A Qualitative Study of Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Their Role in Enhancing Learners’ Engagement in EFL Online Classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) online presents substantial obstacles in terms of fostering learners’ participation during lectures. To facilitate the use and practice of the language by English learners and to effectively administer classrooms, it is crucial to investigate the roles of faculty members. The purpose of this study is to examine faculty members’ perspectives on their role in promoting student engagement and participation in online English classes. The researcher employed a qualitative research methodology to collect data, which involved document analysis and conducting interviews with faculty members at Umm Al-Qura University. The findings of the investigation suggest that the primary responsibility of the faculty members is to cultivate relationships with students, facilitate their ability to confront learning obstacles and increase their involvement in the educational process. Additionally, the implementation of flipped classrooms to facilitate student engagement during lectures is another critical consequence of effective roles. The present study’s findings indicate that EFL instructors prioritize students’ interests by providing options that are consistent with them and encouraging interaction during the learning process. Faculty members implement strategies like collaborative learning and communicative techniques to support learners’ engagement and facilitate profound learning experiences. The study’s conclusions emphasized the importance of effective classroom administration, appropriate instruction, enhanced interaction with learners, and the use of English as the primary language in the classroom. The analysis revealed that interactive curricula, student support, and video contact with students are excellent methods for improving learner engagement. The investigation emphasized the importance of faculty members in creating a dynamic online learning environment, the need for building relationships with students, and the requirement for pedagogical training to enhance the effectiveness of online EFL instruction and boost learner engagement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".