This current study is to empirically validate the importance of student's behavioural engagement on online teaching during a coronavirus-2019 disease pandemic. The global spread of coronavirus-2019 disease has affected every aspect of business, including education, resulting in the shift of classroom to online teaching. Keeping in view the growing concern about students’ attentiveness, connectivity, participation, and interaction in online classes, the authors underlined the critical need for paying empirical attention to this issue. While addressing a major empirical gap, the present study tested and found the significant role of e-learning efficacy, e-learning resilience, and teachers’ instructional innovation in boosting students` online behavioural engagement. Additionally, the study found a thought-provoking direct and interacting role of teachers’ instructional innovation. Therefore, the implications of the findings indicate that leaders in educational institutions need to invest in psychological resources that emphasize innovation and creativity in instructional methods for teachers to enhance student engagement in an online environment.
AdedoyinOBSoykanE (2020) Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments28: 1–13.
2.
AhmedSShehataMHassanienM (2020) Emerging faculty needs for enhancing student engagement on a virtual platform. MedEdPublish9(1): 75.
3.
AhmedUUmraniWAPahiMH, et al. (2017) Engaging PhD students: Investigating the role of supervisor support and psychological capital in a mediated model. Iranian Journal of Management Studies10(2): 283–306.
4.
AhmedUUmraniWAQureshiMA, et al. (2018) Examining the links between teachers support, academic efficacy, academic resilience, and student engagement in Bahrain. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences5(9): 39–46.
5.
Al-SamarraieHTengBKAlzahraniAI, et al. (2018) E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: A unified perspective from instructors and students. Studies in Higher Education43(11): 2003–2019.
6.
AlmanthariAMaulinaSBruceS (2020) Secondary school mathematics Teachers’ views on E-learning implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education16(7): em1860.
7.
AlvaSA (1991) Academic invulnerability among Mexican-American students: The importance of protective resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences13(1): 18–34.
8.
AppletonJJChristensonSLFurlongMJ (2008) Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools45(5): 369–386.
9.
AppletonJJChristensonSLKimD, et al. (2006) Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology44(5): 427–445.
10.
BasilaiaGKvavadzeD (2020) Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research5(4): 1–9.
11.
BeriNKumarD (2018) Predictors of academic resilience among students: A meta analysis. Journal on Educational Psychology11(4): 37–44.
12.
BoaheneKOFangJSampongF (2019) Social media usage and tertiary students’ academic performance: Examining the influences of academic self-efficacy and innovation characteristics. Sustainability11(8): 2431.
13.
BolligerDUSupanakornSBoggsC (2010) Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Computers & Education55(2): 714–722.
14.
BormanGDOvermanLT (2004) Academic resilience in mathematics among poor and minority students. The Elementary School Journal104(3): 177–195.
15.
CariniRMKuhGDKleinSP (2006) Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education47(1): 1–32.
16.
ChenTPengLYinX, et al. (2020, September) Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare8(3): 1–26.
17.
ClarkRCMayerRE (2016) E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
CoatesH (2005) The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education11(1): 25–36.
19.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
DawsonJF (2014) Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology29(1): 1–19.
21.
DiasMJAlmodóvarMAtilesJT, et al. (2020) Rising to the challenge: Innovative early childhood teachers adapt to the COVID-19 era. Childhood Education96(6): 38–45.
22.
DoganU (2015) Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist20(3): 553–561.
23.
EllisRAGinnsPPiggottL (2009) E-learning in higher education: Some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research & Development28(3): 303–318.
24.
EwingLA (2021) Rethinking higher education post COVID-19. In: LeeJHanSH (eds) The Future of Service Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, The ICT and Evolution of Work. Singapore, Vol. 1,37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_3.
25.
FalkRFMillerNB (1992) A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
26.
FanWWilliamsCM (2010) The effects of parental involvement on students’ academic self-efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology30(1): 53–74.
27.
FatiMAhmedUAli UmraniW, et al. (2019) Academic press and student engagement: Can academic psychological capital intervene? Test of a mediated model on business graduates. International Journal of Higher Education8(3): 134–147.
28.
FavaleTSoroFTrevisanM, et al. (2020) Campus traffic and e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Computer Networks176: e107290.
29.
FerdigREBaumgartnerEHartshorneR, eds et al. (2020) Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 15, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216903/.
30.
FinnJDPannozzoGMAchillesCM (2003) The “why's” of class size: Student behavior in small classes. Review of Educational Research73(3): 321–368.
31.
FredericksJABlumenfeldPC (2004) Paris AH. School enthusiasm: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74(1): 59–109.
32.
GallaBMWoodJJTsukayamaE, et al. (2014) A longitudinal multilevel model analysis of the within-person and between-person effect of effortful engagement and academic self-efficacy on academic performance. Journal of School Psychology52(3): 295–308.
33.
GunucSKuzuA (2015) Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education40(4): 587–610.
34.
HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al. (2017) Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science45(5): 616–632.
35.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2013) Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning46(1–2): 1–12.
36.
Hair JrJFHultGTMRingleC, et al. (2016) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage publications.
37.
HandelsmanMMBriggsWLSullivanN, et al. (2005) A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research98(3): 184–192.
38.
HartC (2012) Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning11(1): 19–42.
39.
HerringtonJReevesTCOliverR (2009) A Practical Guide to Authentic E-Learning. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
40.
HobfollSE (1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist44(3): 513–524.
41.
HobfollSE (2001) The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology50(3): 337–421.
42.
HobfollSEJohnsonRJEnnisN, et al. (2003) Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84(3): 632–643.
43.
HonickeTBroadbentJ (2016) The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review17(2016): 63–84.
44.
HuSKuhGDLiS (2008) The effects of engagement in inquiry-oriented activities on student learning and personal development. Innovative Higher Education33(2): 71–81.
45.
JohnsonSDAragonSR (2003) An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education2003(100): 31–43.
46.
JuncoRElavskyCMHeibergerG (2013) Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology44(2): 273–287.
47.
KahuER (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education38(5): 758–773.
48.
KomarrajuMDialC (2014) Academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem predict self-determined motivation and goals. Learning and Individual Differences32: 1–8.
49.
KrauseK (2005) Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. In: Paper presented as keynote address: Engaged, Inert or Otherwise Occupied, 21–22.
50.
KrauseKLCoatesH (2008) Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education33(5): 493–505.
51.
KumarPKumarA (2003) Effect of a web-based project on preservice and inservice teachers’ attitude toward computers and their technology skills. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education19(3): 87–92.
52.
LazimCSLMIsmailNDBTazilahMDAK (2021) Application of technology acceptance model (TAM) towards online learning during Covid-19 pandemic: Accounting students perspective. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Law24(1): 13–20.
53.
LeeYHHsiehYCChenYH (2013) An investigation of employees’ use of e-learning systems: Applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology32(2): 173–189.
54.
LeeYJ (2008) A study of the influence of instructional innovation on learning satisfaction and study achievement. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning4(2): 43–54.
55.
LiLChengLQianKX (2008, September) An e-learning system model based on affective computing. In: In 2008 International Conference on Cyberworlds (pp. 45–50). IEEE.
56.
MacLeodAKCoatesEHethertonJ (2008) Increasing well-being through teaching goal-setting and planning skills: Results of a brief intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies9(2): 185–196.
57.
MartinAJMarshHW (2008) Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology46(1): 53–83.
58.
MidgleyCMaehrMLHrudaLZ, et al. (2000) Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
59.
MishraLGuptaTShreeA (2020) Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open1: 100012.
60.
MohammedKSRashidCASalihHA, et al. (2020) The role of online teaching tools on the perception of the students during the lockdown of Covid-19. Journal Metrics7(4): 178–190.
61.
MouzakitisGS (2009) e-Learning: The six important “Wh…?”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences1(1): 2595–2599.
62.
MuilenburgLYBergeZL (2005) Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education26(1): 29–48.
63.
NortvigAMPetersenAKBalleSH (2018) A literature review of the factors influencing E-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of e-Learning16(1): 46–55.
64.
OgaloHS (2020) Strategic management of HRM practices and innovation performance in the high tech fiberglass sector in Bahrain: Mediating role of organizational innovation. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR)2(3): 43–55.
65.
OraifIElyasT (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on learning: Investigating EFL Learners’ engagement in online courses in Saudi Arabia. Education Sciences11(3): 99.
66.
OrlovGMcKeeDBerryJ, et al. (2021) Learning during the Covid-19 pandemic: It is not who you teach, but how you teach. Economics Letters202: 109812.
67.
OuweneelELe BlancPMSchaufeliWB (2011) Flourishing students: A longitudinal study on positive emotions, personal resources, and study engagement. The Journal of Positive Psychology6(2): 142–153.
68.
PacielloMGhezziVTramontanoC, et al. (2016) Self-efficacy configurations and wellbeing in the academic context: A person-centred approach. Personality and Individual Differences99: 16–21.
69.
ParkSY (2005) Student engagement and classroom variables in improving mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review6(1): 87–97.
70.
PersicoDMancaSPozziF (2014) Adapting the technology acceptance model to evaluate the innovative potential of e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior30: 614–622.
71.
PhankhongTBakarLJAPoespowidjojoDAL (2020) Examining the mediating role of innovativeness on the relationship between innovation strategy, atmosphere, culture and performance of hotel industry in Thailand: A pilot study. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR)2(2): 29–39.
72.
RadhaRMahalakshmiKKumarVS, et al. (2020) E-learning during lockdown of Covid-19 pandemic: A global perspective. International Journal of Control and Automation13(4): 1088–1099.
73.
RennieFMorrisonT (2013) E-learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
74.
RichardsonJCBrushTOttenbreit-LeftwichA, et al. (2020) Innovations in instructional design and technology programs: A view from PIDT 2018. TechTrends64(3): 1–7.
75.
RingleCMSarstedtMStraubDW (2012) Editor’s comments: A critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM in “MIS Quarterly”. MIS Quarterly .36(1): 3–14.
76.
RojasLF (2015) Factors affecting academic resilience in middle school students: A case study. Gist: Education and Learning Research Journal11: : 63–78.
77.
RomeoG (2006) Engage, empower, enable: Developing a shared vision for technology in education. In: Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies. Dordrecht: Springer, 149–175.
78.
RowanBMillerRJ (2007) Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal44(2): 252–297.
79.
SalanovaMSchaufeliWMartínezI, et al. (2010) How obstacles and facilitators predict academic performance: The mediating role of study burnout and engagement. Anxiety, Stress & Coping23(1): 53–70.
80.
SalawudeenOS (2010) E-learning Technology. The Nigerian Experience. Abuja: Roger Printing and Publishing limited.
81.
SansoneCThomanDB (2006) Maintaining activity engagement: Individual differences in the process of self-regulating motivation. Journal of Personality74(6): 1697–1720.
82.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior25(3): 293–315.
83.
SchunkDHPajaresF (2002) The development of academic self-efficacy. In: Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 15–31.
84.
SimsR (2008) Rethinking (e) learning: A manifesto for connected generations. Distance Education29(2): 153–164.
85.
SiuOLBakkerABJiangX (2014) Psychological capital among university students: Relationships with study engagement and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies15(4): 979–994.
86.
SmithJJGreeneHC (2013) Pre-service teachers use e-learning technologies to enhance their learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research12(1): 121–140.
87.
SnyderMM (2009) Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends53(1): 48–56.
88.
SunJCYHsiehPH (2018) Application of a gamified interactive response system to enhance the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, student engagement, and attention of English learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society21(3): 104–116.
89.
TamratW (2021) Enduring the impacts of COVID-19: Experiences of the private higher education sector in Ethiopia. Studies in Higher Education46(1): 59–74.
90.
TianKSautterPFisherD, et al. (2014) Transforming health care: Empowering therapeutic communities through technology-enhanced narratives. Journal of Consumer Research41(2): 237–260.
91.
TyiloN (2017) E-learning as instructional innovation in higher education institutions (HEI's): Lessons learnt from the literature. Journal of Communication8(1): 87–93.
92.
UmraniWAAfsarBKhanM, et al. (2019) Addressing the issue of job performance among hospital physicians in Pakistan: The role of job security, organizational support, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research24(3): e12169.
93.
VaezMLaflammeL (2008) Experienced stress, psychological symptoms, self-rated health and academic achievement: A longitudinal study of Swedish university students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal36(2): 183–196.
94.
WaldnerLSWidenerMCMcGorrySY (2012) E-service learning: The evolution of service-learning to engage a growing online student population. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement: 123–150.
95.
WangCHShannonDMRossME (2013) Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education34(3): 302–323.
96.
WoolliscroftJO (2020) Innovation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Academic Medicine.
97.
XanthopoulouDBakkerABDemeroutiE, et al. (2007) The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management14(2): 121–141.
98.
YeagerDSDweckCS (2012) Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist47(4): 302–314.
99.
YuJHChaeSJChangKH (2016) The relationship among self-efficacy, perfectionism and academic burnout in medical school students. Korean Journal of Medical Education28(1): 49–55.
100.
ZimmermanBJBanduraAMartinez-PonsM (1992) Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal29(3): 663–676.
