related to interest, 11 papers (35%) are related to HEI and 19 papers (61%) are related to MCO. However, only 2 papers (6%) were associated to SOL, engagement, HEI and MCO. Therefore, the research in the area of student’s engagement and interest, particularly that associated with SOL in HEI in the MCO environment.
Table 5. Summary of 31 selected papers.
SOL = synchronous online learning; MCO = movement control order; HEI = higher education institution.
| No | Citation | Author (Year) | Theory | Method | Factor | Limitation | Has the paper discussed about these keywords? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOL | Engagement | Interest | MCO | HEIs | |||||||
| 1 | 31 | Aguilera-Hermida (2020) | Quantitative | Attitude, Affect, Motivation; Perceived behavioral control Cognitive engagement | No standardized questions were asked. Only students from public universities were included. Study excluded students who did not have access to the Internet. | x | x | x | x | ||
| 2 | 33 | Srivastava et al. (2021) | Quantitative | Anxiety level | x | x | x | ||||
| 3 | 37 | Darling-Aduana (2021) | Mixed method | Authentic work (Course videos, assignments, practice problems, and assessments) | Components of authentic work, such as communication and interaction with peers, that were not facilitated by the online course system evaluated | x | |||||
| 4 | 38 | Bogdan et al. (2021) | Qualitative | Protective and precautionary behaviors, social connections, and self-efficacy | |||||||
| 5 | 39 | Li et al. (2020) | 5G, AI, AR | x | |||||||
| 6 | 40 | Corbin (2020) | The Stairway to Lifetime Fitness, Health, and Wellness | Conceptual physical education (CPE) | x | ||||||
| 7 | 42 | Tyerman, Luctkar-Flude, & Baker (2021) | Qualitative | x | |||||||
| 8 | 43 | Constantin et al (2021) | Qualitative | Participatory Design (PD) | x | x | |||||
| 9 | 44 | Philippe et al. (2020) | Qualitative | Serious games, Simulations, Collaborative VR | lack of robust evaluation framework | ||||||
| 10 | 45 | Thomas et al. (2021) | Behavioral lifestyle intervention | Experiment | Virtual reality, Interactive video feedback, Tailored intervention | ||||||
| 11 | 46 | Shankar et al. (2021) | Technology adoption (customers, suppliers, employees, retailers) | Investigate the impact of technology on not just retail outcomes but also on the whole retail ecosystem | x | ||||||
| 12 | 47 | Keswani, Brooks & Khoury (2020) | Supervision, Virtual mentoring, Virtual classroom, Didactic curriculum | ||||||||
| 13 | 48 | Khodadad-Saryazdi (2021) | Qualitative | Adoption, Routinization, Implementation | |||||||
| 14 | 49 | Tessitore et al. (2021) | Systematic literature review | Deliberate exclusion of articles related to support from other sources | |||||||
| 15 | 41 | Abdelgaffar (2021) | Qualitative | x | |||||||
| 16 | 50 | Applin & Flick (2021) | Public behaviors | ||||||||
| 17 | 51 | Fernandez-Álvarez et al. (2020) | Encyclopaedia | ||||||||
| 18 | 52 | Ironsi (2021) | Quantitative | Obtaining ethical consent from the participants was difficult as well and so the sample size was small. | x | ||||||
| 19 | 32 | Ali, Narayan & Sharma (2020) | Engagement | Qualitative | x | x | x | x | |||
| 20 | 53 | Badiozaman, Leong & Wong (2020) | Quantitative | Online teaching and learning, mastering Google Classroom, cloud-based productivity tools, netiquette, cybersecurity | Small sample size - Digital Educator Series training, the accuracy of the description may be unique to this particular group of individuals. | x | x | ||||
| 21 | 35 | Tan (2020) | Quantitative | Motivation, Community of inquiry, cognitive presence and teaching presence and Learning performance. | x | x | x | ||||
| 22 | 36 | Simoes et al. (2021) | Quantitative | Availability of resources, Virtual learning process, Performance of students | x | x | x | ||||
| 23 | 54 | López et al. (2020) | x | ||||||||
| 24 | 55 | Kundu & Bej (2021) | Quantitative | Pedagogies, challenges faced | x | x | x | ||||
| 25 | 56 | Romero-Hall (2021) | Digital divide, Internet filtering policies, lack of research, Education reform, M-learning technology, Social media ethics | x | |||||||
| 26 | 57 | Caligiuri et al. (2020) | x | ||||||||
| 27 | 58 | Pacheco (2020) | x | ||||||||
| 28 | 59 | Moura, Nascimento & Ferreira (2021) | Conceptual | x | |||||||
| 29 | 34 | Ismailov & Ono (2021) | Motivation, Self-Determination theory, Expectancy-value theory | Quantitative | Motivation | Study involved groups of mainly first-year Japanese students, and thus, the sample may have been rendered homogeneous | x | x | x | x | |
| 30 | 60 | Chang & Kuo (2021) | Cultural Historical activity theory | Interactions and interactivity (LMS) | x | x | |||||
| 31 | 61 | Leal Filho et al. (2021) | Quantitative | x | x | ||||||
Table 6 presents the plotting of 31 papers to engagement, interest, synchronous online learning (SOL), movement control order (MCO) and higher education institutions (HEIs).
Table 6. Plotting of papers regarding engagement, interest, SOL (synchronous online learning), HEI (higher education institutions), and MCO (movement control order).
| No | Author (Year) | Has the paper discussed about these keywords? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synchronous online learning (SOL) | Engagement | Interest | Movement control order (MCO) | Higher education institutions (HEIs) | ||
| 1 | Aguilera-Hermida (2020) | x | x | x | x | |
| 2 | Srivastava et al. (2021) | x | x | x | ||
| 3 | Darling-Aduana (2021) | x | ||||
| 4 | Bogdan et al. (2021) | |||||
| 5 | Li et al. (2020) | x | ||||
| 6 | Corbin (2020) | x | ||||
| 7 | Tyerman, Luctkar-Flude, & Baker (2021) | x | ||||
| 8 | Constantin (2021) | x | x | |||
| 9 | Philippe (2020) | |||||
| 10 | Thomas (2021) | |||||
| 11 | Shankar (2021) | x | ||||
| 12 | Keswani, Brooks, & Khoury (2020) | |||||
| 13 | Khodadad-Saryazdi (2021) | |||||
| 14 | Tessitore (2020) | |||||
| 15 | Abdelgaffar (2021) | x | ||||
| 16 | Applin, & Flick (2021) | |||||
| 17 | Fernandez-Álvarez, (2020) | |||||
| 18 | Ironsi (2021) | x | ||||
| 19 | Ali, Narayan & Sharma (2020) | x | x | x | x | |
| 20 | Badiozaman, Leong & Wong (2020) | x | x | |||
| 21 | Tan (2020) | x | x | x | ||
| 22 | Simoes et al. (2021) | x | x | x | ||
| 23 | López et al. (2020) | x | ||||
| 24 | Kundu & Bej (2021) | x | x | x | ||
| 25 | Romero-Hall (2021) | x | ||||
| 26 | Caligiuri et al. (2020) | x | ||||
| 27 | Pacheco (2020) | x | ||||
| 28 | Moura, Nascimento & Ferreira (2021) | x | ||||
| 29 | Ismailov & Ono (2021) | x | x | x | x | |
| 30 | Chang & Kuo (2021) | x | x | |||
| 31 | Leal Filho et al. (2021) | x | x | |||
Table 5 and Table 6 show that, student’s engagement and interest associated with SOL in HEIs in the MCO environment is insufficiently researched. The online databases search results in Figure 3 also shows that only two papers are relevant to our research.
Figure 3. Paper search records.
Discussion
Table 7 presents the summary of the six papers related to synchronous online learning (SOL) in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the movement control order (MCO) environment.
Table 7. Summary of six papers related to SOL (synchronous online learning) + HEI (higher education institutions) + MCO (movement control order).
COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019.
| No | Citation | Author (Year) | Paper description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 31 | Aguilera-Hermida (2020) | This paper explores college students’ perception of their adoption, use and acceptance of emergency online learning, particularly their attitude, affect, motivation and perceived behavioral control and cognitive engagement using quantitative data collection methods. |
| 2 | 33 | Srivastava et al. (2021) | This paper aims to evaluate medical students’ anxiety levels and its correlation with academic factors during emergency remote learning using a questionnaire survey. Research findings show that about one-fourth of medical students have anxiety issue during emergency remote learning. |
| 3 | 32 | Ali, Narayan & Sharma (2020) | This paper aims to provide insights on students’ engagement in the learning of accounting subject during the COVID-19 disruption and the pivot to online learning based on reflections of academic staff members teaching the accounting subject at two large New Zealand universities. The findings of this paper suggests that there are some successes and challenges in engaging students in online learning of accounting subject. |
| 4 | 34 | Ismailov & Ono (2021) | This paper aims to examine factors that are influencing Japanese college freshmen’ motivation when completing graded online assignments as part of the English reading courses during COVID-19 pandemic using qualitative method. |
| 5 | 35 | Tan (2020) | This paper focuses on university students by analyzing students’ motivation, the community of inquiry and learning performance using quantitative analysis and paired sample t-test. Research findings indicated that due to the lack of learning infrastructures to support online learning and social support, students’ motivation and learning performance are affected. |
| 6 | 36 | Simoes et al. (2021) | This paper aims to analyze biological engineering students’ adaptation to virtual learning environment during COVID-19 pandemic. Research findings show that there is an overall improvement in students’ performance despite changes made to pedagogical like course design, teaching method and evaluation. |
Based on the above summary, research in the areas of undergraduate students’ engagement and interest in synchronous online learning during movement control order warrant further investigation. In-depth research into these areas will help the research community to offer practical solutions to synchronous online learning during MCO for undergraduate students who are used to physical face-to-face learning to increase learning effectiveness during the time of a crisis, such as a Coronavirus pandemic crisis. Next, this research will also bridge the theoretical gap where new or enhanced conceptual framework can be introduced.
Research gaps
Three major research gaps were identified:
Research gap 1: SOL in HEI during MCO context
Only six papers 31 – 36 are related to HEI in the MCO environment. Therefore, this new phenomenon warrants further investigation by the research community.
Research gap 2: Engagement and interest elements
Only two papers 31 , 32 related to engagement are associated with SOL in the MCO environment. The study on SOL associated with engagement and interest is clearly insufficient. Moreover, Paper 1 31 focused only on students’ cognitive engagement, such as attitude, affect, and motivation, whereas Paper 2 32 focused on accounting lecturers’ reflection regarding students’ engagement during synchronous and asynchronous online classes. Engagement can be categorized into cognitive, behavioral and emotional engagement. 20 A holistic view on students’ engagement should include these three dimensions. Next, students’ interest in learning via SOL will affect the quality of engagement. Nevertheless, interest as a factor associated with SOL in HEI in the MCO environment has not been researched intensively. Therefore, the inclusion of interest warrants the attention of the research community.
Research gap 3: Method
In total, seven qualitative research methods were identified from the 31 papers. Only one paper used case study method. SOL in HEIs in the MCO environment is a new phenomenon that may require a more in-depth investigation method, such as a case study method to gain better insights.
Limitations in current studies within synchronous online learning (SOL) in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the movement control order (MCO) environment
Table 8 presents the following limitations of the six papers pertaining to SOL associated with engagement and interest in HEI in the MCO environment.
Table 8. Limitations of the papers.
| No | Citation | Author (Year) | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 31 | Patricia Aguilera-Hermida (2020) | No standardized questions were asked. Only students from public universities were included. Study excluded students who did not have access to the Internet. |
| 2 | 33 | Srivastava et al. (2021) | |
| 3 | 37 | Darling-Aduana (2021) | Components of authentic work, such as communication and interaction with peers, that were not facilitated by the online course system evaluated |
| 4 | 38 | Bogdan et al. (2021) | |
| 5 | 39 | Li et al. (2020) | |
| 6 | 40 | Corbin (2020) | |
| 7 | 42 | Tyerman, Luctkar-Flude, & Baker (2021) | |
| 8 | 43 | Constantin et al (2021) | |
| 9 | 44 | Philippe et al. (2020) | Lack of robust evaluation framework |
| 10 | 45 | Thomas et al. (2021) | |
| 11 | 46 | Shankar et al. (2021) | Investigate the impact of technology on not just retail outcomes but also on the whole retail ecosystem |
| 12 | 47 | Keswani, Brooks & Khoury (2020) | |
| 13 | 48 | Khodadad-Saryazdi (2021) | |
| 14 | 49 | Tessitore et al. (2021) | Deliberate exclusion of articles related to support from other sources |
| 15 | 41 | Abdelgaffar (2021) | |
| 16 | 50 | Applin & Flick (2021) | |
| 17 | 51 | Fernandez-Álvarez et al. (2020) | |
| 18 | 52 | Ironsi (2021) | Obtaining ethical consent from the participants was difficult and so the sample size was small. |
| 19 | 32 | Ali, Narayan & Sharma (2020) | |
| 20 | 53 | Badiozaman, Leong & Wong (2020) | Small sample size - Digital Educator Series training, the accuracy of the description may be unique to this particular group of individuals. |
| 21 | 35 | Tan (2020) | |
| 22 | 36 | Simoes et al. (2021) | |
| 23 | 54 | López et al. (2020) | |
| 24 | 55 | Kundu & Bej (2021) | |
| 25 | 56 | Romero-Hall (2021) | |
| 26 | 57 | Caligiuri et al. (2020) | |
| 27 | 58 | Pacheco (2020) | |
| 28 | 59 | Moura, Nascimento & Ferreira (2021) | |
| 29 | 34 | Ismailov & Ono (2021) | Study involved groups of mainly first-year Japanese students, and thus, the sample may have been rendered homogeneous. |
| 30 | 60 | Chang & Kuo (2021) | |
| 31 | 61 | Leal Filho et al. (2021) |
Four limitations were identified from the 31 selected papers:
-
i.
These papers mainly focused on the cognitive dimension of engagement. Therefore, the inclusion of behavioral and emotional dimensions may be important for a holistic understanding of students’ engagement. Next, engagement is a personal factor. Therefore, investigating students directly to gauge their engagement level is important.
-
ii.
Few papers related to the interest element pertaining to SOL in the MCO environment exist. Interest is closely associated with engagement in the learning process. Therefore, interest must be included in the study of SOL in HEI in the MCO environment.
-
iii.
An in-depth understanding of how students are engaged, and their interest sustained through case study research will help complement the findings derived from quantitative studies pertaining to SOL associated with engagement and interest in HEI in the MCO environment.
-
iv.
Based on the identified 31 papers, only 6 papers were related to the targeted research areas. The rest of the 25 papers were irrelevant to the research areas. For instance, student’s anxiety level during MCO, the used of 5G technology in online education, proficiency usage of various online teaching platforms and devices and etc.
Therefore, Figure 4 is the conceptual framework for students’ engagement and interest pertaining to SOL in HEI in the MCO environment.
Figure 4. Conceptual framework.
COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019.
Future recommendations
Given the findings and discussions for this systematic literature review, Table 9 presents recommendations for future research in association with SOL in HEI under MCO.
Table 9. Future research recommendations.
| No | Future recommendations |
|---|---|
| 1 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the movement control order (MCO) environment in terms of students’ engagement preference styles. |
| 2 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the movement control order (MCO) environment in terms of effectiveness of interaction between student and student, between student and instructor and student with content. |
| 3 | Synchronous online learning (SOL) in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the movement control order (MCO) environment in terms of students’ behaviors and academic performance. |
Conclusions
This systematic literature review highlighted three research gaps associated with SOL in HEI in the MCO environment and four limitations were identified from the 31 selected research papers. A conceptual framework is proposed for future research related to synchronous online learning, engagement and interest in the movement control environment. Practical solutions can be identified to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning in this new phenomenon.
Data availability
Underlying data
All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.
Reporting guidelines
Figshare: PRISMA flow diagram and checklist for ‘Synchronous online learning during movement control order in higher education institutions: a systematic review. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16752031.v1. 62
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Acknowledgements
We thank the Multimedia University, Malaysia for supporting this research.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
References
- 1. StudyMalaysia.com: The Malaysian Higher Education System – An Overview. 2015, March 14.
- 2. Noordin N: Higher Education in the time of the coronavirus. The Star Online. 2020, April 14.
- 3. Bhowmick A, Khasawneh MT, Bowling SR, et al. : Evaluation of alternate multimedia for web-based asynchronous learning. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2007;37(7):615–629. 10.1016/j.ergon.2007.04.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Dlab MH, Boticki I, Hoic-Bozic N, et al. : Exploring group interactions in synchronous mobile computer-supported learning activities. Comput. Educ. 2020;146:103735. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103735 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Martin F, Oyarzun B: Distance Learning. West RE, editors. Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books;2018. Reference Source. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Watts L: Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Rev. Distance Educ. 2016;17(1):23. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Shahabadi MM, Uplane M: Synchronous and asynchronous e-learning styles and academic performance of e-learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sci. 2015;176(20):129–138. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.453 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Giesbers B, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, et al. : A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2014;30(1):30–50. 10.1111/jcal.12020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Strang K: Cooperative learning in graduate student projects: Comparing synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 2013;24(4):447–464. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Stewart AR, Harlow DB, DeBacco K: Students’ experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments. Distance Educ. 2011;32(3):357–381. 10.1080/01587919.2011.610289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Falloon G: Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2011;43(3):187–209. 10.1080/15391523.2011.10782569 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Khalil R, Mansour AE, Fadda WA, et al. : The sudden transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study exploring medical students’ perspectives. BMC Med. Educ. 2020;20(1):285–310. 10.1186/s12909-020-02208-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Murphy E: Issues in the adoption of broadband-enabled learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2005;36(3):525–536. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00490.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Hurst B, Wallace R, Nixon SB: The impact of social interaction on student learning. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts. 2013;52(4):5. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Moore MG: Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical principles of distance education. 1993;1:22–38. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Trabinger KL: Encouraging learner interaction, engagement and attention in the virtual classroom (an investigation into the phenomenon of multitasking) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Queensland). 2016.
- 17. Trowler V: Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy. 2010;11(1):1–15. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Kuh GD, Kinzie J, Schuh JH, et al. : Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. John Wiley & Sons;2011. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Krause KL, Coates H: Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2008;33(5):493–505. 10.1080/02602930701698892 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Bloom BS: Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay;1956;20–24. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Renninger KA, Hidi S: The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge;2015. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Dewey J: Interest and effort in education. Forgotten Books;1913. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Alexander PA: Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. Adv. Motiv. Achiev. 1997;10:213–250. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Berlyne DE: Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Percept. Psychophys. 1970;8(5):279–286. 10.3758/BF03212593 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Walkington C, Bernacki ML: Motivating students by “personalizing” learning around individual interests: A consideration of theory, design, and implementation issues. Motivational interventions. Emerald Group Publishing Limited;2014. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Hidi S, Renninger KA: The four-phase model of interest development. Educ. Psychol. 2006;41(2):111–127. 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Krapp A: Interest and human development: An educational-psychological perspective. Development and Motivation. 2003;2:57–84. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Harackiewicz JM, Smith JL, Priniski SJ: Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy insights from the behavioural and brain sciences. 2016;3(2):220–227. 10.1177/2372732216655542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Hidi S, Harackiewicz JM: Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Rev. Educ. Res. 2000;70(2):151–179. 10.3102/00346543070002151 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Bria R, Retnowardhani A, Utama DN: Five Stages of Database Forensic Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings of 2018 International Conference on Information Management and Technology, ICIMTech 2018, September. 2018;246–250. 10.1109/ICIMTech.2018.8528177 [DOI]
- 31. Patricia Aguilera-Hermida A: College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open. 2020;1:100011. 10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Ali I, Narayan AK, Sharma U: Adapting to COVID-19 disruptions: student engagement in online learning of accounting. Accounting Res. J. 2020;34:261–269. 10.1108/ARJ-09-2020-0293 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Srivastava S, Jacob J, Charles AS, et al. : Emergency remote learning in anatomy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study evaluating academic factors contributing to anxiety among first year medical students. Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2021;77:S90–S98. 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.12.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Ismailov M, Ono Y: Assignment Design and its Effects on Japanese College Freshmen’s Motivation in L2 Emergency Online Courses: A Qualitative Study. Asia-Pacific Educ. Res. 2021;30(3):263–278. 10.1007/s40299-021-00569-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Tan C: The impact of COVID-19 on student motivation, community of inquiry and learning performance. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2020;10:308–321. 10.1108/AEDS-05-2020-0084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Simoes C, Chatterjee P, Lemes LP, et al. : Virtual learning approach to biological engineering courses in Uruguay during COVID-19. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. 2021. ahead-of-print. 10.1108/HESWBL-08-2020-0199 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Darling-Aduana J: Authenticity, engagement, and performance in online high school courses: Insights from micro-interactional data. Comput. Educ. 2021;167(August 2020):104175. 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Bogdan EA, Roszko AM, Beckie MA, et al. : We’re ready! Effectiveness of community disaster preparedness workshops across different community groups in Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021;55(July 2020):102060. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102060 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Li JPO, Liu H, Ting DS, et al. : Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2020;100900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Corbin CB: Conceptual physical education: A course for the future. J. Sport Health Sci. 2021;10(3):308–322. 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Abdelgaffar HA: A critical investigation of PRME integration practices of the third cycle champion group. International Journal of Management Education. 2021;19(1):100457. 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100457 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Tyerman J, Luctkar-Flude M, Baker C: Rapid Development of a COVID-19 Assessment and PPE Virtual Simulation Game. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2021;56:125–132. 10.1016/j.ecns.2021.03.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Constantin A, Alexandru C, Korte J, et al. : Distributing participation in design: Addressing challenges of a global pandemic. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2021;28:100255. 10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Philippe S, Souchet AD, Lameras P, et al. : Multimodal teaching, learning and training in virtual reality: a review and case study. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware. 2020;2(5):421–442. 10.1016/j.vrih.2020.07.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Thomas JG, Goldstein CM, Bond DS, et al. : Evaluation of intervention components to maximize outcomes of behavioural obesity treatment delivered online: A factorial experiment following the multiphase optimization strategy framework. Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2021;100:106217. 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Shankar V, Kalyanam K, Setia P, et al. : How Technology is Changing Retail. J. Retail. 2021;97(1):13–27. 10.1016/j.jretai.2020.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Keswani A, Brooks JP, Khoury P: The Future of Telehealth in Allergy and Immunology Training. J. allergy and clin. immun. 2020;8(7):2135–2141. 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Khodadad-Saryazdi A: Exploring the telemedicine implementation challenges through the process innovation approach: A case study research in the French healthcare sector. Technovation. 2021;107(June 2020):102273. 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Tessitore A, Capranica L, Pesce C, et al. : Parents about parenting dual career athletes: A systematic literature review. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2021;53:101833. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Applin SA, Flick C: Facebook’s Project Aria indicates problems for responsible innovation when broadly deploying AR and other pervasive technology in the Commons. J. Respons. Tech. 2021;5(December 2020):100010. 10.1016/j.jrt.2021.100010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Fernandez-Álvarez J, Díaz-García A, Colombo D, et al. : Digital Technologies for the Intervention of Emotion Regulation. 2020.
- 52. Ironsi CS: Google Meet as a synchronous language learning tool for emergency online distant learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: perceptions of language instructors and preservice teachers. J. App. Res. Higher Educ. 2021. ahead-of-print. 10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Adi Badiozaman IF, Leong HJ, Wong W: Embracing educational disruption: a case study in making the shift to a remote learning environment. J. App. Res. Higher Educ. 2020 December. ahead-of-print. 10.1108/JARHE-08-2020-0256 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 54. López LLL, McCaw CT, Di Biase R, et al. : The quarantine archives: educators in “social isolation”. Hist. Educ. Rev. 2020;49:195–213. 10.1108/HER-05-2020-0028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Kundu A, Bej T: COVID 19 response: An analysis of teachers’ perception on pedagogical successes and challenges of digital teaching practice during new normal. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021. 10.1007/s10639-021-10503-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Romero-Hall E: Current initiatives, barriers, and opportunities for networked learning in Latin America. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021;69:2267–2283. 10.1007/s11423-021-09965-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Caligiuri P, De Cieri H, Minbaeva D, et al. : International HRM insights for navigating the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for future research and practice. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 58. Pacheco JA: The “new normal” in education. Prospects. 2020;0123456789. 10.1007/s11125-020-09521-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Moura GG, Nascimento CRR, Ferreira JM: COVID-19: Reflections on the Crisis, Transformation, and Interactive Processes Under Development. Trends in Psychology. 2021;29(2):375–394. 10.1007/s43076-020-00061-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Chang S, Kuo AC: Indulging interactivity: a learning management system as a facilitative boundary object. SN Soc. Sci. 2021;1(2):1–15. 10.1007/s43545-021-00069-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Leal Filho W, Price E, Wall T, et al. : COVID-19: the impact of a global crisis on sustainable development teaching. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021;23:11257–11278. 10.1007/s10668-020-01107-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Dorasamy M, Lee YW: Prisma Flow Diagram and Checklist. figshare. Dataset. 2021. 10.6084/m9.figshare.16752031.v1 [DOI]