Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Project Leadership and Society

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/project-leadership-and-society

Empirical Research Paper

Student’s perception of engagement in online project management

education and its impact on performance: The mediating role of
self-motivation
Fatima Afzal *, Lynn Crawford
School of Project Management, The University of Sydney, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Student engagement is considered an essential element of student’s learning experience and performance. While
Student engagement many studies are conducted to evaluate student engagement in the face-to-face environment, less is known about
Online learning its impact on student performance in online learning, especially in project management education. COVID-19
Performance
forced all education institutions around the world to rapidly change to the delivery of courses online, often
with little or no expertise in this form of delivery. This article provides insight into student engagement in
undergraduate and postgraduate project management programs delivered online during 2020–2021. Specific
objectives are: (i) to identify the factors that impact student engagement; (ii) to examine the impact of
engagement on performance and (iii) to investigate the role of self-motivation on engagement and performance.
Data were collected from 285 students enrolled in eight randomly selected courses of the project management
program at a university in Australia during the second half of 2020 via an online questionnaire. The results found
that self-motivated students are likely to engage better with their peers. Through structural equation modeling, it
was further identified that student engagement is significantly related to students’ performance in online
learning. The study provides numerous insights for teachers to increase student engagement, such as creating a
learner-centered environment with clear expectations.

1. Introduction explore the shift from manual face-to-face teaching to an online

home-based learning module on student satisfaction and subsequently
COVID-19 has challenged our ability to adapt and be resilient. The their performance in higher education.
education sector was forced to shift all teaching online within a short Chakraborty & Muyia Nafukho, (2014) suggest that there are many
period of time. There are several advantages of face-to-face teaching benefits of online teaching for instance, students don’t need to be on
such as students taking the face-to-face course are generally more campus to access class content. In addition, the virtual environment for
satisfied with the course on several dimensions than their online coun­ learning enables students from different regions to take courses of their
terparts, especially when studying in a foreign language (Tratnik et al., choice (Becker et al., 2009). In order to enhance students’ satisfaction in
2019). However, in the recent events due to the COVID-19 outbreak online environments, Sural and Bozkaya (2016) stress the importance of
being declared a global pandemic, face-to-face teaching may not be an personalisation of online content where the students can have person­
option for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, it is about time the alised homepages and contents to keep them immersed and involved in
effective strategies for online education and associated students’ satis­ the course content. Further, to improve the personalisation tools, facil­
faction and performance are investigated. Online teaching requires ities like adding a profile picture, applying design templates, and audio
careful thinking about how learners and teachers are equipped for the visual or text-based content presentation according to learning styles
shift and serious consideration about how the teaching style is still will be helpful in engaging students. Similarly, course structure, learner
effective when taken from the classroom and transposed to technolog­ interaction, and instructor presence significantly affect students’
ical devices. The key to the success of any online program is dedicating perceived learning, which is mediated by students’ engagement (Gray &
attention to student satisfaction. In this context, it is imperative to DiLoreto, n.d., Lup and Mitrea, 2021).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Afzal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100057
Received 30 June 2022; Accepted 30 August 2022
Available online 5 September 2022
2666-7215/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Afzal and L. Crawford Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

Rios et al. (2018) provide a comprehensive explanation of efficient due to socio-economic characteristics, such as employment and caring
instructional strategies for maximising online students’ performance responsibilities. Some other problems faced by students include tech­
and state that adequate course design, appropriate instructional nical difficulties (with equipment, internet connection and audio inter­
methods, and comprehensive understanding of students’ needs are a ference) and inadequate digital skills (Aristovnik et al., 2020); (Molea
must for ensuring better performance. In this context, user-friendly and Năstasă, 2020); (Farrell and Brunton, 2020).
course design, easy navigation, clear guidance and assessment rubrics, To fill the gaps identified in literature the purpose of this study is to
constructive feedback and allowing interactions with the instructor and investigate the student’s engagement in the context of online learning in
other students can support improved performance and satisfaction in a sample of undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) students
online students. Further, online environments should incorporate enrolled in the project management program at an Australian university.
effective visual, written, and animated content in a relevant and realistic Following this aim the specific objective are: (i) to identify the factors
context. Similarly, educator presence in online settings, interactions that impact student engagement; (ii) to examine the impact of engage­
between students, teachers, and content, and designed connections be­ ment on performance and (iii) to investigate the mediating role of self-
tween online and offline activities as well as between campus-related motivation on engagement and performance. Student engagement is
and practice-related activities are essential for better engagement, defined as the interactions of students with their peers, learning content,
improved satisfaction, and achievement of learning outcomes of online and teacher.
students (Nortvig et al., 2018). The article is structured as follows. The next section provides liter­
(Paulsen and McCormick, 2020) suggested that online learning can ature review on overview of online learning theories, discusses the
occur in a variety of forms, but the three most common categories are: (i) importance of student engagement and offers insights into definitions
fully asynchronous instruction (requiring no face-to-face interaction), and dimensions particularly for the case of online learning. The next
(ii) blended instruction (involving of both online, and face-to-face in­ section presents the research methodology including data collection
struction, and (iii) synchronous online learning (just face-to face in­ techniques and methods used for the analysis, followed by results and
struction, which is the online version of traditional lectures). The project discussion. The article ends with concluding remarks.
management program at the university delivered courses in a blended
mode prior to COVID-19 within person face to face instruction sup­ 2. Literature review
ported by rich online resources, however, all face-to-face instruction was
converted to online instruction as a protective measure against the 2.1. Learning theories
spread of COVID19. This emergency variant of blended learning
occurred on the background of limited previous experience with the Learning theories are the foundation of an engaging online course.
logistics of organizing and delivering fully online blended instruction They provide information about the relationship between strategies,
(Alexandru and Scoda, 2020). Moreover, students were forced into this context, and learner characteristics for better learning outcomes. The
arrangement without any deliberate choice on their part or any previous three main learning theories are: Behaviourism, Cognitivism and
experience or preparation for online education. Previous research sug­ Constructivism (Khalil and Elkhider, 2016). These theories differ in how
gests that different teaching delivery styles can have different degrees of learning is defined and learners’ roles, leading to the selection of various
success, as measured in terms of student engagement and performance teaching methods and assessments. Behaviourism explains that learning
(Emerson and Taylor, 2004). is the acquisition of new behaviour, where learners have a passive role in
Despite the benefits of online teaching, online class environment the learning process. Cognitivism explains that the learning involves the
presents the challenge of maintaining student engagement as compared acquisition the recognising the cognitive structures where learners have
to a traditional face-to-face setting. One of the disadvantages of online an active role in the learning process. Constructivism explains that
environment as pointed out in the literature is the reduced interaction learning is a search for meaning, and learners have an active role in
between and among the students and course facilitators (Chen et al., learning (Ertmer and Newby, 2013).
2008; (Paulsen and McCormick, 2020). This low engagement could Constructivism encourages collaboration and communication with
further lead to their low satisfaction and poor performance which has peers and teachers, promoting deeper learning based on prior knowl­
not been explored in previous studies. edge, whereas cognitivism focuses on the structured process of learning
Student engagement is considered as significant factor in educational where memory, critical thinking and reflection play a vital role. As the
results, including student success (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005); success of online is highly dependent on the active engagement of stu­
(McCormick et al., 2013), the quality of students’ learning experience dents constructivism and cognitivism are likely the best suited theories
reflecting their intrinsic, cognitive as well as emotional connection with for online learning (Mödritscher, 2006; Brieger et al., 2020).
their learning (Chapman, 2002; Coates, 2007; Kuh, 2009; Shulman,
2002). 2.2. Self-determination theory (SDT)
While the impact of engagement on student performance in a face-to-
face setting has been extensively researched, less is known about how it Self-determination theory (SDT) explains people’s inherent motiva­
impacts student’s learning in the context of online learning. Moreover, tional tendencies for learning, growing, and connection with others.
the majority of studies of student engagement in online learning are However, these tendencies are not automatic and they can be supported
focused on the North American context (Paulsen and McCormick, 2020). (Ryan and Deci, 2019). To be motivated mean to be moved to do
This paper contributes to the research on student engagement in higher something. Motivation could be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motiva­
education by investigating the less studied context of project manage­ tion is defined as “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions
ment education in Australia and focusing on the compulsory online rather than for some separable consequence” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, pg.
learning in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is expected that the 56). When students are motivated intrinsically, they are moved to act for
abrupt change to online learning, in the context of the pandemic and the the fun or challenge rather than external pressure or reward. On the
absence of expertise in online instruction would decrease student contrary extrinsic motivation refers to doing an activity for the enjoy­
engagement compared to face-to-face instruction. ment of activity itself rather than its instrumental value (Ryan and Deci,
Student engagement levels are expected to be further impacted by 2000).
lack of self-motivation, unavailability of reliable internet and living Although intrinsic motivation is naturally present in humans, the
arrangements and studying conditions. (Lup and Mitrea, 2021) identi­ social and environmental conditions around the individuals can rein­
fied various factors that impact the levels of student engagement such as force this inherent tendency (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Ryan and Deci’s
students’ motivation, unavailability of suitable learning environment Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) worked as a sub theory within SDT

2
F. Afzal and L. Crawford Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

that emphasizes the social and environmental variables that could in­
crease or reduce intrinsic motivation. It suggests that social and task
environments are crucial for affecting a person’s feelings of competence,
autonomy, and relatedness. In education, classroom and home envi­
ronments could facilitate or forestall intrinsic motivation by enabling
versus undermining students’ psychological needs (Ryan and Deci,
2000). In line with Ryan and Deci, many studies have reported statis­
tically significant correlations between motivation and students’
perception of the learning environment (e.g., Bi, 2015; Cerasoli et al.,
2014; Gao et al., 2017). Similarly, the research done in the online con­
texts has reported the significance of intrinsic motivation to students’
learning processes (Ushida, 2005) and learning outcomes (Liu and Chu,
2010).
A study done by Taylor et al. (2014) highlighted the significant role
of intrinsic motivation in school achievement. Taylor et al. followed this
meta-analysis with additional studies of high school and college students
in Canada and Sweden, showing that intrinsic motivation was consis­
tently associated with higher performance, controlling for baseline
achievement. Similarly, study done by (Froiland & Worrell, (2016)
showed that intrinsic motivation predicted student engagement, which,
in turn, predicted higher achievement (GPA), results that remained
consistent when limiting analyses to African American and Latino
students.
As online learning are reported to place more responsibilities on
students as compared to traditional face-to-face learning systems, stu­ Fig. 1. Model of student engagement adopted from Groccia, 2018).
dent’s self-motivation is deemed necessary for effective learning Raime
et al. (2020). Self-motivated learning requires shifting responsibilities (Hu and Li, 2017). The teachers’ role is to guide students to engage and
and roles of students from passive learners to active learners since these interact with the course material and peers to create their own knowl­
students must self-manage their learning process Eom et al. (2006). edge (Ang et al., 2021).

2.3. Student engagement in online environment 2.4. Conceptual framework and hypothesis

Based on constructivism and cognitivism, student engagement is The conceptual framework for this study is presented in Fig. 2.
seen as a multidimensional concept, where interactions with teachers, Underpinned by learning theories of constructivism, cognitivism and
and other students are considered an important part of the learning self-determination theory the framework explains that student’s per­
experience (Lumpkin et al., 2015). Coates, (2007) defined engagement formance in the online learning is determined by their engagement. It is
as a “broad construct intended to encompass salient academic as well as hypothesized that students’ self-motivation plays an important medi­
certain non-academic aspects of the student experience” including ating role between the relationship of engagement and performance.
“active learning, participation in challenging academic activities, Based on the preceding literature in Section 2.2 and 2.3, this study
formative communication with academic staff, involvement in enriching postulates that:
educational experiences, and feeling legitimated and supported by
H1. Student engagement in online classes has a positive impact on
university learning communities.” Similarly Axelson and Flick (2010,
performance
pg.38) defined student engagement as “how involved or interested
students appear to be in their learning and how connected they are to H2. Self-motivation has a positive impact on performance
their classes, their institutions, and each other."
H3. Self-motivation positively mediates the relationship between
According to Groccia and Hunter (2012), engagement is a multidi­
engagement and performance
mensional concept. They emphasised that learning requires the educa­
tional practices that engage students across disciplinary boundaries in
learning experiences that tackle real problems, allow for the application
of course content to those problems, and lead to sustained intellectual
growth and a heightened sense of personal responsibility".
Previous studies of student engagement have focused on active
learning, peer collaboration, and the effectiveness of student teacher
interaction as its core dimensions (Chen et al., 2008; McCormick et al.,
2013). According to (Kuh, 2003) active learning involves students’
participation in class activities and contributions to class discussions.
Actively engaged students are more likely to have better academic
performance levels and knowledge retention rates (Jaggars and Xu,
2016); (Kuh et al., 2011); (Ang et al., 2021). Adopted from (Groccia,
2018), Fig. 1 explains that learners can be engaged with other students,
learning material and the teachers, however this engagement occurs on
a behavioural, cognitive, and emotional level. Behavioural engagement
refers to student’s specific behaviours in the learning process. Cognitive
engagement refers to the use of learning strategies. Emotional engage­
ment refers to students’ emotional reaction, including interest,
boredom, happiness, sadness and anxiety, and the sense of belonging Fig. 2. Conceptual framework.

3
F. Afzal and L. Crawford Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

3. Method 1–5, where1 represents poor performance and 5 means performance was
excellent. In the next section students’ were asked to rate various
To investigate the students’ engagement, this research used a mixed engagement tools used in the online learning environment. The last
method design in which the data was collected via an online survey section asked questions about the factors that impacted student’s
questionnaire. Mixed method design uses both qualitative and quanti­ engagement.
tative data collection and analysis techniques (Creswell and Creswell, Qualitative data was collected in the same questionnaire using the
2017). It capitalises on the strengths and complements the weaknesses open-ended questions, where students were asked to answer the
of each approach, and thus provides a synergistic research design. following questions: (i) please elaborate on your overall experience of
Tashakkori & Teddlie, (2003) demonstrated that mixed methods online study. (ii) please elaborate your engagement with your lecturer,
research is superior to single approach in the following three ways: (i) peers and online learning material. (iii) please describe the top three
mixed methods offers a wider scope, mainly because it enables the factors that might have impacted your performance in online learning
researcher to simultaneously answer confirmatory and exploratory and (iv) would you like to give some suggestions on how to improve the
questions, and therefore verify and generate theory in the same study; online learning. This data was coded manually and analysed using
(ii) Better implication of results could be achieved from mixing methods NVivo 12.
in a way that their strengths are complementary, and their weaknesses
do not overlap and; (iii) mix method research gives opportunity to detect 3.3. Self reporting
convergence or divergence of theoretical assumptions.
This study used self-report data by the students. Self-reporting data is
3.1. Data collection and sample profile common in educational research (Cole et al., 2021; Ang et al., 2021).
The use of subjective self-reports was considered necessary because, key
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University. informant reports, can often provide information (for example, beliefs,
Data was collected from eight courses selected from undergraduate and activities and motives related to prior events) which is not available
postgraduate project management programs during the second half of from other sources. As this study wanted to examine students’ engage­
2020. An invitation was sent to 787 students to participate in the online ment in the online classes the use of self-report data was considered
survey. A total of 284 responses were received (36% response rate), and appropriate for this study.
after initial screening 208 responses were used in data analysis. Table 1
shows the sample profile of the respondents. It can be seen that 90% of 4. Data analysis
the respondents are full time students and only 10% are part time stu­
dents. In terms of level of study, the sample demonstrates almost equal 4.1. Descriptive analysis
representation of undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) students.
The majority of students are international. SPSS was used to calculate the descriptive statistics. To calculate the
mean score of various variables the Likert’s scales were given numerical
3.2. Measures ratings. Afterward, the mean scores were calculated using the formula:

Mean Rating = [ (Fraction of responses for SA x 5) + (Fraction of responses

In this study, measurement items for individual identified constructs
for A x 4) + (Fraction of responses for N x 3) + (Fraction of responses for D x
were generated via the review of literature. In the questionnaire design,
2) + (Fraction of responses for SD x 1)]
all questions were standardised in a way that they were presented
exactly with the same wordings and order to all respondents. This was
done to ensure that the datasets obtained are comparable for data
analysis purposes. In this case, responses to most of the questions are
4.2. Hypotheses testing
fixed in a semantic differential scale administrated on a Likert design,
unless otherwise stated. Respondents were requested to rate individual
To fulfill the second objective of this study (i.e., to examine the
questions on a five-point Likert scale.
impact of engagement on student performance) a structural model was
The survey questionnaire contained six sections. The first section
developed (see Fig. 2). This model consists of two predictor constructs in
asked about the demographic details of the students such as their mode
relation to student engagement and self-motivation and one predictor
of study, program level and enrolment type. In the second section stu­
construct named performance. In developing the structural model, two
dents were asked to rank a series of questions about the most effective
essential matters were considered: (i) the sequence of the constructs; and
mode of online delivery model in terms of student engagement and
(ii) the relationships between them. Both issues are critical to the
performance on 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to
concept of modelling because they represent the hypotheses and their
5-strongly agree.
relationship to the theory being tested (Hair Jr et al., 2021). Here the
In the third section students were asked to rate their self-motivation
self-motivation is used as a mediator construct between engagement and
on a scale of 1–5, where 1 represents I was least motivated, and 5 rep­
performance.
resents I was very motivated. Performance was measured on a scale of

4.2.1. Evaluation of measurement model

Table 1
After defining the inner relationships, a measurement model was
Sample profile.
specified. The three constructs in this model were specified by various
No Percentage measurement items. The measurement items are carefully selected from
Mode of Study the literature review. Hair Jr et al., (2021) suggested that hypothesis
Full time 187 90% tests will only be as reliable and valid as the measurement models that
Part time 21 10%
explain how these constructs are measured. A reflective measurement
Program Level
Undergraduate 108 52% model was specified in this study for the three involved constructs
Postgraduate 100 48% because: (i) the direction of causality is from construct to the measure­
Enrolment Type ment item; (ii) the construct is a trait that is explained by the mea­
Domestic 62 30% surement item (iii) the measurement items are interchangeable; and (iv)
International 146 70%
if the assessment of the trait changes, all the measurement items will

4
F. Afzal and L. Crawford Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

change in a similar manner (Jarvis et al., 2003). Table 3

After specifying the measurement model, the next step is to Cross loadings.
demonstrate the validity and reliability of all constructs. This was ach­ Engagement Self-motivation Performance
ieved using: (i) individual indicator reliability; (ii) convergent validity of
Self-motivation 0.291 1.000 0.553
the measurement items associated with individual constructs and (iii) Content engagement 0.823 0.209 0.286
discriminant validity. In addition, Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross Peer engagement 0.882 0.289 0.340
loadings were used to assess discriminant validity (Hair Jr et al., 2021). Teacher engagement 0.864 0.241 0.303
Each criterion used to assess the reflective measurement models is performance 0.363 0.553 1.000

explained below.

4.2.1.1. Individual indicator reliability. Individual indicator reliability is Table 4

measured as factor loading of the measurement items. Higher loadings Fornell-Larcker criterion.
indicate that associated measurement items explain the construct suf­ Engagement Self-motivation Performance
ficiently. As this study used measurement items used by other studies a Engagement 0.857
loading of 0.7 was used as a threshold value. Self-motivation 0.291 1.000
Performance 0.363 0.553 1.000
4.2.1.2. Internal consistency. The internal consistency for the measure­
ment model was evaluated using: (i) a composite reliability score and
Cronbach’s Alpha for the constructs; and (ii) the average variance Table 5
extracted (AVE). This study used a threshold range of (0.6–0.9) as an Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
accepted value for Cornbach’s alpha and composite reliability as iden­ Engagement Self-motivation Performance
tified by Hair Jr et al., (2021). The threshold of 0.5 for AVE value is
Engagement
considered acceptable in this study, which indicates that the construct Self-motivation 0.318
describes more than half of the variance of its measurement items. Performance 0.399 0.553
Table 2 shows the results of the reliability test. Based on the results it is
clear that all constructs are within the allowed threshold (see Table 3).
4.2.2. Evaluation of structural model
Following the validation of measurement model, a structural model
4.2.1.3. Discriminant validity. Discriminant validity is the extent to
was developed to test the hypothesized relationships and its explanatory
which a construct is truly distinct from other constructs by empirical
power was assessed by examining the amount of variance (R2) accoun­
standards. Therefore, establishing a valid discriminant validity implies
ted for by the predictor construct on each predicted construct. Boot­
that a construct is unique and represent phenomena not represented by
strapping process of 5000 samples in Smart PLS was used to determine
other constructs in the measurement models. Two assessment tools are
the statistical significance of the path coefficients (t-statistics).
proposed by Hair et al. (2021): (i) an analysis of cross-loadings; (ii)
Subsequently, the structural model evaluation this study adopted
Fornell-Larcker criterion and (iii) Heterotrait- Monotriat Ratio (HTMT).
four guidelines suggested by Hair Jr et al., (2021):
A cross loading assessment was done, and results are shown in Table xxx.
All measurement items’ factor loading on the associated construct is
(i) a predictor construct should explain at least 15 percent of the
greater than any of its cross loadings (i.e., its correlations) on any other
variance in a predicted construct; otherwise, the predicted
construct.
construct will be removed, and model will be re-assessed.
The results of Fornell- Larcker criterion are presented in Table 4. It
(ii) a predictor constructs’ R2 value of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 will be
shows the square root of construct’s AVE on the diagonal and the cor­
considered as substantial, moderate, and weak, respectively.
relations between the construct is off-diagonal position. For example,
(iii) a predictor constructs’ tolerance (VIF) value should be at least
construct engagement has a value of 0.857 for the square root of its AVE,
0.20 (or lower than 0.5); and its f2 value of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35
which needs to be higher than the correlations engagement has with all
will correspondingly indicate small, medium, or large effect on a
other constructs. Overall, the square roots of the AVEs for all constructs
predictor construct.
are higher than their correlations with any other construct. Thus, indi­
cating all constructs are valid measures of unique concepts (Hair Jr
et al., 2021) (see Table 5). 5. Results and discussion
The HTMT is the ratio of the between-trait correlations to the within-
trait correlations. HTMT is the mean of all correlations of measurement 5.1. Most effective online delivery model in terms of student engagement
items across construct measuring different constructs relative to the
geometric mean of average correlations of the measurement items During S2, 2020 the project management courses at the University
measuring the same construct. Table xxx shows that the HTMT value for were delivered in four modes. These included: (i) Asynchronous delivery
all constructs are below threshold value of 0.9 below 0.90 as suggested without any interaction (ii) Synchronous delivery with some pre work
by Hair Jr et al., (2021). and (iii) Synchronous delivery without pre-work. The results in Table 6
indicate that most students preferred synchronous sessions with some
pre work. No significant differences were found in these preferences
based on the mode of study, program level or enrolment type. In
response to the qualitative questions “Please elaborate your learning
Table 2 experience in various online classes” students mentioned that the suc­
Composite reliability. cess of online learning is dependent on the teaching style as quoted
Cronbach’s rho_A Composite Average Variance below:
Alpha Reliability Extracted (AVE)

Engagement 0.819 0.831 0.892 0.734 • “Personally, I think my preference towards the online learning experience
Self- 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 is largely dependent on the lecturer and their content. For example, I
motivation personally found one of my subjects to be very good when he posted last
Performance 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
year’s lectures as he was originally a very good and entertaining lecturer -

5
F. Afzal and L. Crawford Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

Table 6
Modes of online delivery.
PG UG Domestic International Full Time Part Time Overall

Synchronous delivery with some pre work 3.57 3.69 3.62 3.67 3.66 3.5 3.61
Asynchronous delivery 2.43 2.5 2.38 2.51 2.48 2.83 2.52
Synchronous delivery without pre-work 1.97 1.84 2.03 1.85 1.88 1.04 1.76

which carried on throughout the years consistently. The tutors for the 5.3. Factors impacting the engagement in online learning
course also made tutorial videos which were very good too as they were
knowledgeable and clear. The other 2 subjects were workshops which ran Students were asked about the factors that impact their engagement
quite well and was actually more engaging than in person due to the in the online learning environments. The results in Table 8 indicates that
nature of the material". lack of self-motivation is the most important factor (mean = 3.13, SD =
• “I think that in one of the subjects, the online learning environment suited 0.9). It is interesting to note that there is a statistically significant dif­
the subject very well as it was largely self-led and learning was through ference (p < 0.00) between the self-motivation of PG and UG students
experience in group work activities, facilitated by the staff. The change (mean value of 3.1 and 3.5 respectively). This finding is further
was highly pertinent to the concept of the unit in making us adapt to new explained in the following comments made by respondents:
situations and doing our work in breakout rooms while someone screen
sharing worked well in this particular mode of learning. In my other • “Online learning has been great for me, because personally my study
project management unit however, I much preferred the in-person classes habits are quite self-study focused, and I am happy to look through pre-
as there was still a lecture-style element to the learning as well as class workshop material every week as well as listen in to workshops".
discussions and tutorial questions which I felt were more valuable in • “Online course learning requires students to have a strong sense of con­
person". sciousness and self-motivation".
• “My overall learning experience has been good so far although not as
5.2. Student engagement in online learning good as face to face but there are some prose & cons to online mode of
study. The online mode of study made me lazy and reluctant to synthesise
The results relating to student’s engagement are shown in Table 7. In a lot of information. Moreover, I was taking my classes from chine and if
terms of engagement with various elements of online teaching and the class time is too early in the morning it was difficult for me to engage
learning, students felt most engaged with their lecturer (mean = 3.63, with my peers. I would miss the discussions some time due to bad internet
SD = 0.78), and least engaged with their peers (mean = 3.11, SD = 0.8). connection".
It should be noted that there is a significant difference (p < 0.05) be­ • “I have to say it is not an effective way of learning for me. My classmates
tween the mean score of engagement level between the domestic (mean and I are both depressed and pay more attention on other things. We
= 3.2, SD = 0.89) and international (mean = 2.9, SD = 1.01) students. cannot focus on the study as we lack motivation".
One possible explanation of this difference could be international stu­
dents were not able to see their peers and lecturers due to COVID-19
5.4. Most effective engagement tools
travel restrictions during 2020–2021. These findings are further
explained by the following comments:
Lecturers used various tools and techniques for engagement during
the online classes. Students were asked to report the various tool and
• “Since the courses I enrolled contain various group assignments and
techniques. Table 9 shows the mean values of all engagement tools.
workshop activities, it was hard for me to ask group members to actively
These tools are arranged in descending order of mean rating. There were
engage in the work especially those who are not interested in study. Some
no significant differences found in the mean rating of PG/UG, Domestic/
of them didn’t make any efforts to do the work and I had no choice but to
international and full/part time students. WeChat is found to be the most
contribute more to the assignment [because] I need a higher mark".
efficient tool for peer interaction (mean = 4.19, SD = 1.02). The results
• “Online zoom lecture and communication with lecturer was no different
show that students found Zoom breakout rooms (mean = 3.98, SD = 0.9)
from face-to-face class. However, group activities and after class study
to be most useful for in class discussions. Students further elaborated
cannot be efficient as normal".
about the zoom breakouts: “The breakout rooms during the online sessions
• “It is not convenient to communicate with the team members in the online
were great for group discussion which allowed us to have more one-to-one
environment".
time with the group members and teachers".
• “It was difficult to coordinate team meetings and to work as a group. As
well, it was a bit difficult to speak with a lecturer/tutor personally".
5.5. Impact of student engagement on performance
The t-test result indicates that there was a statistically significant
difference (p = 0.05) between the overall engagement level of PG (mean From Table 10 and Fig. 3, the results indicate that student engage­
= 3.55, SD = 0.89) and UG (mean = 3.34, SD = 1.01). This is consistent ment has a significant positive impact on performance (β = 0.221; P =
with Ang et al. (2021) who recommended that more scaffolding is 0.00), thus H1 (i.e.: student engagement in online classes has a positive
needed at the undergraduate level for better engagement between peers. impact on performance is supported. Further, the findings show that
students’ engagement and self-motivation have collectively moderately
explained 35% of the variance in their performance (with a R2 value of

Table 7
Student engagement in online learning.
PG UG Domestic International Full time Part time Overall

Engagement with lecturer 3.66 3.31 3.45 3.25 4.09 4.03 3.63
Engagement with online content 3.6 3.41 3.4 3.63 3.5 3.56 3.52
Engagement with peers 3.4 2.8 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.06 3.11
Overall engagement 3.55 3.17 3.35 3.42 3.43 3.42 3.42

6
F. Afzal and L. Crawford Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

Table 8
Factors impacting student engagement in online learning.
PG UG Domestic International Full time Part time Overall

Lack of self-motivation 3.1 3.5 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 3.13

Unavailability of reliable internet 3.12 2.5 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.58
Unavailability of suitable learning environment 2.9 2.7 2 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.56
Unsuitable time of online sessions due to being in a different time zone 2.7 1.9 1.7 3.12 2.4 2.5 2.38

Table 9
Various engagement tools used in online teaching.
PG UG Domestic International Full time Part time Overall

Peer interaction
WeChat 4.11 4.21 4.24 4.08 4.14 4.39 4.19
Facebook messenger 3.1 3.3 3.09 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.23
WhatsApp 3.9 3.6 3.9 2.7 3.1 3.8 3.5
Class discussions
Zoom Breakout rooms 3.8 3.89 3.87 3.81 4.26 4.26 3.98
Mentimeter polls 3.72 3.8 3.64 3.89 3.98 3.98 3.83
Padlet 3.8 3.72 3.7 3.85 3.94 3.94 3.82

Table 10
Results of path analysis.
Hypothesis Proposed path Path coefficient (β) Total effect Indirect effect R2 f2 Inference

H1 SE-P 0.221** 0.363** 0.142** 0.351** 0.389** S

H2 SM-P 0.489** 0.489** – S

Note: **denotes significant at p = 0.00.

motivation is the most important factor for my performance in online

learning”. This means that self-motivated students are likely to perform
better in the online learning environment. This finding supports the
prior studies done by Alemayehu & Chen, (2021) who suggested that
motivation is a pre-requisite for improving students’ learning outcomes.
Amongst the three dimensions of student engagement, engagement
with teacher has the highest factor loading (0.864). This result indicates
that student-teacher interaction is essential for overall performance.

6. Conclusion

This paper discusses student engagement in an online learning

environment. The findings demonstrate that student engagement is a
multidimensional concept, and it has a positive impact on performance.
Fig. 3. Structural relationship between student engagement, self-motivation Project management learning is activity based and therefore peer
and performance. interaction is found to be the most important dimension of student
engagement. Additionally, it is found that students with self-motivation
0.351 significant at p < 0.00). appear to perform better in the online learning environment. Teachers
Interestingly, the findings also reveal that the self-motivation plays should carefully design the online learning to foster student collabora­
an important mediating role between engagement and performance as tion through scaffolding the learning steps. This study contributes to the
characterized by Its indirect effect and direct effect. This means that the literature in a novel way by studying student engagement from different
presence of self-motivation likely to improve the students’ performance dimensions.
for the same level of engagement. This result is further explained by the Although the findings are compelling, there are some limitations of
following comments: this study. First this study is limited to a single project management
program of an Australian university. Future studies can be extended to
• “Online learning has been good for me, because personally my study other project management programs. Another limitation is that the re­
habits are quite self-study focused, and I am happy to look through pre- sults are based on the self-reported engagement and performance by the
workshop material every week as well as listen in to workshops”. students. Future studies can explore other measures of engagement and
• “We need extremely high self-control and pay attention to the timing. performance. Further, this study was done during the COVID lockdown
Online learning allows us to allocate more time, but we must always when all courses were only offered online, future research might be
maintain efficiency”. extended to optional online courses.

The results also indicate that self-motivation has a direct significant Declaration of competing interest
positive impact on student’s performance. (β = 0.489 at p < 0.00; f2 =
0.25). Thus, hypothesis H2 (i.e., self-motivation has a positive impact on The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
performance) is supported. One of the students mentioned: “Lack of self- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

7
F. Afzal and L. Crawford Project Leadership and Society 3 (2022) 100057

the work reported in this paper. Guo, J., Yang, L., Shi, Q., 2017. Effects of perceptions of the learning environment and
approaches to learning on Chinese undergraduates’ learning. Stud. Educ. Eval. 55,
125–134.
References Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2021. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Alemayehu, L., Chen, H.-L., 2021. The influence of motivation on learning engagement: Hu, M., Li, H., 2017. In: Student Engagement in Online Learning: A Review. 2017
the mediating role of learning self-efficacy and self-monitoring in online learning International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), pp. 39–43. https://doi.
environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/ org/10.1109/ISET.2017.17.
10494820.2021.1977962, 0(0). Jaggars, S.S., Xu, D., 2016. How do online course design features influence student
Alexandru, M.E., Scoda, A.-D., 2020. The development of digital competences. Current performance? Comput. Educ. 95, 270–284.
challenges and perspectives. J. Pedagogy 2, 87–103. Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., 2003. A critical review of construct
Ang, K.C., Afzal, F., Crawford, L.H., 2021. Transitioning from passive to active learning: indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer
preparing future project leaders. Proj. Leader. Soc. 2, 100016. research. J. Consum. Res. 30 (2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/376806.
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., Umek, L., 2020. Impacts of the Khalil, M.K., Elkhider, I.A., 2016. Applying learning theories and instructional design
COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: a global perspective. models for effective instruction. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 40 (2), 147–156.
Sustainability 12 (20), 8438. Kuh, G.D., 2003. What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE:
Axelson, R.D., Flick, A., 2010. Defining student engagement. Change: Mag. High. Learn. benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: Mag. High. Learn. 35 (2),
43 (1), 38–43. 24–32.
Becker, C., Cooper, N., Atkins, K., Martin, S., 2009. What helps students thrive? An Kuh, G.D., 2009. What student affairs professionals need to know about student
investigation of student engagement and performance. Recreat. Sports J. 33 (2), engagement. J. Coll. Student Dev. 50 (6), 683–706.
139–149. https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.33.2.139. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., Hayek, J.C., 2011. Piecing Together the
Bi, X., 2015. Associations between psychosocial aspects of English classroom Student Success Puzzle: Research, Propositions, and Recommendations: ASHE
environments and motivation types of Chinese tertiary-level English majors. Learn. Higher Education Report, vol. 116. John Wiley & Sons.
Environ. Res. 18 (1), 95–110. Liu, T.Y., Chu, Y.L., 2010. Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking
Brieger, E., Arghode, V., McLean, G., 2020. Connecting Theory and Practice: Reviewing course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Comput. Educ. 55 (2),
Six Learning Theories to Inform Online Instruction. European Journal of Training 630–643.
and Development. Lumpkin, A., Achen, R.M., Dodd, R.K., 2015. Student perceptions of active learning. Coll.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M., Ford, M.T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic Student J. 49 (1), 121–133.
incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140 Lup, O., Mitrea, E.C., 2021. Învăţământul online în CONTEXTUL PANDEMIEI: O analiza
(4), 980. a disparitatilor în IMPLICAREA academica a studentilor. J. Pedagogy 1, 31–50.
Chakraborty, M., Muyia Nafukho, F., 2014. Strengthening student engagement: what do McCormick, A.C., Kinzie, J., Gonyea, R.M., 2013. Student engagement: bridging research
students want in online courses? Eur. J. Train. Dev. 38 (9), 782–802. https://doi. and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education. In: Higher
org/10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0123. Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Springer, pp. 47–92.
Chapman, D.W., 2002. Management and efficiency in education: Goals and strategies. Mödritscher, F., 2006. E-learning theories in practice: a comparison of three methods.
Hong Kong. Asian Development Bank. J. Univ. Sci. Technol. Learn. 28 (1), 3–18.
Chen, P.-S.D., Gonyea, R., Kuh, G., 2008. Learning at a distance: engaged or not? Molea, R., Năstasă, A., 2020. How Romanian higher education institutions have adapted
Innovate J. Online Educ. 4 (3). to online learning process in the COVID-19 context through a student’s eye. Rev.
Coates, H., 2007. A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Romaneasca Educ.Multidimens. 12 (2Suppl. 1), 175–181.
Assess Eval. High Educ. 32 (2), 121–141. Nortvig, A.M., Petersen, A.K., Balle, S.H., 2018. A literature review of the factors
Cole, A.W., Lennon, L., Weber, N.L., 2021. Student perceptions of online active learning influencing E‑learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student
practices and online learning climate predict online course engagement. Interact. satisfaction and engagement. Electron. J. E-learn. 16 (1), 46–55.
Learn. Environ. 29 (5), 866–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of
10494820.2019.1619593. Research, ume 2. ERIC.
Creswell, J.W., Creswell, J.D., 2017. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Paulsen, J., McCormick, A.C., 2020. Reassessing disparities in online learner student
Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage publications. engagement in higher education. Educ. Res. 49 (1), 20–29.
Emerson, T.L., Taylor, B.A., 2004. Comparing student achievement across experimental Raime, S., Shamsudin, M.F., Hashim, R.A., Rahman, N.A., 2020. Students’ self-
and lecture-oriented sections of a principles of microeconomics course. Southern motivation and online learning students’ satisfaction among UNITAR college
Econ. J. 70 (3), 672–693. students. Asian J. Res. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2 (3), 62–71.
Eom, S.B., Wen, H.J., Ashill, N., 2006. The determinants of students’ perceived learning Rios, T., Elliott, M., Mandernach, B.J., 2018. Efficient instructional strategies for
outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. maximizing online student satisfaction. J. Educ. Online 15 (3), n3.
Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 4 (2), 215–235. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and
Ertmer, P.A., Newby, T.J., 2013. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/
critical features from an instructional design perspective. Perform. Improv. Q. 26 (2), ceps.1999.1020.
43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2019. Chapter four - brick by brick: the origins, development, and
Farrell, O., Brunton, J., 2020. A balancing act: a window into online student engagement future of self-determination theory. In: Elliot, A.J. (Ed.), Advances in Motivation
experiences. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 17 (1), 1–19. Science, vol. 6. Elsevier, pp. 111–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.
Froiland, J.M., Worrell, F.C., 2016. Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and adms.2019.01.001.
achievement in a diverse high school. Psychol. Sch. 53 (3), 321–336. https://doi. Shulman, L.S., 2002. Making differences: a table of learning. Change: Mag. Higher Learn.
org/10.1002/pits.21901. 34 (6), 36–44.
Ushida, E., 2005. The role of students’ attitudes and motivation in second language Sural, I., Bozkaya, M., 2016. Student satisfaction towards the personalization of
learning in online language courses. CALICO J 49–78. appearance in online learning environments. US-China Educ. Rev 6 (10), 584–593.
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (n.d.). The Effects of Student Engagement, Student Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., 2003. Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods
Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning in Online Learning Environments. vol. 20. courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.
Groccia, J.E., 2018. What is student engagement? N. Dir. Teach. Learn. 2018 (154), 6 (1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570305055.
11–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20287. Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G.A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., Koestner, R.,
Groccia, J.E., Hunter, M.S., 2012. The First-Year Seminar: Designing, Implementing, and 2014. A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over
Assessing Courses to Support Student Learning and Success, Volume II: Instructor time: the unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 39 (4),
Training and Development. The National Resource Center for the First-Year 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002.
Experience and Students in …. Tratnik, A., Urh, M., Jereb, E., 2019. Student satisfaction with an online and a face-to-
face Business English course in a higher education context. Innovat. Educ. Teach. Int.
56 (1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1374875.