MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393261729 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n3p504

The Impact of Virtual Learning on Students’ Engagement in the Saudi EFL Context: A Connectivism-Theoretic Perspective

2024· article· en· W4393261729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayman Khafaga, Hanan Maneh Al-Johani

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsConnectivismPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceMathematics educationPedagogyLearning theoryPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on the connectivism learning theory (CLT), this paper probes the extent to which virtual learning (VL) influences students’ engagement (SE) in the Saudi EFL context. More specifically, this paper tests the hypothesis of whether or not VL improves SE in terms of eight learning variables: class attendance, class participation, the acquisition of the four language skills, learning anxiety, learning motivation, learning self-efficacy, willingness to communicate, and learning autonomy. This paper adopts a mixed-method approach, represented by both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis and constituting two methodological instruments: a questionnaire and an interview. The sample consists of 256 EFL majors who are studying English at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, and 14 EFL teachers who are teaching English at the same university. Three main findings are reported in this study: first, there is a positive attitudinal perception by the participants concerning the impact of VL on SE; second, VL increases students’ attendance, enhances their class participation, learning motivation, learning self-efficacy, learning autonomy, and willingness to communicate, and it decreases students’ learning anxiety; and third, SE is influenced by VL in terms of both productive and receptive language skills; positively, with regard to speaking and listening; and negatively, in terms of reading and writing. Pedagogically, the results of this paper necessitate reconsidering the efficiency with which new technologies are used in learning and teaching, and it is further anticipated to offer promising potential for the possibility of whether or not to completely depend on virtual learning in the near future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207