iafor

journal of education
studies in education
Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022
Editor: Pearl Subban
Editor-in-Chief: Joseph Haldane

ISSN: 2187-0594

iafor
IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education
Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

IAFOR Publications

The International Academic ForumIAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education
EditorPearl Subban
Monash University, Australia
Associate Editor
William C. Frick
University of Oklahoma, USA
Associate Editor
Anemona Peres
European Border and Coast Guard Agency
Editor-in-Chief
Joseph Haldane, The International Academic Forum, Japan

Published by The International Academic Forum (IAFOR), Japan
IAFOR Publications, Sakae 1-16-26-201, Naka-ward, Aichi, Japan 460-0008

Executive Editor: Yvonne Masters
IAFOR Journals Administrator: Mark Kenneth Camiling
Publications Manager: Nick Potts
IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education
Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022
Published December 5, 2022

IAFOR Publications © 2022
ISSN: 2187-0594
ije.iafor.org
Cover Image: HSSstudio, ShutterstockIAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education
Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022
Edited by Pearl Subban
Monash University, Australia
Associate Editor
William C. Frick
University of Oklahoma, USA
Associate Editor
Anemona Peres
European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Foreword
Dear Readers,
As the world settles into a new normal following the global pandemic, education systems
around the globe are looking at different forms of educational provision. It has become
imperative to move on and continue with renewed enthusiasm, identifying new ways ofworking whilst respecting the values of the past. This is as true for the field of education as it
is for so many other aspects of life.
The six papers in this excellent volume, addressing the theme of “Student Learning: Buildingon the Past, Innovating for the Future”, are a testament to the strength and range of the journal,that reflect the international, intercultural and interdisciplinary mission and strengths of
IAFOR. There are articles from authors from the USA, Australia, Zambia, Philippines, Hong
Kong SAR, Spain, Malaysia, Burnei Darussalam and Panama.
I would like to thank the authors, reviewers, and the IAFOR editorial team for their work on
this exceptional issue, but most of all to the editor of this edition, Dr Pearl Subban of Monash
University, Australia, who has worked so hard to bring this issue to completion.
Happy Reading!
Joseph Haldane
Editor-in-Chief
IAFOR Journal of Education

Editorial Advice
Preparing a submission to the IAFOR Journal of Education is more than writing about yourresearch study: it involves paying careful attention to our submission requirements. Different
journals have different requirements in terms of format, structure and referencing style, among
other things. There are also some common expectations between all journals such as the use ofgood academic language and lack of plagiarism. To assist you in reaching the review stage forthis or any other peer-reviewed journal, we provide the following advice which you should
check carefully and ensure that you adhere to.
1. Avoiding Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a practice that is not acceptable in any journal. Avoiding plagiarism is the cardinalrule of academic integrity because plagiarism, whether intentional or unintentional, ispresenting someone else’s work as your own. The IAFOR Journal of Education immediately
rejects any submission with evidence of plagiarism.
There are three common forms of plagiarism, none of which are acceptable:
1. Plagiarism with no referencing. This is copying the words from another source (article,
book, website, etc.) without any form of referencing.
2. Plagiarism with incorrect referencing. This involves using the words from anothersource and only putting the name of the author and/or date as a reference. Whilst not as
grave as the plagiarism just mentioned, it is still not acceptable academic practice.
Direct quoting requires quotation marks and a page number in the reference. This isbest avoided by paraphrasing rather than copying.
3. Self-plagiarism. It is not acceptable academic practice to use material that you havealready had published (which includes in conference proceedings) in a new submission.
You should not use your previously published words and you should not submit about
the same data unless it is used in a completely new way.
2. Meeting the Journal Aims and Scope
Different journals have different aims and scope, and papers submitted should fit the specificjournal. A “scattergun” approach (where you submit anywhere in the hope of being published)
is not sound practice. Like in darts, your article needs to hit the journal’s “bullseye”, it needs
to fit within the journal’s interest area. For example, a submission that is about building bridges,
will not be acceptable in a journal dedicated to education. Ensure that your paper is clearly
about education.
3. Follow the Author Guidelines
Most journals will supply a template to be followed for formatting your paper. Often, there will
also be a list of style requirements on the website (font, word length, title length, page layout,
and referencing style, among other things). There may also be suggestions about the preferred
structure of the paper. For the IAFOR Journal of Education these can all be found here:
https://iafor.org/journal/iafor-journal-of-education/author-guidelines/

4. Use Academic Language
The IAFOR Journal of Education only accepts papers written in correct and fluent English ata high academic standard. Any use of another language (whether in the paper or the referencelist) requires the inclusion of an English translation.
The style of expression must serve to articulate the complex ideas and concepts being presented,
conveying explicit, coherent, unambiguous meaning to scholarly readers. Moreover,manuscripts must have a formal tone and quality, employing third-person rather than firstperson standpoint (when feasible), placing emphasis on the research and not on unsubstantiatedsubjective impressions.
Contributors whose command of English is not at the level outlined above are responsible forhaving their manuscript corrected by a native-level, English-speaking academic prior to
submitting their paper for publication.
5. Literature Reviews
Any paper should have reference to the corpus of scholarly literature on the topic. A review ofthe literature should:
•
•
•
•
•

Predominantly be about contemporary literature (the last 5 years) unless you are
discussing a seminal piece of work.
Make explicit international connections for relevant ideas.
Analyse published papers in the related field rather than describe them.
Outline the gaps in the literature.
Highlight your contribution to the field.

Referencing
Referencing is the main way to avoid allegations of plagiarism. The IAFOR Journal of
Education uses the APA referencing style for both in-text citations and the reference list. If
you are unsure of the correct use of APA please use the Purdue Online Writing Lab (Purdue
OWL), – https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ – which has excellent examples
of all forms of APA referencing. Please note APA is used for referencing not for the generalformat of the paper. Your reference list should be alphabetical by author surname and include
DOIs whenever possible.
This short guide to getting published should assist you to move beyond the first editorial review.
Failure to follow the guidelines will result in your paper being immediately rejected.
Good luck in your publishing endeavours,
Dr Yvonne Masters
Executive Editor, IAFOR Journal of Education

Table of Contents
From the Editors
Pearl Subban

1

Notes on Contributors

3

Teacher Futures: Global Reaction to Teacher Shortages in Rural Locations
Robert Mitchell
Patrick Hampton
Robinson Mambwe

9

The Effects of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) on Student
Achievement and Engagement
Ana Liza Villano Gaad

31

Educational e-Portfolio Overview: Aspiring for the Future by Buildingon the Past
Peng Zhang
Gemma Tur

51

“What Motivates Me?”: A Qualitative Perspective on Student
Collaboration in Small Groups
Priyadharshini Ahrumugam
Yesuselvi Manickam

75

An Exploratory Investigation into Classroom Discourse in a
Bruneian University
Shana Mat Salleh
Nena Padilla-Valdez
Lee Kok Yueh91

WhatsApp Remote Reading Recovery: Using Mobile Technology to Promote
Literacy during COVID-19
Mariana León
Nanette Archer Svenson
Debbie Psychoyos
Nyasha Warren
Guillermina De Gracia
Andrea Palacios

107

Reviewers

126

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

From the Editor
So much of our world has changed. Human interaction has been profoundly impacted by the
global pandemic, and political shifts across the globe have altered the way we think andoperate. These global movements and shifting thinking have resulted in a progressiveawareness of how socially equitable and socially just frameworks should influence all humanbehaviours. It is heartening to note that Indigenous and traditional knowledge are being valued
and embedded into educational contexts, driving change to alter the paths of the younger
generations to a healthier future. Despite significant strides however, much remains to be done.
As educators, we understand that our work is ongoing, consistent and continuous. Learning is
not a destination, it is a voyage, often into unknown spaces, and therefore requiring courage
and wisdom. Accommodating all students, celebrating diversity and valuing individual skill is
now fundamental to our work. Against this backdrop, we seek daily to identify strategies thatare responsive, respectful and sensitive to student needs.
This issue draws together six key articles, located in environments across the world, andtouching on a range of central concerns, as we emerge from the era of the pandemic. Recent
research in education has focused on the virtual classroom, examining the most effective meansof catering to student needs in the online classrooms. Additionally, the ubiquitous nature ofsocial media platforms compels educators to rethink its position in classrooms, and to explore
ways in which these forums can be used in the learning and teaching process. Dialogue anddiscourse in classrooms remain a central feature of learning environments, and an investigationof how these forms of communication can be fostered and encouraged is essential. Apart fromthese technological innovations, the need to advance education in rural and regional contexts
is being viewed as a priority, with both technology and in-situ experiences being amalgamatedto provide equitably for students. The isolating experiences of the pandemic triggered the needfor greater collaboration among students, drawing them together to not just imbibe knowledge
more socially, but to become aware of the range of social dynamics that now inhabit our world.
Teacher shortages across the world are now endemic and will impact on educational provision
for all young people. In the first manuscript, the authors draw on a comparative study among
three nations, examining hiring practices to strengthen the work force, and the incentivisationof staff especially with regard to teaching in rural contexts. Evidently, greater dialogue andsupport is required to draw educators into these vulnerable contexts. With much of the worldtransitioning to online learning, our second featured piece reflects on how online collaborative
learning impacts on student achievement and engagement. Located in the Philippines, thisquantitative study drew on pre-test and post-test scores to consider student cooperation, interest
and participation in the online classroom. Results revealed that intentional strategies improved
the overall student experience in this context. Remaining within the arena of virtual learning,a joint collaboration spanning Hong Kong and Spain, reflected on the innovative use of eportfolios in contemporary learning contexts. The use of a review of several articles yielded
positive results, however more longitudinal research would be appropriate to more accurately
gauge the effective use of the e-portfolio.
The fourth submission curated for this issue, also hones in on student experiences, exploringsocial interdependence and its impact on academic outcomes in learning contexts. As aqualitative exploration located in Malaysia, and utilising interviews, this study yielded the viewthat motivation during collaboration was influenced by mutual interests, accountability and thegroup size. Following this, a Bruneian study examined discourse in the classroom, assessing
the nature and quality of dialogue with a view to strengthening engagement, prompting

1

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

prepared thinking around questioning techniques, and facilitating critical thinking inclassrooms. The final submission considered how social media platforms could be effectively
utilised to promote learning. Contextualised in Panama, the study utilised a 12-weekintervention to contemplate the feasibility of utilising social media platforms in educational
contexts. Evidently, the use of more accessible mediums of communication in the modern age,
could also facilitate effective communication and collaboration in classrooms.
The classroom of the future certainly appears different. Multiple dynamics now interplay toalter the perceptions and provision of education. Both educators and learners are poised for avaried experience from that offered a mere decade ago. This compilation of articles illustrates
this diversity in thinking as we forge ahead into the post pandemic era.
Pearl Subban, PhD
Monash University, Australia
Editor: IAFOR Journal of Education –Studies in Education
Email: publications@iafor.org

2

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Notes on Contributors
Article 1:
Teacher Futures: Global Reaction to Teacher Shortages in Rural Locations
Dr Robert Mitchell
Dr Mitchell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Leadership, Research, andFoundations (LRF) at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. He has a background in
k-12 education as a classroom teacher at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, andhas served as a governmental administrator in Massachusetts and with the Colorado
Department of Higher Education. Robert received his Ph.D. in Global Education from The
Ohio State University and has presented at academic conferences in Australia, the UnitedStates, Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Brunei, and Bahrain, and continues to focus on challenges
related to rural education across the globe. His recent work has been published in The Rural
Educator, American School Board Journal, and Action in Teacher Education.
Email: rmitchel@uccs.edu
Patrick Hampton
Patrick Hampton is a Senior Lecturer and a Literacy Coordinator at the University ofNotre Dame Australia in Freeport, Western Australia. He has over 20 years’ experienceteaching in rural and metropolitan primary schools, working in all year levels andcurriculum areas. Past work has included serving in school administration as a
Principal, Deputy Principal and teacher, leading school communities in curriculum
development, and coordinating programs to support students-at-risk. Patrick focuses on
curriculum improvement and fieldwork projects involving remote and rural schools andcommunities. In 2020 Patrick established the Spinifex Education Network – a pathway
for pre-service teachers to develop the knowledge and skills required for effective
teaching in rural, regional and remote schools throughout Western Australia.
Email: patrick.hampton@nd.edu.au
Dr Robinson Mambwe
Robinson Mambwe has headed the Department of Primary Education since 2017. His career
motivation is to help students of social studies and through these students, citizens of thecountry become responsible, critical, reflective, and active citizens who can make informed
and reasoned decisions about the societal issues confronting the community. His approach toteaching of social studies is inspired by the constructivist and inquiry-oriented approaches.
Dr. Mambwe received his doctoral degree from the University of Zambia and his MEd from
Chonbuk National University in South Korea. He continues to focus his teaching andresearch on teacher preparation, social studies curriculum development, and fieldwork-basedlearning experiences.
Email: robinson.mambwe@unza.zm
Article 2:
The Effects of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) on Student Achievement andEngagement
Ana Liza Villano Gaad
Ana Liza Villano Gaad is a science teacher at a public stand-alone senior high school in thePhilippines. She holds a bachelor’s degree in secondary education and completed heracademic requirements for a Master of Arts in Education at the University of the Philippines

3

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

and received her master’s degree in teaching General Science at the Technological Universityof the Philippines-Manila. Apart from teaching, she embarked on educational research &innovation. Her research focuses on action research, the integration of technology, and thedevelopment of 21st-century skills in teaching physical science. Her research has been
published online and presented at numerous international research conferences.
Email: analiza.gaad@deped.gov.ph
Article 3:
Educational e-Portfolio Overview: Aspiring for the Future by Building on the Past
Peng Zhang
Peng Zhang is an educator and scholar with research interests in Language Teaching and
Educational Technology. He holds two MAs, one in Applied Linguistics and another in
Chinese Language Teaching. Now, he is a PhD candidate in Educational Technology at the
University of the Balearic Islands (UIB), Spain. Besides, he is a registered teacher in the US(Arizona, Illinois, Wisconsin) and the UK (with QTS). Currently, he serves as the K-12 Headof Mandarin at Stamford American School Hong Kong. He previously worked as a Mandarin
coordinator in Barcelona and an English Teacher in Beijing. Apart from teaching, he is an
examiner for Cambridge Assessment International Education and has multiple publications inseveral educational journals.
Email: p.zhang@uib.es
Dr Gemma Tur
Gemma Tur holds a PhD in Educational Technology from the University of the Balearic
Islands (UIB), Spain. She is a lecturer in the Department of Applied Pedagogy and
Educational Psychology of UIB and a researcher in the Group of Educational Technology(GTE) of the Institute for Educational Research and Innovation (IRIE) of the same university.
She is the coordinator of diverse programs in the Ibiza off-campus centre, such as Primaryand Secondary Teacher Education programs and the Open Senior University. She is theauthor and reviewer of many international conferences and journal papers. Her researchinterests include e-portfolios and Personal Learning Environments, open education forteachers’ professional development, social media for learning and, in general, technologyenhanced learning in Teacher Education.
Email: gemma.tur@uib.es
Article 4:“What Motivates Me?”: A Qualitative Perspective on Student Collaboration in Small
GroupsPriyadharshini Ahrumugam
Priyadharshini Ahrumugam is a lecturer with the Department of Communication at the
School of Arts in Sunway University, Malaysia. She completed her MA from University
Malaya in 2010 and found teaching to be her passion rather than just a career choice. She
currently teaches subjects relating to media and culture in the department. As an academic,
she has found herself growing deeply inquisitive in the areas of collaborative learning inhigher education, media and gender, cyberbullying and health communication. She iscurrently pursuing the PhD Higher Education: Research, Evaluation and Enhancement with
Lancaster University, UK.
Email: priyaa@sunway.edu.my

4

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Yesuselvi Manickam
Yesuselvi Manickam is a lecturer of communication at Sunway University, Malaysia. She
received an MA in Publishing Studies from University Malaya, Malaysia and has a BA in
Media Studies from the same university. In addition to teaching, she plays an active role inhelping organise campaigns for nonprofit organisations. Her area of specialisation issustainability and public relations. Her research interest includes but not limited to corporatesocial responsibility, teaching and learning and health communication. Currently, she ispursuing her PhD in Health Communication and Social Media at University Malaya.
Email: yesuselvim@sunway.edu.my
Article 5:
An Exploratory Investigation into Classroom Discourse in a Bruneian University
Shana Mat Salleh
Shana Mat Salleh is a PhD candidate in Teaching and Learning. Her research interests areteaching approaches in higher education and intercultural communication in the classroom
and workplace. She obtained her MSc in Intercultural Communication for Business and theprofessions from Warwick University, UK. Her current research is looking into teachingapproaches in a local university, investigating the role of communication in deep learning
amongst university students of STEM.
Email: shana.salleh@utb.edu.bn
Dr Nena Padilla-Valdez
Nena Padilla-Valdez serves the Centre for Communication, Teaching and Learning at the
Universiti Teknologi Brunei as a lecturer, faculty development trainer and teaching assessor.
Her research and publication are in the areas of learner engagement, pedagogy, school
culture, educational administration, diversity and inclusive practices, teacher empowerment,
and early childhood development.
Email: Nena.Valdez@utb.edu.bn
Dr Lee Kok Yueh
Lee Kok Yueh is a lecturer at the Centre for Communication, Teaching and Learning. Her
research interests include teaching and learning pedagogies in higher education, assessment
methods in higher education, genre analysis and corpus analysis. Her recent publications arein the areas of self and peer assessments in higher education.
Email: Kokyueh.Lee@utb.edu.bn
Article 6:
WhatsApp Remote Reading Recovery: Using Mobile Technology to Promote Literacy
during COVID-19
Dr Mariana LeónMariana León is Academic Vice President, researcher, professor and member of the board of
directors at Quality Leadership University in Panama City, Panama. She holds a Doctorate in
Education (Ed.D.) from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Florida International
University. She is an affiliated researcher at the Center for Educational Research of Panama(Centro de Investigación Educativa de Panama, or CIEDU), and a Researcher for the
National System of Research (Sistema Nacional de Investigación, or SNI). She has publishedscholarly articles and book chapters on transformational leadership, faculty engagement,

5

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

virtual platforms in education, university engagement, and on multicultural identity
perceptions of students.
Email: mariana.leon@qlu.pa
Dr Nanette Archer Svenson
Nanette Archer Svenson is a global scholar with 30 years experience in education andsustainable development. Based in Panama, she has developed strategies, projects, andprograms for the United Nations, Smithsonian, development banks, governments,organizations, and universities around the world. An accomplished researcher and writer, she
produced the screenplay for the award-winning documentary Higher Grounds (2020) and has
authored The United Nations as a Knowledge System (2015), along with numerous articles,book chapters, and reports. Nanette co-founded the Centro de Investigación Educativa(CIEDU), Panama’s first public-private education research think tank, and led a globally
recognized mobile literacy project during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, she taught
for Tulane University and developed and directed their Global Development Master’s
Panama program.
Email: nanette.svenson@gmail.com
Dr Debra Psychoyos
An educator for four decades, Debbie is committed to life-long learning. She is the Founderand CEO of The ProEd Foundation in the Republic of Panama, a nonprofit, NGO, recognized
by UNESCO with the Hamdan Prize in 2014, for Outstanding Performance in Enhancing theEffectiveness of Teachers with their award-winning program TEACHERS TEACHINGTEACHERS. Debbie holds a doctoral degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia, in
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, and in 2018 she earned a teaching certificate inHigher Education Pedagogy from the Bok Center of Teaching & Learning at Harvard
University. Debbie values her role as a “teacher of teachers”. Her expertise is designing,facilitating and evaluating professional development opportunities that empower educators tolead change.
Email: debbie.psychoyos@gmail.com
Nyasha Warren
Nyasha Warren is an education researcher at the Museo del Canal Interoceánico de Panamá
and at the Centro de Investigación Educativa de Panamá (CIEDU). She is interested ininnovative and inclusive educational practices in museums, the classroom and online learning
environments. Her current research focuses on history education practices in Panamá's publicschools with a special emphasis on the history of the Panama Canal. She holds a BA in
Biology from Oberlin College, a MA in Environmental Health Sciences from New York
University and a MA in Education from Harvard University Graduate School of Education.
She is a proud member of the Society of Friends of the West Indian Museum of Panamá andserved as vice president of the Museums Association of the Caribbean from 2021 to 2022.
Email: warren.nyasha@gmail.com
Dr Guillermina De Gracia
Guillermina De Gracia is an anthropologist from the University of Panama, Master inMuseology from the University of Valladolid (Spain), and PhD in Society and Culture fromthe University of Barcelona (Spain). She has been visiting professor at University of Los
Andes in Colombia and University of Barcelona. She has also been an adjunct professor at
Quality Leadership University. She has been a consultant in museography and education for
the Patronato Panamá Viejo. She has worked as a consultant for the Inter-American

6

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Development Bank and for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama as anevaluator of educational programs. She is currently a professor at the Cocle Regional
University Center (CRUC) - University of Panama and an associate researcher at the Centerfor Historical, Anthropological and Cultural Research (CIHAC-AIP-Panamá).
Email: guillerminaitzeldegracia@gmail.com
Andrea Palacios
Andrea Palacios is a psychologist, teacher, coach, TEDx speaker, meditation teacher, andresearcher from Panama. Her works are in the field of social inclusion and social
rehabilitation, and advocate for well-being and mental health in the community. Recently aCommunity Solutions Program fellow from the US Department of States, and an award
finalist for her follow up project on vocational and independent living skills for young adults
with autism.
Email: apacastilla@gmail.com

7

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

8

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Teacher Futures: Global Reaction to Teacher Shortages in Rural Locations
Robert Mitchell
University of Colorado Springs, United States of America
Patrick Hampton
The University of Notre Dame Australia, Australia
Robinson Mambwe
University of Zambia, Zambia

9

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Abstract
Upcoming changes in the teacher labor supply will have an impact on nations that provide
government-based education for their youth. Faced with a significant global shortfall ofeducators, most countries have taken steps to incentivize teaching as a profession and ensurethat qualified teachers are available to students in all locations – particularly in rural
environments. To understand these initiatives more thoroughly, a short-term policy analysis
focused on incentives for teacher labor through a lens of governmental policy implementation
has been completed. This resulted in a review of the efforts three nations (Australia, theUnited States and Zambia) have undertaken to ensure a viable and consistent teacher
workforce in rural areas. While each nation has specific factors that contribute to current andprojected shortages, each also provides unique solutions to assist in resolving this ongoingissue. Through the examination of multiple hiring factors and incentives used in eachlocation, a better understanding of the specific challenges and strategies employed to secure a
viable teaching workforce has been developed. Outcomes related to this policy analysis
showed commonalities in the lack of developed strategies to prepare rural educators toaddress teacher shortages in more remote regions. In addition, while education leaders ineach country continue to publicly call for additional support for rural teachers – very little
legislation or policy implementation has been enacted to bolster this subsection of public
education in any of the specified nations. Additional discussion about the long-term concerns
regarding rural teacher supply and student equity is also developed.
Keywords: global education, incentivize teaching, rural education, teacher shortage

10

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

It has been made clear that a primary factor, if not the most important component, ofeffective learning for students is directly related to the effectiveness of the classroom teacher
and the community of educators that interact with individual students (Carroll & Foster,
2010; Metzler & Woessmann, 2012). Without a qualified and effective teacher, student
achievement is limited – leading to reduced student academic achievement (Stronge, 2010).
The role of the teacher is essential in the development of strong learning opportunities in theclassroom. Yet, there is growing concern about the viability of providing qualified andtalented teachers and educators to schools around the world (Ingersoll et al., 2018; Sutcher,
Darling-Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016).
During the last forty-years, there has been a discernable shift in the educator labor market as,
in many instances and locations, fewer individuals have elected to pursue careers inclassroom teaching (Zarra, 2019). The challenges facing schools and governmentalorganizations in relation to locating, developing, and retaining qualified educators continues
to be difficult in many parts of the world. The United Nations has estimated that 69 million
new teachers will need to be developed in the next decade (UNESCO, 2016). In many
countries, teacher shortages are impacting student instruction – particularly in hard-to-staff
content areas such as secondary science and secondary math (Cross, 2017).
This study looks at three specific nations and their ongoing efforts to attract new individuals
into the education profession, particularly for more difficult-to-staff positions in rural regions.
Rural schools are a particular focus, as they are typically the first institutions impacted byeducator shortages. This is especially true for schools in very remote locations. Within thiscontext, the shortages existing in rural schools can be seen as a potential precursor to
emerging teacher labor shortage issues that will eventually impact urban and suburban
schools. Through this examination of three distinct nations, a greater understanding of the
global magnitude of this problem can be explored, as can emerging solutions for thisinternational concern.
Existing Research
The impact of the teacher on student achievement has been a primary area of study for many
years (Rockoff, 2004; Stronge, 2010). In rural schools, where teachers maybe the primaryeducator for a subject for multiple grade levels, teacher quality becomes even more important(Jenkins & Cornish, 2015; Taole, 2014). Understanding the unique challenges rural school
districts and rural hiring entities have in recruiting and retaining quality educators has
resulted in new knowledge regarding best-practices, but a comprehensive solution to thisongoing problem remains elusive (Bouck, 2018; du Plessis & Mestry, 2019).
In contrast, there is extensive research available regarding ongoing teacher shortages,
challenges in recruiting teachers, and the potential impact these shortages can and will haveon the global economy. Many studies focus on the unique approaches individual schools havetaken to help recruit and retain teachers - some with moderate success (Arinaitwe & Corbett,2022; O’Doherty & Harford, 2018). Other areas of inquiry have centered on general trends insecuring teacher labor (Balter & Duncombe, 2008; Mngomezulu, Lawrence, & Mabusela.
2021), hiring international teachers (Ingersoll et al., 2018; Kissau et al., 2019) or
incentivizing specific segments of the labor pool to enter and remain in the classroom (Baker,
2014; Olitsky, Perfetti, & Coughlin, 2020).

11

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Simultaneously, studies on education in rural and remote regions provide a base ofknowledge regarding the preparation of rural teachers (Kline, White, & Lock, 2013; Mitchell
et al., 2019), the unique challenges of teaching in rural schools (Goodpaster, Adedokun, &Weaver, 2018; Kahu, 2012), and the importance of the teacher within a rural school andcommunity (Adams & Farnsworth, 2020; Eppley, 2015). The linkage between rural schools
and teacher shortage issues has also been an area of study and focus (Oyen & Schweinle,
2020; Qian et al., 2020; Sindelar et al., 2018).
One of the more prolific areas of ongoing research focuses on governmental policy related torural education and the role of teachers in rural schools (Brenner, 2016; Johnson & Howley,
2015; Sher, 2019). A common critique by rural school advocates continues to center on themarginalization of rural schools or the lack of governmental action on addressing the needsof regional learning centers (Schafft, 2016). The call for specific governmental interventions
to mitigate various challenges impacting rural schools has been continual and frequent (Arsenet al., 2021; Sher, 2019; Stephens & Perry, 1991). Further, the focus on reshaping financial
policy related to the funding of rural schools shows a common refrain regarding the specificdifferences found between rural and remote schools, and their urban and suburban cousins(Debertin et al., 1986; Ramirez, 2013; Sielke, 2004).
Regarding rural teacher recruitment, several studies and reports have focused on the role ofhousing, and the lack of housing inventories, regarding rural schools and rural teachers(Mitchell et al., 2019; Shaw, 2005; Superville, 2018). The prominence of this issue continues
in many locations and has impacted normal rural school operations as many school districts
now also have become managers for property designated for teaching housing (Kelley, 2017;
Kennedy, 2018; Pratt, 2018). This issue continues to impact the recruitment and retention ofteachers to rural schools and continues to be a primary barrier for many new teachers
exploring a teaching role in a rural region (Branch, 2018).
This housing issue also connects to ongoing challenges related to teacher compensation andpay, as in some locations, such as the United States, the pay rates for rural teachers is far lessthan for teachers in urban and suburban districts (Nguyen, 2020; Tran & Smith, 2019). The
importance of compensation and how it applies to rural teachers continues to be explored(Moeller, Moeller, & Schmidt, 2018), but has largely become a non-issue in nations andregions where a national salary schedule has been developed and implemented (Taimalu,
2021). When the cost of university attendance and completion, a common requirement forteachers in many nations, is factored against the future earnings of teachers, research showsthat in the United States, for example, it is impossible for teachers to recoup a significant
return on investment for the university degree (Lobo & Burke-Smalley, 2018). While this is
not as common in regions featuring national compensation practices, the earning power ofteachers around the world continues to lag comparable professions in the governmental or
private sectors (Allegretto & Mishel, 2016; Taylor, 2008).
Methodology and Framework
Policy analysis as a methodology has been well established as an essential tool for studies
involving governmental policy interventions and environments related to the public good or
public sector (Kraft and Furlong, 2020). Policy analysis related to education, and all its
components such as school building construction, the use of educational technology, and alitany of other interventions, has been an area of concentrated research throughout the lastcentury (Mayer & van Daalen, 2013). Within the greater frame of policy analysis exists six

12

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

major clusters of activity that include: research and analysis, design and recommendations,clarification of values and arguments, strategic advising, democratization, and mediation(Mayer, Bots, & van Daalen, 2004). This study centers on the first three components of thiscluster, as several of the policy interventions outlined within the study just beginning
implementation.
This analysis largely connects to the theoretical framework of “justice as fairness” asdeveloped through the work of John Rawls in the 20th century (Rawls, 1971). Schools andeducational systems are generally seen as both political and social institutions, that could andshould be guided, at least in part, by fairness (Rawls, 1985). As we are seeking to investigate
governmental approaches to resolve variances in teacher supply and teacher quality foundbetween urban/suburban schools and their rural counterparts, it is logical to apply this Rawls’
approach to the political and social institutions that impact daily school operations – namely
governmental oversight of schools and the teachers that work within them. If fairness is anobjective supported by governmental institutions (Gooden, 2015), the equity challenges
found in rural schools indicates a challenge to the of the application to this construct offairness.
To understand the implementation of policy interventions used within three distinct locations,a specialized document analysis was conducted in the three distinct countries and regions.
Within the scope of this research, document analysis is appropriate as it focuses on “thecontent of documents—such as the words, images, ideas or patterns contained therein” (Hard,
Lee, & Dockett, 2018). As all research sites, Australia, the United States, and Zambia, utilize
English as a primary language, the challenge related to misinterpretation due to translation
was largely avoided. Further, the participating authors all reside in the various countries offocus, minimizing issues of cultural or historical misunderstanding.
Following a review of the various policy interventions used throughout all three countries, ananalysis of similarities and variances within the collective documents was completed. These
results are included within the discussion section of the study and link directly torecommendations regarding the support of rural educator recruitment and retention. This
singular focus on rural education further refines the process of policy intervention analysis, as
it is a common effort found in all three countries of focus.
Objectives and Research Questions
The objectives of this study are to understand the various challenges and interventions
currently being used to recruit teachers to rural areas in three different nations. It is hopedthat through this examination of what has worked, as well as what has not, in specificlocations that an initial discovery of the global best practices associated with rural teacher
recruitment and retention can be developed and replicated in other nations that struggle withfinding and keeping teachers in more remote locations. While there are significant differences
between the educational systems across all nations, some of the common challenges related
to providing outstanding educational opportunities to students in rural areas exist everywhere.
To help provide structure to this study, the following lines of inquiry have been developed:
1. To what extent are the identified nations impacted by a shortage of teachers in morerural and remote areas? How does national or regional education workforce policy
reflect the various challenges associated with rural teacher recruitment and retention?

13

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

2. What specific interventions have been developed to support rural teacher recruitment
and retention in Australia, the United States, and Zambia?
The development the previously stated research questions are beneficial to help guideresearch and highlight the primary areas of inquiry. As three distinct and different nations are
the area of focus for this study, it is also assumed that significant variance in terms of thelevel of impact and the extent of the interventions will vary. And while this may present
challenges related to the development of unified outcomes and conclusions, it also provides
an opportunity to explore and understand the unique nature of rural teacher recruitment andretention in three very different regions of the world.
Countries of Focus
The three countries of focus were developed through a review of research related to ruralteachers in specific locations. In Australia, the problem of rural teacher shortages has beensignificantly defined and highlighted, with extensive research completed that emphasizes thechallenge of placing and retaining teachers in the most remote parts of the nation (Kline,
White, & Lock, 2013; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011; Trinidad, Sharplin, Ledger, & Broadley,2014). Both Zambia and the United States recognize the issues related to rural teacher
recruitment and retention as well, but the extent of implementation of various policy
interventions varies widely – particularly when compared to Australia. This comparative
analysis is possible due to the availability of information and resources within each nation,and the physical location of the researchers who reside within each nation of focus.
Additional detail about the policy implementation and approaches with each nation follows.
Australia
The majority of Australia’s population lives and attend schools in major urban centers (andthe proximal suburban spaces) that are situated on the coastlines. Major metropolitan areas
such as Sydney, Melbourne and, to a lesser extent, Perth comprise more than 80% of the total
Australian population. Accordingly, the vast majority of Australia’s primary and secondary(ages 5-17) student populations, as well as the majority of universities that prepare educators,
are also located within these metropolitan areas. In total, there are more than 320,000
classroom teachers in Australian schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018a) – with the
majority living within 100 kilometers/62 miles of the coastline.
As a nation, however, Australia has large expanses of rural regions that encompasses the
majority of the interior of the continent. Within these remote and rural regions, more than
74,000 students attend schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018b). Finding classroom
teachers for these remote schools has been a difficult undertaking (Kline, White, & Lock,2013). Emerging and newly prepared educators have historically been hesitant to apply to themost remote and rural schools due to individual perceptions regarding social opportunities
and professional limitations (Cuervo & Acquaro, 2018).
In response, various Australian states and territories have developed incentives, primarily
monetary, to bolster the educator pipelines into more rural and remote regions. These
incentives focus on financial benefits, but several regions have also included other incentives
related to enhanced professional development opportunities and additional off-time forteachers during the academic year. Table 1 lists a sample of these incentives to enticeteachers to rural schools.

14

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Table 1
Australian Rural Teaching Incentives
State/Territory

Salary Incentives

New South Wales

Up to $25,000 (AUD)
salary adjustment; up to$10,000 recruitment
bonus

4 additional
professional
development days

Up to $24,901 salaryadjustment

Professional
development
offered throughweb-based
platforms.

Up to $23,952 salaryadjustment

Specialized
training (e.g.,
4WD driver
training)

Western Australia

Northern Territory

Development
Incentives

Other Incentives
Up to five additional
personal leave days;
potential subsidies forrental accommodation
Additional leave forteachers in remoteregions; free orsubsidized
accommodation;
relocation costs
provided; subsidized
vehiclelease/purchaseFree or subsidized
accommodation; up
to four free flights toneighboring urban
centers.

Many of the challenges related to rural teaching in Australia center on the remote nature of
the smaller towns and villages throughout the country (Cornish, 2015). While some nations,such as the United States, may define remoteness as being more than two hours away from amajor metropolitan area, there are regions in Australia that require driving time of more than
15 hours to reach the location of the rural school. This vast distance can be daunting to newteachers embarking on their initial teaching roles and requires them to make significant
modifications to a cosmopolitan lifestyle that they may have developed during their time atuniversity (Lavery, Cain, & Hampton, 2018). To compensate for this dramatic change inlocation and environment, some institutions have started shorter-term immersive experiences
for pre-service teachers to experience teaching and living in these remote regions. Theseexperiences have been beneficial as an increase in the number of students interested inteaching in remote locations has developed, but this process is dependent on a significant
contribution of time and money on the part of the university and the university faculty toprovide this opportunity (Mitchell et al., 2019).
The impact of these developed incentives, at this time, is largely unknown due to the natureof exploring the long-term development and retention of rural educators. It is evident,
however, that student enrollment in Australian schools is projected to significantly increase,
up to 50% by 2035, in nearly all states and territories – placing further demand on a limited
teacher/educator labor pool (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). This increase in student
populations has a direct impact on rural teacher supply as it provides additional opportunities
for existing rural teachers to relocate to more suburban or urban locations – leaving their ruralschool a vacancy that is difficult to replace. Without a unified approach to ensuring that all
students have qualified and effective teachers in the classroom, there is a concern that
educational equity for all Australia’s students can be ensured.

15

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

ZambiaZambian education is highlighted by the unique population distribution throughout thesouthern African nation that shows a relatively balanced number of students in each region of
the country. The 4.2 million students attending school in Zambia are dispersed throughout thecountry with the Copperbelt, Lusaka, Central and Southern provinces posting student
enrollments of more than 500,000 students (Ministry of Education, 2018). To support thesestudents, Zambia employs more than 107,000 teachers throughout the country. These
teachers facilitate student learning at the early childhood (ages 3-6), primary (7-13) andsecondary 14-18) levels. According to the country’s 2018 Educational Statistical Bulletin(Ministry of Education, 2018), the highest distribution of teachers in the country is within the
Copperbelt province – the mining hub of the nation and inclusive of the cities of Ndola andChingola. In this region, 19,761 teachers are employed, representing 18% of all teachers in
the country. Other regions with significant numbers of employed teachers include Lusaka, thenation’s administrative center, and the significantly populated Southern province. In contrast,
the Western province of Zambia, in the most remote region of the country, has the fewest
number of teachers currently employed.
Of particular concern in Zambia is the projected dramatic growth of school-attending
populations within the next 15 years. At present, there are roughly 4.2 million enrolled
students at the early childhood, primary, and secondary levels. This number is projected toincrease dramatically by 2035 with a projected population growth of all Zambians from ages
0-19 of approximately 40% (Zambian Central Statistical Office, 2013). Based on thisprojection, it can be estimated that more than 5.8 million students will be enrolled by 2035 –an increase of 1.6 million students from today.
In Zambia, this student enrollment will, and has, increased more rapidly in urban areas thanin rural areas. Yet increasingly the majority of African children who do not attend school are
rural students (World Bank, 2005). A combination of demand-side and supply-side factors
contribute to lower educational participation in rural areas, including aspects related toparental encouragement to attend school, and alternative demands on their time, such as
helping with family farming and other agricultural tasks. Even when they attend school, ruralchildren often find the curriculum less relevant to their lives and find less support for theirlearning from the home environment (World Bank, 2005). This makes children in rural areas
more difficult to engage in education and often results in a lower quality education. It is
hardly surprising then, that rural areas in Zambia show lower participation in education, andlower attainment.
Contrary to labor shortage patterns seen in other nations and regions of the world, it would
seem that Zambia may be uniquely prepared for an increase in total student numbers. At
present, the number of trained teachers far surpasses the number of available vacant teachingpositions (Phiri, 2019). This has resulted in Zambia developing agreements with regional
external African governments, such as Seychelles and Madagascar, to have Zambian teachers
sent to another country to address teacher shortages in those countries (Lusaka Times, 2019a;
Zambia Daily Mail, 2019). Yet, despite the current surplus of teachers, there are also
indications that Zambia continues to face teacher shortages in some circumstances andlocations. This problem centers on the nation’s lack of capacity to employ teachers by thegovernment (e.g., having teachers vetted, processed, and hired), and even where this process
is completed, there remains issues with deployment patterns and teacher retention –particularly in rural areas.

16

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

As seen in the United States and in other global locations, successful governments continue
to find it more difficult to supply quality education services in rural areas (Biddle & Azano,2016). Within the African context, three primary factors combine to weaken the quality ofteaching in rural areas. First, in many African countries, teachers have a preference to teachand live in urban areas with proximity to services and commercial/shopping enterprises.
Accordingly, rural schools are often left with empty posts, or have longer delays in fillingthese vacancies (du Plessis & Mestry, 2019). And even if posts are filled, the number ofqualified teachers seeking employment in rural schools remains low. In most cases, better
qualified teachers have a greater choice of jobs and based on patterns of preference, manychoose to work and live in urban areas. This can result in rural schools having lessexperienced teachers, as the more experienced teachers find ways to move to the moredesired schools (World Bank, 2005).
To support these rural regions in Zambia, governmental incentives have been developed andimplemented, resulting in increased compensation for teachers in remote and rural areas.
While there is some evidence that these efforts have proven to be beneficial in supporting
academic achievement for rural students (Chelwa, Pellicer, & Maboshe, 2019), it is unclear
as to how these efforts align with the current issue of over-supply of teachers within Zambia.
This pattern of simultaneous surplus and shortage of qualified teachers within parts ofZambia, especially between rural and urban schools, provides evidence that the problem ofteacher labor in Zambia is not just a problem of numbers, but also an issue of ensuring thatteachers are deployed to the schools where they are most needed. To resolve this unusualissue, it would seem to be important that government to address the various demand-side
factors that cause teachers not to stay in rural areas despite the rural and remote hardshipallowances currently in place. Teachers in rural areas do not just need monetary incentives,because the disadvantages of teaching in rural areas (such as limited access to services,
technology, and other modern conveniences) far outweigh these salary-based incentives. It is,therefore, not surprising that most teachers prefer to work in urban areas, because the
incentives for teachers in remote rural areas are not sufficient to compensate for the various
hardships (Pugatch & Schroeder, 2014; World Bank, 2006).
Further compounding this issue is a higher-than-projected teacher annual attrition rate acrossZambia. While a standard attrition figure of 5,000 teachers is projected by the Ministry of
Education, recent years have seen more than 7,000 teachers elect to leave their classroom
positions (Ministry of Education, 2018). A reduction in the number of teachers when the
pupil enrollment is increasing will have an adverse impact on education quality within the
country. Various factors currently contribute to the high rate of teacher attrition in Zambia –particularly in the rural areas (Das, Dercon, Habyarimana, & Krishnan, 2007). For instance,
once the teacher has been deployed and assigned a teaching location, they are able to request
transfers to other areas. Many times, these transfers are often requested based on marriage, as
it is logical that a teacher would want to live in the same area as his/her/their spouse. Hence,
it is rare to find female teachers in rural areas, unless they are with their husbands (e.g., bothare teachers). Male teachers are also able to transfer on the basis of their need to complete
further academic study, necessitating access to electricity which may not be available in someremote locations (Haanyika, 2008). Lastly, teacher illness is another major justification formovement, particularly from rural areas to more urban schools.
Student-teacher ratios may also be a contributing factor to this level of attrition as the nation
averages 61.9 students for every early childhood and primary teacher and 37 students forevery secondary teacher (Ministry of Education, 2018). With additional students, educator17

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

workloads tend to rise and job satisfaction declines – elements that frequently have a direct
impact on teacher retention (He, Cooper, & Tangredi, 2015).
In addition, Zambia also possesses a unique characteristic related to teacher qualifications. In
Zambia, roughly 25% of all teachers possess university degrees, far surpassing regional
comparative nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (3.6%) and Senegal (4.8%)(Bashir, Lockheed, Ninan, & Tan, 2018). The connection between teacher qualifications andstudent achievement has been extensively researched (see Bietenbeck, Piopiunik, &Wiederhold, 2018; Coenen, Cornelisz, Groot, Maassen van den Brink, & Van Klaveren,2018), and is a significant factor impacting the potential future opportunities and benefits forZambia’s students.
Recent political actions, however, will likely have a long-term impact in regards to teacher
labor force development within Zambia. The operationalization of the Higher Education
Authority (HEA) in 2015, as established under the Higher Education Act No. 4 of 2013, andthe establishment of the Teaching Council of Zambia (TCZ), and the National Action for
Quality Education in Zambia (NAQEZ) have largely been well-received, as theseorganizations seek to provide mechanisms related to quality assurance and quality promotion
in higher education. This is done primarily through enhancing governmental policy related toeducator preparation and teacher labor supply in Zambia (Mwalimu, 2014). This pattern ofsimultaneous surplus and shortage of qualified teachers is not unique to Zambia, as it is also
seen in other nations in Africa (Irving, 2012). The challenges related to teacher deployment,
the lack of funds by governments to employ teachers, as well as the supply factors that makerural areas unattractive to teachers are commonplace throughout the continent. However,compared to current teacher labor supply limitations found throughout most of the world, thecase of Zambia makes it a nation worthy of future study regarding teacher labor supply andpolicy.
United States
Concerns over educator shortages throughout the United States have been well-documented
and have led to increased speculation about the viability of classroom-based careers and theretention of existing educators throughout the nation. At present, there are more than 3.5
million teachers employed throughout the United States (U.S. Department of Education,
2019a), with the majority of educators working in urban or suburban schools and school
districts. One unique aspect of the American educational system is the lack of a nationalized
curriculum or nationalized salary scale for teachers. Accordingly, there are more than 13,000
independent school districts that control the majority of educational operations – including
the approval of curriculum and the establishment of compensation policies for individual
educators (U.S. Department of Education, 2019b).
A projected shortfall of approximately 200,000 classroom teachers is anticipated in the
United States by 2025 (Garcia & Weiss, 2019). Specialized teaching domains such as
secondary math and secondary science continue to have limited applicants to local schools inall school location types - urban, suburban, and rural (Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, & CarverThomas, 2016). Yet, there are little commonalities regarding teacher shortages based on
geography. Where some states, such as Massachusetts and Ohio, continue to have applicant
numbers that far exceed available teaching positions, other states such as Colorado andAlabama, frequently have vacancies in rural schools that attract zero applicants (Whaley,2016).

18

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

To combat these challenges, both federal and state governments have developed various
initiatives in an effort to promote teaching careers to potential future educators and to provide
financial incentives for new educators entering the profession. With lower salary rates
available for classroom educators in the United States as compared to other occupations
requiring similar education levels, the number of individuals pursuing careers in education
has been in decline through most of the start of the 21st century (Sutcher et al., 2016). To
remedy this shortage, several states have instituted financial incentives for teachers or teacher
candidates – particularly for those interested in rural schools (Loewus, 2018). From a federal
level, programs have been developed to help offset the high costs of university attendance as
all states throughout the United States require that teachers possess a four-year degree (Hegji,Heisler, & Smole, 2018). In order to pay for the costly university education, many teachers
are required to take out extensive loans, with the average loan debt for university graduates in
the United States exceeding $30,000 (Carrig, 2019).
In the United States, several individual states have also taken steps to remarket the profession
or make teaching more appealing to younger university graduates. Many states haveexamined avenues to reduce the barriers associated with teaching – particularly for thoseentering the classroom as a second career or those without formal training in pedagogy orteaching methods (Lilly, 1992). Other unique efforts to increase the number of individuals
into the classroom also include the established “Troops to Teachers” program that supports
former military members in developing a professional pathway to becoming a classroom
teacher. This specific program has been seen as significantly successful as student
achievement has been accelerated in classrooms with these former members of the military(Owings et al., 2016).
Despite these initiatives, many rural schools throughout the country continue to be impacted
by a scarce pool of teacher labor, and many positions remain unfilled (Hernandez & Cohen,2019). Without significant governmental intervention that leads to resolution of many of theissues related to teaching in the United States, including low salaries, overwhelming
workloads, and school safety, it is difficult to foresee a significant increase of individuals
seeking careers within government/public schools. Until these issues are resolved, American
schools will continue to struggle with teacher recruitment and retention – particularly in the
more rural and remote regions of the country.
Findings and Commonalities
In all three nations of focus, there exists some overlapping commonalities related tointerventions designed to bolster the teacher workforce in rural locations. One sharedapproach clearly centers on financial incentives for individuals interested in rural teaching – afactor that has seen some success in Australia with a more limited success rate in the UnitedStates and Zambia. It is clear that compensation and salary does play a role in both therecruitment and retention of teachers in rural regions (Livengood, 2021; See et al., 2020). As
we find in all three countries of focus, these financial incentives are a significant componentof efforts to recruit and retain rural teachers. The Australian approach of offering both higher
wages and recruitment bonuses for teachers willing to work in remote areas has largely beeneffective (Sattin-Bajaj, Walker-Gibbs, & Thomas, 2019).
A second key commonality within all three countries is the recognition by key stakeholders
within national and local/state/provincial governments that the issue of rural teacher
recruitment and retention is worthy of focus. This focus is exemplified by the development of19

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

specific communications and associated interventions to address educator shortages in ruralschools. In Zambia, for example, the Ministry of Education formally recognized the lack ofteachers in the rural parts of the nation and, as a result, implemented a “hardship allowance”
for teachers working in more remote regions (Chelwa, Pellicer, & Maboshe, 2019). This
recognition of the issue and the development of an intervention specifically designed toaddress the rural teacher shortage issue demonstrates that the federal government does
identify rural teacher placement as a problem. The US response to rural teacher shortages hasless to do with the implementation of specific interventions, but rather focuses more on thedevelopment of data and reports that highlight the concern. (USGAO, 2022). While the lackof a developed intervention in the US system is notable, there are official communications
within the US federal government that highlight rural teacher challenges. This approach ofrecognizing the ongoing problems of teacher staffing in rural schools is common in all threelocations, but the mitigation of these concerns differs in Australia, the United States, andZambia.
When examining the commonalities in all three locations, it also becomes clear that – in eachcountry – there is little evidence that efforts to integrate rural teaching into existing educator
preparation programs at colleges and universities is taking place. In most educator
preparation programs at the university level, future teachers are prepared, generally, to teachin either urban or suburban schools (Coffey et al., 2019; Siwatu, 2011). There seems to bevery little information or indication that colleges and universities, generally, are focusing on
preparing educators for roles in rural schools. While preparing teachers for life as a ruralteacher may take place in a limited fashion at individual institutions of higher education,
there is not a universal national requirement in any of the three countries of focus toemphasize the preparation of rural teachers. In many instances, particularly in the UnitedStates, educators are more likely to be prepared to work in suburban school districts that
include the majority of students in the nation (Riser-Kositsky, 2020). This lack of focus on
the preparation of rural educators likely has impact on the limited number of new teachers
electing to work and live in more remote locations. If emerging teachers do not visit, studentteach, or engage with rural schools during their preparation, it is logical to assume that they
will be less likely to consider a teaching role in the rural environment (Brundin, 2019).
Without a mandate or incentive for educator preparation programs to focus on rural schools,
it is unlikely that these programs will emerge organically.
Discussion
With a developing shortfall of 69 million teachers worldwide within the next 15 years,
concentrated and specific efforts need to be developed and undertaken to ensure that all
students, regardless of physical location or postal code, have access to relevant and beneficial
educational opportunities. The incentives developed by many nations that seek to promoteteaching careers and expand the pool of potential teachers are important first-steps, but these
initial efforts cannot be the only initiatives developed in support of bolstering teacher
pipelines into the classroom. Specific efforts should be developed to help resolve ongoingproblems with retaining existing educators (in all locations – including rural schools),
addressing factors that lead to teacher frustration and burn-out, and developing a newgeneration of school leaders that will be needed to replace retiring or departing principals,
headmasters, and superintendents (Wallace Foundation, 2022). Without the development ofcomprehensive and extensive initiatives that directly impact and benefit classroom teachers,
teacher shortages will continue, and likely expand, well into the mid-21st century. As teacher
numbers dwindle, the impact on student learning will be substantial – a very concerning

20

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

development as global events and ecological concerns will require a highly educatedgeneration of young people that will emerge in the mid-21st century (Kotok & Knight, 2022).
Rural schools are frequently the first educational institutions to be impacted by educator
shortages and serve as an indicator for larger issues related to the appeal and desirability ofteaching as a profession. Local rural students frequently find themselves attending schoolsthat may have a low-quality or nonexistent teacher, simply as a result of the imbalance
related to the current teacher labor supply (Zhang et al., 2018). Today, many rural schools areoperating without qualitied teachers and instructors in key academic disciplines such as mathand science (Dobo, 2022). Students in rural schools are required to either self-teachthemselves these subjects or forgo classwork and learning in specific content areas. While itis admirable that these students continue to push forward despite significant odds, thissituation highlights larger issues related to rural education and equity.
In suburban and urban schools, particularly in the affluent sections of a city, it is assumed andexpected that students will have access to a highly trained teacher with knowledge about
specific academic subjects or pedagogical approaches. In rural schools, however, having thisskilled individual leading a classroom is not always a safe assumption. Vacant teachingpositions and ineffective teachers are common in more remote parts of the world (Amminson,2022). This has led to the emergence of a concerns regarding school equity and educational
access. Students who are fortunate to be able to attend schools in suburban or urban areas
with qualified teachers in all classrooms, contrast dramatically with their peers in poorly
staffed rural locations (Coenen et al., 2018).
Today, many schools look to technology to help “level the playing field” and provide
instruction through internet-based video applications and platforms (Economist, 2017). Yet,this implementation of virtual teachers or on-line education highlights the inequity foundbetween those students in rural schools and urban/suburban schools that continue to employ
in-person faculty. Where rural students are frequently provided a virtual teacher to provide
instruction from a distance, non-rural schools infrequently use video instruction as theirprimary mode of teaching (Barry & Easterly, 2021; Li, Sun, & Gee, 2019).
This lack of qualified educators staffing rural schools leads to additional questions regarding
educational equity and the role of geography on the quality of education available to a
student. Ideally, the student in a rural school in a remote location will have the same
opportunities and resources as their peers in urban and suburban locations, yet there is
emerging evidence that this is not the reality in most rural schools (Gagnon & Mattingly,2015). The current shortages of qualified teachers in rural schools should be seen as aprecursor to future staffing challenges in urban and suburban schools. While a school in aremote location today may not be able to secure the services of a secondary chemistryteacher, this vacancy could well exist tomorrow in schools in large urban areas or in suburban
schools. Without proactive and intentional action to secure the services of qualified andenthusiastic rural teachers, school effectiveness will be limited and academic development
for students in more remote location will be impeded.
Conclusion
In Australia, the United States, and Zambia, numerous initiatives and communications havebeen developed to support the placement of classroom teachers in rural and remote locations.
While each country approaches the concern differently, there is a common thread between all

21

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

three about the recognition of the challenges related to recruiting and retaining rural
educators. Now that the problem has been identified and analyzed, each nation has embarked
on trying to address the issue with incentives, additional studies, or reallocation of teachers to
support rural schools. This challenge will remain as the teacher labor supply continues toshrink, but it is hoped that the initial steps taken by each country will yield positive resultsthat lead to effective learning opportunities for the children in the rural regions of the world.

22

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

References
Adams, R., & Farnsworth, M. (2020). Culturally responsive teacher education for rural andnative communities. Multicultural Perspectives (Mahwah, N.J.), 22(2), 84–
90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2020.1741367
Allegretto, S.A. & Mishel, L. (2016). The teacher pay gap is wider than ever: Teachers’ pay
continues to fall further behind pay of comparable workers. Economic Policy Institute
Report.
Amminson, L. (Oct. 26, 2022). Yukon schools grapple with ongoing teacher shortage. CBC
News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-schools-grapple-with-teachershortage-1.6629730
Arinaitwe, G., & Corbett, M. (2022). Rural teacher shortages and home-grown solutions: A
Ugandan case study. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 32(1),
18–32. https://doi.org/10.47381/aijre.v32i1.320
Arsen, D., Delpier, T., Gensterblum, A., Jacobsen, R., & Stamm, A. (2021). Rural
communities need better state education policies. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(4), 8–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211065820
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). Population Projections, Australia, 2012 to 2101 (ABS
Publication 3222). Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018a). Number of In-school Staff by Function, Sex and
Affiliation, States and Territories, 2006-2018 (ABS Publication 4221.0 Schools,
Australia 2018). Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018b). Students (FTE) by ASGS Remoteness Area andAffiliation, States and Territories, 2018 (ABS Publication 4221.0 Schools, Australia2018). Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Baker, W. R. (2014). Perceptions of new jersey music teachers regarding merit pay and otherforms of compensation. Visions of Research in Music Education, 25, 1–24.
Balter, D., & Duncombe, W. D. (2008). Recruiting highly qualified teachers: Do district
recruitment practices matter? Public Finance Review, 36(1), 33–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106293949
Barry, D., & Easterly III, R. G. (2021). Comparing the self-efficacy of Florida school-based
agricultural education teachers delivering online and in-person instruction.
Advancement in Agricultural Development, 2(2), 15–24.
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.109
Bashir, S., Lockheed, M., Ninan, E. & Tan, J.P. (2018). Facing Forward: Schooling forlearning in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1260-6
Biddle, C., & Azano, A. P. (2016). Constructing and reconstructing the “rural school
problem”: A century of rural education research. Review of Research in Education,40(1), 298–325. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16667700
Bietenbeck, J., Piopiunik, M., & Wiederhold, S. (2018). Africa’s skill tragedy: Does teachers’
lack of knowledge lead to low student performance? Journal of Human Resources,
53(3), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.53.3.0616-8002R1

23

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Bouck, E. C. (2018). How size and setting impact education in rural schools. The Rural
Educator, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v25i3.528
Branch, J. (Sept. 4, 2018). Foundation plans teacher housing. News-Topic (Lenoir, NC).
Brenner, D. (2016). Rural educator policy brief: Rural education and the Every Student
Succeeds Act. The Rural Educator, 37(2), 23.
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v37i2.271
Brundin, J. (Apr. 10, 2019). What Does It Take to Get a Teacher Interested in Rural Schools?
A Field Trip. Colorado Public Radio. https://www.cpr.org/2019/04/10/what-does-ittake-to-get-a-teacher-interested-in-rural-schools-a-field-trip/
Carrig, D. (Jan. 2, 2019). Crushing student loan debt, stagnant pay can put teachers infinancial bind. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2018/05/04/teachers-salary-student-loan-debtforgiveness/529424002/
Carroll, T. G., & Foster, E. (2010). Who will teach? Experience matters. National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 4.
Chelwa, G., Pellicer, M., & Maboshe, M. (2019). Teacher pay and educational outcomes:
Evidence from the rural hardship allowance in Zambia. South African Journal of
Economics, 87(3), 255–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/saje.12227
Coenen, J., Cornelisz, I., Groot, W., Maassen van den Brink, H., & Van Klaveren, C. (2018).
teacher characteristics and their effects on student test scores: A systematic review.
Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(3), 848–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12210
Coffey, H., Putman, S. M., Handler, L. K., & Leach, W. (2019). Growing them early:
Recruiting and preparing future urban teachers through an early college collaboration
between a college of education and an urban school district. Teacher Education
Quarterly (Claremont, Calif.), 46(1), 35–54.
Cornish, L. (2015). History and context of our research. In L. Graham & J. Miller (Eds.).
Bush Tracks: The Opportunities and Challenges of Rural Teaching and Leadership(pp. 11–23). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-097-0_2
Cross, F. (2017). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990-1991 through 2017-2018.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education.
Retrieved from:https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/ateachershortageareasreport201718.pdf
Cuervo, H. & Acquaro, D. (2018). The problem with staffing rural schools: Attracting newteachers to country schools remains one of the biggest challenges in Australianeducation. Pursuit. Retrieved from: https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/ articles/theproblem-with-staffing-rural-schools
Das, J., Dercon, S., Habyarimana, J., & Krishnan, P. (2007). Teacher shocks and student
learning: Evidence from Zambia. Journal of Human Resources, XLII(4), 820–862.
https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLII.4.820
Debertin, D. L., Clouser, R. L., & Huie, J. M. (1986). Rural poverty, funding for education,and public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 15(2), 327–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1986.tb00717.x

24

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Dobo, N. (Sept 21, 2022). Waiting for the traveling teacher: Remote rural schools need morehands-on help. Hechinger Report. Retrieved from:https://hechingerreport.org/waiting-for-the-traveling-teacher-remote-rural-schoolsneed-more-hands-on-help/
du Plessis P. & Mestry, R. (2019). Teachers for rural schools – a challenge for South Africa.
South African Journal of Education, 39(Supplement 1), S1–S9.
https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39ns1a1774
Eppley, K. (2015). “Hey, I saw your grandparents at walmart”: Teacher education for ruralschools and communities. The Teacher Educator, 50(1), 67–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2014.975061
Gagnon, D. J., & Mattingly, M. J. (2015). State policy responses to ensuring excellent
educators in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 30(13), 1.
Garcia, E. & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse
than we thought. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from:https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-shortage-is-real-large-and-growing-andworse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-storm-in-the-teacher-labormarket-series/
Gooden, S. (2015). Race and social equity: A nervous area of government. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315701301
Goodpaster, K. P. S., Adedokun, O. A., & Weaver, G. C. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions ofrural STEM teaching: Implications for rural teacher retention. The Rural Educator(Fort Collins, Colo.), 33(3), 9. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i3.408
Hard, N., Lee, P., & Dockett, S. (2018). Mapping the policy landscape of Australian earlychildhood education policy through document analysis. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 43(2), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.43.2.01
Haanyika, C. M. (2008). Rural electrification in Zambia: A policy and institutional analysis.
Energy Policy, 36(3), 1044–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.031
He, Y., Cooper, J. E., & Tangredi, C. (2015). Why do I stay? A case study of a secondary
English teacher in an urban high school. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(1), 49–66.
Hegji, A., Heisler, E., Smole, D. (2018). Federal student loan forgiveness and loan
repayment programs. (No. R43571.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional ResearchService.
Hernandez, S. & Cohen, M. (2019, September 9). Back to school, without a teacher: Inside
the struggle to keep teachers at rural schools. USA Today. Retrieved from:https://www.usatoday com/story/news/education/2019/08/28/teacher-first-day-ofschool-back-teaching-jobs-salary/2018092001/
Ingersoll, M., Hirschkorn, M., Landine, J., & Sears, A. (2018). Recruiting international
educators in a global teacher shortage: Research for practice. The International
Schools Journal, 37(2), 92–102.
Irving, M. (2012). Teacher labor markets in South Africa and Botswana: A comparative
analysis. Prospects, 42(4), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-012-9253-7
Jenkins, K., & Cornish, L. (2015). Preparing pre-service teachers for rural appointments.
Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 25(2), 14–27.

25

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Johnson, J., & Howley, C. B. (2015). Contemporary federal education policy and ruralschools: A critical policy analysis. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(2), 224–241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022112
Kelley, D. (Dec. 16, 2017). Plan forms to address Colorado’s statewide teacher
shortages. The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colo.)
Kennedy, M. (Oct. 9, 2018). San Jose (Calif.) district looks at converting schools to teacher
housing. American School & University (Nashville, TN).
Khau, M. (2012). “Our culture does not allow that”: Exploring the challenges of sexuality
education in rural communities. Perspectives in Education, 30(1), 61–69.
Kissau, S., Davin, K., Wang, C., Haudeck, H., Rodgers, M., & Du, L. (2019). Recruiting
foreign language teachers: An international comparison of career choice influences.
Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(2), 184–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919846015
Kline, J., White, S., & Lock, G. (2013). The rural practicum: Preparing a quality teacher
workforce for rural and regional Australia. Journal of Research in Rural Education(Online), 28(3), 1.
Kotok, S., & Knight, D. S. (2022). Revolving doors: Cross-country comparisons of therelationship between math and science teacher staffing and student achievement.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(2), 345–360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1770804
Kraft, M. & Furlong, S. (2020). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives. Sage.
Lavery, S., Cain, G., & Hampton, P. (2018). Walk beside me, learn together: A servicelearning immersion to a remote aboriginal school and community. Australian andInternational Journal of Rural Education, 28(1), 154–169.
Lee, J., & Zuilkowski, S. S. (2015). ‘Making do’: Teachers’ coping strategies for dealing
with textbook shortages in urban Zambia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 117–
128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.008
Li, G., Sun, Z., & Jee, Y. (2019). The more technology the better? A comparison of teacherstudent interaction in high and low technology use elementary EFL classrooms in
China. System (Linköping), 84, 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.003
Lilly, M. S. (1992). Research on teacher licensure and state approval of teacher education
programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 148–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649201500209
Livengood, C. (2021). Teacher retention starts with compensation, leadership; Q&A: MSU’S
Katherine Strunk. Crain’s Detroit Business, 37(12), 30.
Lobo, B. J., & Burke-Smalley, L. A. (2018). An empirical investigation of the financial valueof a college degree. Education Economics, 26(1/2), 78–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2017.1332167
Loewus, L. (2018). Are Teacher Housing Perks a Good Idea? Some question whether
providing housing for teachers is sound public policy. Education Week, 37(18), 18–
21. Retrieved from:https://search-ebscohostcom.libproxy.uccs.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=127851369&site=ehostlive

26

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Lusaka Times (21 January, 2019a). Zambia ready to deploy 500 teachers to Madagascar.
Lusaka Times. Retrieved from: https://www.lusakatimes.com/2019/01/21/zambiaready-to-deploy-500-teachers-to-madagascar/
Lusaka Times (2 September, 2019b). Govt’s planned recruitment of over 4,500 teachers
welcome. Lusaka Times. Retrieved from: https://www.lusakatimes.com/
2019/09/02/govts-planned-recruitment-of-over-4-500-teachers-welcome/Mayer IS, Bots P. W.G., van Daalen C. E. (2004). Perspectives on policy analysis: A
framework for understanding and design. International Journal of Technology Policy
Management, 4(2):169–191. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2004.004819
Mayer I. S., van Daalen C.E., Bots P.W.G. (2013). Perspectives on Policy Analysis: A
Framework for Understanding and Design. In Thissen W. & Walker W. (Eds.). Public
Policy Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science,
179. Springer.
Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student
achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation. Journal of
Development Economics, 99(2), 486–496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.06.002
Mitchell, R., Olsen, A. W., Hampton, P., Hicks, J., Long, D., & Olsen, K. (2019). Rural
exposures: An examination of three initiatives to introduce and immerse preservice
teachers into rural communities and rural schools in the U.S. and Australia. The Rural
Educator, 40(2), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v40i2.847
Mngomezulu, M. S., Lawrence, K. C., & Mabusela, M. S. (2021). Recruiting competentteachers in South Africa for a sustainable future: The role of school governing bodies.
African Journal of Inter-Multidisciplinary Studies (Online), 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.51415/ajims.v3i1.927
Moeller, M. R., Moeller, L. L., & Schmidt, D. (2018). Examining the teacher pipeline: Will
they stay or will they go? The Rural Educator (Fort Collins, Colo), 37(1).
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v37i1.293
Mwalimu, M. (2014). Education and the economy: Achievements and shortfalls in
independent Zambia, 1964-2014. Journal of Southern African Studies, 40(5), 1091–
1108. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2014.946820
Nguyen, T. D. (2020). Examining the teacher labor market in different rural contexts:
Variations by urbanicity and rural states. AERA Open, 6(4),233285842096633. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420966336
O’Doherty, T., & Harford, J. (2018). Teacher recruitment: Reflections from Ireland on thecurrent crisis in teacher supply. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 654–
669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1532994
Olitsky, S., Perfetti, A., & Coughlin, A. (2020). Filling positions or forging new pathways?
scholarship incentives, commitment, and retention of STEM teachers in high‐needschools. Science Education (Salem, Mass.), 104(2), 113–143.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21552
Owings, W. A., Kaplan, L. S., Nunnery, J., Marzano, R., Myran, S., & Blackburn, D. (2006).
Teacher quality and troops to teachers: A national study with implications forprincipals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 102–131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506289023

27

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Oyen, K., & Schweinle, A. (2020). Addressing teacher shortages in rural America: Whatfactors encourage teachers to consider teaching in rural settings? The Rural Educator(Fort Collins, Colo.), 41(3), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v41i3.923
Phiri, C. (2019, September 19). NAQEZ proposes suspension of teacher training. Zambia
Reports. Retrieved from: https://zambiareports.com/2019/09/19/naqez-proposessuspension-teacher-training/
Plunkett, M., & Dyson, M. (2011). Becoming a teacher and staying one: Examining thecomplex ecologies associated with educating and retaining new teachers in rural
Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 32–47.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n1.3
Pratt, A. C. (2018). Rural recruitment and retention. School Administrator, 75(9), 36–38.
Pugatch, T., & Schroeder, E. (2014). Incentives for teacher relocation: Evidence from theGambian hardship allowance. Economics of Education Review, 41, 120–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.04.003
Qian, H., Youngs, P., Hu, S., & Prawat, X. J. (2020). Will china’s free teacher education
policy address teacher shortages in rural schools or reproduce existing inequality?
Compare, 50(5), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1559037
Ramirez, A. (2013). Financing schools and educational programs: Policy, politics, andpractice. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy & Public
Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.
Riser-Kositsky, M. (2020, June 16). Education statistics: Facts about American schools.
Education Week.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence
from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244
Sattin-Bajaj, C., Walker-Gibbs, B., & Thomas, M. (Mar. 1, 2019). Responding to Teacher
Shortages in Rural Schools: Lessons from Australia. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-responding-to-teacher-shortages-in-ruralschools-lessons-from-australia/2019/03
Schafft, K. A. (2016). Rural education as rural development: Understanding the rural schoolcommunity well-being linkage in a 21st-century policy context. Peabody Journal of
Education, 91(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1151734
See, B. H., Morris, R., Gorard, S., Kokotsaki, D., & Abdi, S. (2020). Teacher recruitment andretention: A critical review of international evidence of most promising interventions.
Education Sciences, 10(10), 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100262
Shaw, M. E. (Oct. 19, 2005). Hunt for new teachers hurt by rural location, lack of rental
housing. The Virginian-Pilot.
Sher, J. P. (2019). Education in Rural America: A reassessment of conventional wisdom.
Routledge.
Sielke, C. (2004). Rural factors in state funding systems. Journal of Education
Finance, 29(3), 223–236.

28

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Sindelar, P. T., Pua, D. J., Fisher, T., Peyton, D. J., Brownell, M. T., & Mason-Williams, L.
(2018). The demand for special education teachers in rural schools revisited: An
update on progress. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(1), 12–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517749247
Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to teach in
America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.004
Stephens, E. R., & Perry, W. J. (1991). A proposed federal and state policy agenda for rural
education in the decade of the 1990s. In D. Alan (Ed.) Rural education: Issues andpractice, (pp. 333–394). Routledge.
Stronge, J. H. (2010). Effective teachers = student achievement: What the research says. Eye
on Education Press.
Superville, D. R. (2018). Where K-12 salaries lag home prices, districts try to help.
Education Week, 37(29).
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis inteaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA:
Learning Policy Institute.
Taimalu, M., Luik, P., Kantelinen, R., & Kukkonen, J. (2021). Why they choose a teachingcareer? factors motivating career choice among estonian and finnish student
teachers. Trames (Tallinn), 25(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2021.1.02
Taole, M. J. (2014). Multi-grade teaching: A daunting challenge for rural teachers. Studies ofTribes and Tribals, 12(1), 95.
Taylor, L. (2008). Comparing teacher salaries: Insights from the U.S. Census. Economics of
Education Review, 27(1): 48–57.
Tran, H., & Smith, D. (2019). Insufficient money and inadequate respect what obstructs therecruitment of college students to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 57(2), 152–166.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2018-0129
The Economist (Dec. 2017). No pupil is an island: Education and technology. (The
Economist, 425(9071), 28.
Trinidad, S., Sharplin, E., Ledger, S., & Broadley, T. (2014). Connecting for innovation: Four
universities collaboratively preparing pre-service teachers to teach in rural and remotewestern Australia. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 29(2), 1.
UNESCO (2016). The world needs almost 69 million new teachers to reach the 2030
education goals. UIS Fact Sheet. New York: United National Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019a). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2017. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/
fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2019b). Number ofpublic school districts and public and private elementary and secondary schools:
Selected years, 1869-70 through 2016-17. Retrieved from:https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_214.10.asp

29

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

United States Government Accountability Office (2022). K-12 Education: Education Should
Assess Its Efforts to Address Teacher Shortages. Retrieved from:https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105180.pdf
Wallace Foundation (2022, February 23). New research points to a looming principal
shortage. States News Service. Retrieved from:https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A694704769/AONE?u=colosprings&sid=summon&xi
d=12152b97
Weldon, P.R. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply, demand and data issues.
Policy Insights, 2. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Education Research.
Retrieved from: https://research.acer.edu.au/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=policyinsights
Whaley, M. (2107, April 13). Colorado’s teacher shortage is a “crisis” that’s getting worse,
educators say: Teacher pay has declined 7.7 percent in Colorado over the past decade.
Denver Post. Retrieved from: https://www.denverpost.com/ 2017/04/13/coloradoteacher-shortage-crisis/
World Bank (2006) Zambia education sector Public Expenditure Review. Washington:
WorldBank
Zambia Daily Mail (2019, November 5). 40,000 teachers on streets. Retrieved from:http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/40000-teachers-on-streets/
Zambian Central Statistical Office (2013). Population and Demographic Projections, 20112035. Lusaka, Zambia: Central Statistical Office.
Zambian Ministry of General Education (2018). Educational Statistics Bulletin, 2018.
Lusaka, Zambia: Ministry of General Education.
Zarra, E. J. (2019). The age of teacher shortages: Reasons, responsibilities, reactions.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Zhang, J., Jin, S., Torero, M., & Li, T. (2018). Teachers and urban-rural gaps in educational
outcomes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(4), 1207–1223.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay009
Corresponding author: Robert Mitchell
Email: rmitchel@uccs.edu

30

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

The Effects of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) on Student
Achievement and Engagement
Ana Liza Villano Gaad
Technological University of the Philippines
Philippines

31

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Abstract
This study determined the effects of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) on student
achievement and engagement in physical science. A one-group pretest/posttest preexperimental research design was employed. The participants were Grade 11 students (n=30)
in a public stand-alone senior high school in Congressional District 1, Quezon City,
Philippines, who were selected using purposive sampling. This study utilized five research
instruments: (1) OCL-based lesson plans, (2) Learning Activity Sheets (LAS), (3) PhysicalScience Achievement Test (PSAT), (4) CIP Engagement Questionnaire, and (5) Student
Learning Experience Survey. The collected data were analyzed and interpreted quantitatively
and qualitatively. Quantitative data were obtained from the validated 40-item achievement test
and the adopted engagement questionnaire, while responses to the Student Learning
Experience Survey provided qualitative data. Paired t-test was employed to determine thesignificant difference in achievement and engagement before and after the OCL’s
implementation. The results showed a significant difference between the pretest and posttest
mean scores of the students in the achievement and engagement in physical science. Likewise,
there was a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores forall engagement factors: cooperation, interest, and participation. The result of the survey
revealed that students’ exposure to the OCL strategy was effective in facilitating significant
improvements in their achievement and engagement in physical science. Overall, the findings
signified that Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) as a teaching-learning strategy enhanced
students’ achievement and engagement in physical science.
Keywords: achievement, engagement, online collaborative learning, physical science32

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Looking closely at science learning, engaging all students to participate actively in scienceclass activities has been one of the challenges that science teachers encounter most of the time.
Students previously regarded to be more able by their peers frequently dominated the class,whereas students with poor academic track records chose not to participate (Lowry-Brock,2016). According to research, academic achievement will improve if teachers can better engage
their students (Hirtz, 2020). As to Carini et al. (2006), if students are actively involved in theclassroom, they are more likely to show greater interest and participation in the lesson, thus
leading to better performance. However, as schools transitioned to online learning in responseto the COVID-19 pandemic, student engagement has been recognized as a challenge (Farooq
et al., 2020; Nickerson & Shea, 2020; Perets et al., 2020). Similarly, according to Kukard(2020), maintaining a sense of collaboration and connection has been one of the mostchallenging components of teaching during a global pandemic.
Given the physical distance between online students, collaborative learning initiatives may help
them connect and overcome feelings of isolation (Writers, 2018). According to Leow and Neo(2016), collaboration can strengthen student-to-student relationships that encourage
engagement leading to increased achievement in the course. Additionally, collaboration
contributes to topic understanding and interpersonal skills development that assist students
outside the classroom (Falcione et al., 2019). However, a virtual-based collaboration differsfrom one held in a physical classroom in terms of interactions between group participants overgeographic distances and from dispersed locations (Othman et al., 2013). Thus, online
collaboration tools are often used to facilitate online collaborative learning (Writers, 2018).
Collaborative learning can take on many forms in the traditional classroom setting. Common
examples include jigsaw activities, problem-based learning, peer review, and think-pair-share(Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). All these strategies can be used in online learning using an online
collaboration tool (Writers, 2018). For instance, the digital version of Think-Pair-Share (TPS)
allows students to collaborate in the same way that the traditional Think-Pair-Share activity
does, but at a distance, using simple online tools like Google Docs. According to Othman et al.
(2013), The “Think-Pair-Share” method is a low-risk, quick collaborative learning strategy thatworks well in a virtual environment. Students could benefit from the Google Docs TPS
adaptation by focusing on teacher-led questions in one area and collaborating with others tobetter understand the concept (Slone & Mitchell, 2014).
Online collaboration tools like Google Docs promote engagement and student-centeredlearning, which is critical for developing communication and inquiry skills (Schneckenberg,2014). Students can accomplish assignments while collaborating with peers to agree on
assigned tasks. Teachers can provide immediate feedback to students, observe, motivate, andfacilitate their work while they collect information for an assignment. By utilizing the cloudapproach in teaching and learning, students and teachers can work on the same document
simultaneously, offering more information, making corrections, and providing comments(Faulkner, 2019). Teachers that used 21st-century collaborative technologies like Google Docs
discovered that students were more enthusiastic and motivated to learn and agreed that talking
with their peers helped them better understand the learning content (Lin et al., 2016).
Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) is a widely used distance learning and teaching approachcomparable to face-to-face collaborative learning; however, meetings in a group are held
asynchronously or synchronously over the internet (Magen-Nagar & Shonfeld, 2017). Despite
development in distance learning research, there is still no consensus on the effective utilizationof ICT technologies in online teaching with virtual groups to produce interactive, collaborative33

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

learning that fosters effective learning (Ng, 2017). Moreover, it has not made much headway
in the Philippines. There are also few to no empirical studies on the use of OCL in teaching
physical science, and little is known about its application. This prompted the researcher toinvestigate whether OCL can improve students’ achievement and engagement in the online
classroom. Hence, this study determined the effects of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL)on student achievement and engagement in learning physical science. This study also utilized
Google Docs as a collaborative learning tool to create and format text documents in real-time.
Furthermore, the think-pair-share technique was adopted to facilitate online group activities,
as it is short and ideal for use in a virtual learning environment (Othman et al., 2013). The
following research questions guided the present study:
1. What is the student’s achievement in physical science before and after their exposure
to Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) strategy?
2. Is there a difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the students in thephysical science achievement test before and after their exposure to the Online
Collaborative Learning (OCL) strategy?
3. What is the student’s engagement in physical science before and after their exposure to
the Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) strategy in terms of:
4. cooperation
5. interest
6. participation
7. Is there a difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the students in the
Cooperation, Interest, Participation (CIP) Engagement Questionnaire before and after
their exposure to the Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) strategy?
8. What are the students’ learning experiences of the Online Collaborative Learning(OCL) strategy?
Literature Review
Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) Strategy
Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) stems from social constructivism, in which students areencouraged to work collaboratively to solve problems through discussions. In OCL, the teacher
is a facilitator and part of the learning community (Harasim, 2012). In distance learning, OCL
is a widely used teaching approach based on the conventional collaborative learning method.
The goal is to utilize technology to enhance communication between teachers and learners,
focusing on the knowledge-based learning development supported and developed throughsocial discourse (Bates, 2015). According to Koh and Hill (2009), online collaboration entails
students working together to finish a task using electronic modes of communication regardlessof time or geographic isolation. However, as Bates (2019) pointed out, the teacher’s role infacilitating and providing resources and learner activities to ensure the integration of the core
concepts, practices, standards, and principles remains critical to the success of online
collaborative learning.
As for the effects of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL), Al-Ammary (2013) found that OCL
has a significant impact on student achievement. However, OCL may influence student
contributions because some students may rely on others to complete their work and may havea lower level of commitment to the group, which may impede communication among groupmembers. Additionally, Ajayi and Ajayi (2020) used an online collaborative learning strategy
with a quasi-experimental research design, notably the pre-and post-test control. The findings

34

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

indicate that online collaborative learning techniques in Science Education improved
undergraduate learning outcomes and retention. Furthermore, according to Nguyen (2015),
there is strong evidence that online learning is as successful as traditional learning. In fact,according to Bernard et al. (2014); Means et al. (2010), some studies have shown that online
learning has been reported to be more effective. Lastly, Tsai and Guo (2012) on the impact ofOnline Collaborative Learning (OCL) on student achievement. Results have shown that OCL
had a favorable impact on student achievement, with various criteria emerging as predictors ofstudent achievement.
However, some studies found that collaboration in virtual teams can be more challenging thanin a conventional one. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Mustakim and Adha
(2021) discovered that, despite the teacher’s ability to use online learning applications
effectively, they still had difficulty fostering collaborative learning due to the presence ofstudents in different locations, making coordination challenging. Andres and Shipps (2010)
discovered that technology-mediated collaboration had more instances of communication
failures and misunderstandings. A similar study by Koh and Hill (2009) found that online group
activities were more difficult for students than working in face-to-face groups. The mostchallenging factors identified by students were communication issues and a lack of a sense ofcommunity.
Meanwhile, recent studies have shown that students enjoy and are engaged in collaborative
learning when it is done digitally with innovative learning technology (Gopinathan et al.,2022). Baanqud et al. (2020) found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, digital collaboration
is essential for student engagement to help them perform better in and out of the classroom.
Even though students are participating remotely in the teaching and learning process, digitalcollaboration ensures that everyone gets the chance to share information and retain it. It wasalso found in other research by Chiero et al. (2015) and Fedynich et al. (2015) that online
interaction between teachers and students improves learning outcomes and student satisfaction,
which leads to better student engagement. Additionally, students’ ability to communicate with
their peers contributed to their enjoyment of learning (Lee et al., 2018), and the student’s
enjoyment of sharing ideas and working with others fostered cooperation (Lamina, 2020).
Google Docs Think-Pair-Share
Lyman introduced the Think-Pair-Share (TPS) structure in 1981, a collaborative learning
structure in which students first think individually before forming ideas about the questions,then pair up with other students to discuss their answers. Finally, after the pair discussions,students share their responses with the entire class (Lightner & Tomaswick, 2017). This formof classroom activity encourages students to interact with one another and the lecturer, resulting
in an active learning environment. It also encourages everyone in the class to participate, eventhose who are more reserved and less likely to speak up in class unless prodded. Studies using
this structure have reported increased student engagement and enhanced learning outcomes(Razak, 2016; Raba, 2017). The digital version of Think-Pair-Share (TPS) offers newaffordances, allowing students to work collaboratively but at a distance. Students engage wellwith the idea of messaging each other and creating some excitement around the task. Google
Docs, a simple online tool, may provide a platform for the Think-Pair-Share (TPS) activities.
When students use Google Docs to facilitate a TPS activity, they are encouraged to investigate
a teacher-prompted question, collaborate with peers, write their answers to an electronic
document, and finally project their collective results to the larger group (Slone & Mitchell,2014).

35

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Methodology
Research Design
This study employed a one-group pretest/posttest pre-experimental design, using quantitativeand qualitative methods to analyze the data collected to address the research questions. The
effect of the Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) strategy on student achievement andengagement was determined using quantitative analysis. The participants’ learning experienceswith OCL were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis.
Participants of the Study
The participants involved grade 11 (n = 30) senior high school students from one physicalscience class at a public stand-alone senior high school in Congressional District 1, Quezon
City, Philippines. Purposive sampling was applied to select 30 students (4 males and 26
females) from the 42 students enrolled in the class. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Students
who took the Online Distance Learning or ODL (the teacher facilitates the learning and engages
the learners’ active participation using technology via the internet during instruction). (2) Withsufficient experience in online distance (ODL) learning (for one semester) during the pandemic
outbreak. Students with above-average levels were paired up with below-average levels. Those
having the same average level were paired together based on the Stanine scores taken fromtheir first-semester final grade in the Earth & Life Science subject, forming a total of 15 pairs.
This study did not include the twelve (12) students who took the Modular Distance Learningor MDL (learners who used self-learning modules or SLMs in digital/electronic copy).
Research Instruments
OCL-based Lesson Plans
The OCL-based lesson plans were adapted from the Teaching Guide (TG) for Senior HighSchool in physical science. All the lesson plans aim to provide a general outline of the teachinggoals on how students should learn, how it will be delivered, and measured, following thepolicy guidelines on daily lesson preparation for the K-12 Basic Education Program based on
the principle of sound instructional planning. The researcher incorporated the Google Docs
Think-Pair-Share activities on the lesson plans. All the lesson plans used in this study went
through the phases of validation by experts and the research adviser using the Lesson Plan
Evaluation Matrix before the implementation. Then, the researcher incorporated the comments
and suggestions in refining the lesson plans.
Learning Activity Sheets (Google Docs Think-Pair-Share Activities)
The Learning Activity Sheet (LAS) is a self-directed instructional material that guides learners
in completing activities at their own pace and time using contextualized community resources.
Four collaborative Learning Activity Sheets (Google Docs Think-Pair-Share Activities) weredeveloped on the topics: Polarity of Molecules, Intermolecular Forces, and Biological
Macromolecules, with contents validated by the experts, peers, and the research adviser. The
Learning Activity Sheets (LAS) were validated alongside the lesson plans, as these activities
are incorporated into the lesson proper. The validators were given copies of the lesson plans
with the learning activity sheets to provide feedback and suggestions for improving and36

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

refining the questions. Accordingly, changes were made based on the feedback andsuggestions.
Physical Science Achievement Test (PSAT)The Physical Science Achievement Test (PSAT) was constructed to measure students’ level ofunderstanding related to the topics: Polarity of molecules, Intermolecular Forces, andBiological Macromolecules, with sample questions in Appendix A. It measures three cognitive
learning domains: remembering, understanding, and applying. The research adviser and thethree science education experts evaluated the test’s content and face validity using thevalidation tool adopted from the study of Lamina (2020). Then, it was pilot tested on 40 seniorhigh school students who were not participants in the study and subjected to item analysis.
From the initial pool of 60- multiple choice test items, only 40 good items were included in the
final form using the index difficulty of 0.25 to 0.75 and the discrimination index of 0.3 andabove as the acceptable item. The reliability coefficient is 0.83, which indicates that the test
was highly reliable and appropriate for administration as a pretest and posttest of the study.
Cooperation-Interest-Participation (CIP) Engagement Questionnaire
The CIP Engagement questionnaire (in appendix B), adopted from the study of Lamina (2020),
is a four-point scale self-assessment tool that measures the cooperation, interest, andparticipation (CIP) factors of engagement. This questionnaire contains 15 questions given as
follows: the cooperation factor has four (4) questions (item nos.1-4), the interest factor has nine(9) questions (nos. 5-13), and the participation factor has two (2) questions (item nos. 14-15).
The students have four responses to rate their engagement ranging from Strongly Agree (4),Agree (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly Disagree (1). The minimum score in the instrument is15, and the maximum is 60.
Student Learning Experience Survey
The Student Learning Experience Survey contains three open-ended questions prepared by the
researcher and validated by the same science expert-validators. The survey questions sought
students’ accounts of their experiences with OCL. The student responses to the three openended questions were thematically analyzed using the framework developed by Braun and
Clarke (2006). This approach was chosen because it is useful for summarizing key features andgenerating unexpected insights (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The themes, sub-themes, and codes ofthe open-ended questions were derived from the answers that have the same concepts and ideas(Braun & Clarke, 2012). The researcher manually performed the data collection and coding
procedure to identify similarities and differences in the participants’ responses. The researcher
applied the six-step process by Braun and Clarke (2006) to identify common ideas that cameup repeatedly. The process involved (1) Familiarization, (2) Coding, (3) Generating Themes,(4) Reviewing Themes, (5) Naming Themes, and (6) Writing Up.
Data Gathering Procedures
Before the implementation of the study, the researcher obtained permission from the school
head where the study was conducted. After the list of participants had been finalized, theresearcher gave the Informed Consent letter to the selected participants. After this, anorientation session on online collaborative learning was carried out using Google Docs tointroduce and familiarize students with the platform and its tools. The students were then paired

37

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

up based on their computed Stanine scores. After grouping, the teacher discussed how theactivity would run. The data-gathering procedure went through three different phases described
below:
Phase I- Pretesting. Before the first lesson of the study, the teacher-researcher delivered a trial
lesson about Exploring the Formation of Elements During Stellar Formation and Evolution,and the students completed an OCL activity using Google Docs Think-Pair-Share. The purposeof this trial lesson was to control the novelty effect. The pretest and the CIP Engagement
Questionnaire were administered following the trial lesson to determine the pretest scores in
the Physical Science Achievement Test and the CIP Engagement Questionnaire. The pretest
lasted 60 minutes in the first session and 30 minutes in the second session for the CIPEngagement questionnaire.
Phase II- This phase involved the implementation of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL)
using the Google Docs Think-Pair-Share Strategy. Physical science is generally taught fourtimes per week in senior high, with two 1-hour synchronous class sessions and two 1-hourasynchronous sessions conducted each week based on the approved teacher’s schedule.
Session 1 (Synchronous). The teacher-researcher discussed the topic for the week, guided by
the OCL-based Lesson Plan for 60 minutes.
Session 2 (Asynchronous). The Learning Activity Sheet (Google Docs Think-Pair-Share
Activity), created and saved in Google Drive by the teacher-researcher, was given to each pairvia Google Classroom. A question was posed in the Learning Activity Sheet, requiring students
to think individually about the question and record their answers/ideas in the activity sheet. In
pairs, students discussed and compared their answers to the given question. While both students
worked in Google Documents, they could view information simultaneously while chatting –allowing them to collaborate remotely.
Session 3 (Synchronous). Students shared their work with the whole class via Padlet, an online
virtual board that supports collaborative learning in classroom teaching. Padlet is a freemultimedia wall that encourages whole-class involvement by allowing real-time interaction
among students and between students and the teacher (Fuchs, 2014). Four minutes wereallotted for each pair to share and discuss their output with the whole class.
Session 4. (Asynchronous). Students were given a short evaluation via Google Forms to assess
their understanding of the lesson.
Phase III- Post-testing and Learning Experience Survey. This phase involved administering theposttest using the PSAT and the CIP Engagement Questionnaire. The posttest lasted 60
minutes, while the CIP Engagement questionnaire took 30 minutes to complete. Then, thestudents responded to the Student Learning Experience Survey in the next session.
The study lasted six (6) weeks without interruption. All the gathered data were subjected tostatistical treatment and analysis to determine the effect of the Online Collaborative Learning(OCL) strategy on students’ achievement and engagement.

38

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Data Analysis
The raw data were statistically processed and analyzed using the Excel “Data Analysis” tool.
The mean and standard deviation were used to describe the students’ achievement andengagement. The paired t-test was applied to determine the significant difference in the pretestand posttest mean scores in the achievement test and the CIP engagement in physical science
before and after their exposure to the Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) Strategy at a 0.05
level of significance. Moreover, students’ responses to the Learning Experience Survey wereanalyzed thematically using the framework developed by Braun and Clarke (2006).
Results
Student Achievement in Physical Science Before and After Their Exposure to Online
Collaborative Learning (OCL) Strategy
The pretest and posttest were administered to determine student achievement before and after
exposure to OCL. Table 1 shows the summary of the descriptive statistics based on the results ofthe pretest and posttest given to the students, which corresponds to the first research question.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students in the PhysicalScience Achievement Test (n = 30)
Test
Posttest

HighestScore
40

Lowest
Score
18

Mean

Mean
Difference

31.00

SD
6.54

13.83
Pretest

27

6

17.17

5.32

Table 1 shows that the posttest has a mean score of 31.00, while the pretest has a mean scoreof 17.17, with a mean difference of 13.83. The result indicates that the student’s scores in theachievement test improved after exposure to the OCL strategy suggesting that OCL is effectivein enhancing student achievement.
Test of Significant Difference Between Students’ Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores in the
Physical Science Achievement Test (PSAT)
A paired t-test was applied to determine whether there was a significant difference between thepretest and posttest mean scores in the PSAT. Table 2 shows the paired t-test result, whichcorresponds to the second research question.
Table 2Paired t-Test Between Students’ Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores in the Physical Science
Achievement Test (n =30)
Test

Mean

Posttest

31.00

Pretest17.17

Standard
Deviation
6.54

df

t-valuep-value

Remark

29

9.89

<.001

Significant

5.32

39

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Table 2 shows that the computed p-value is less than the 0.05 level of significance. Therefore,
there is a significant difference between the student’s pretest and posttest mean scores before
and after exposure to the OCL strategy. The result suggests that students’ achievement inphysical science significantly improved with OCL.
Student Engagement in Physical Science Before and After Their Exposure to Online
Collaborative Learning (OCL) Strategy
To determine the students’ engagement in learning Physical Science before and after exposure
to the OCL strategy, Cooperation-Interest- Participation (CIP) Engagement Questionnaire wasadministered among students. The engagement score of students in the pre and post-test in eachfactor was individually analyzed, which corresponds to the third research question.
Table 3
The Pretest and Posttest Mean Score in the Cooperation Factor of Student Engagement
Test
Posttest

Mean Score
14.47

Pretest12.47

Mean DifferenceStandard Deviation
1.87

2.00
1.43

Table 3 shows an increase in the students’ mean score in the cooperation factor of engagement
after exposure to the OCL strategy. This suggests that OCL is effective in encouraging student
cooperation.
Table 4
The Pretest and Posttest Mean Score in the Interest Factor of Student Engagement
Test
Posttest

Mean Score
33.37

Mean DifferenceStandard Deviation
3.51

3.84
Pretest

29.53

2.64

Table 4 shows an increase in the students’ mean score in the interest factor of engagement after
exposure to the OCL strategy. The result implies that OCL is effective in increasing student
interest.
Table 5
The Pretest and Posttest Mean Score in the Participation Factor of Student Engagement
Test
Posttest

Mean Score
6.90

Mean DifferenceStandard Deviation
1.09

0.97
Pretest

5.93

1.05

Table 5 also shows an improvement in the students’ mean score in the participation factor ofengagement after exposure to the OCL strategy. This result also indicates that OCL is effectivein encouraging student participation.

40

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Table 6Students’ Overall Mean Scores in the Cooperation, Interest, and Participation (CIP) Factorsof Student Engagement (n = 30)
Test
Posttest

Mean Score
54.73

Mean DifferenceStandard Deviation
5.64

6.8
Pretest

47.93

4.22

Table 6 shows an increase in the overall engagement mean score. This result indicates that
OCL enhanced students’ engagement in terms of cooperation, interest, and participation.
Test of Significant Difference Between the Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of theStudents in the Cooperation, Interest, and Participation (CIP) Factors of Engagement
The mean score of each factor in the engagement pretest and posttest were analyzed using
paired t-tests to determine the significant difference between test scores, which corresponds tothe fourth research question.
Table 7
Paired t-Test Between the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students in the Cooperation,
Interest, and Participation (CIP) Engagement Questionnaire (n = 30)
Engagement
FactorCooperation
Interest
Participation
Overall

Posttest
Mean
Score
14.47
33.37
6.90
54.73

Pretest
Mean
Score
12.47
29.53
5.93
47.93

df

t- value

p-value

Remark

29
29
29
29

5.34
4.94
3.59
5.59

<.001
<.001
.001
<.001

Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant

Table 7 shows that the overall computed p-value is less than the 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore, there is a significant difference between the student’s pretest and posttest meanscores in the three factors of engagement (cooperation, interest, and participation) before andafter exposure to the OCL strategy. These findings indicate that OCL has a significant effecton improving students’ engagement in physical science.
Students’ Responses to the Learning Experience Survey
Analysis of the response data identified four major themes: (a) improvement in students’achievement, (b) facilitating students’ engagement, (c) challenges encountered during the OCL
implementation, and (d) convenience in the usage of the collaborative tool (Google Docs).
Each is described below with illustrative student responses.
Improvement in Students’ Achievement
The Student Learning Experience Survey results confirmed further that the OCL strategy
improved student achievement. From the survey, three subthemes emerged across the studentparticipant responses: develop understanding, build knowledge, and knowledge retention.
Understanding the lesson was by far the most frequently reported response from students. Fifty

41

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

percent of the class stated that their partners provided additional explanations and assistance.
Thus, they understand the lessons easily. A student-participant stated that OCL activities
helped him understand the lessons much better. “I understand the lesson clearly because mypartner explains it further.” He explained. Another student-participant said, “Working with apartner helps because you have different points of view that can help you better understand the
topic, and having different ideas made us more critical.” Furthermore, two students expressedthat having pair discussions naturally helps them retain information. “I remember almost all
the lessons taught because of this activity.” A student-participant stated. Another student
reported that his achievement improved with OCL because Google Docs think-pair-shareactivities allowed him to deepen his understanding and knowledge of the topics by exchanging
ideas with others. Another shared that her scores improved as her partner pointed out her
mistakes and guided her through the process. Another noteworthy finding was that students
indicated that OCL helps them learn more as they work in pairs. A participant elaborated on
this: “I was able to understand complex topics through his explanations,” referring to his
partner.
Facilitating Students’ Engagement
In terms of engagement, the common subthemes evident in the student-participant responses
were cooperation, interest, and participation. Interestingly, most participants preferred working
in pairs over individual activities, as their partners provided additional explanations. A studentparticipant commented, “I got more interested and motivated to do our task as I got ideas frommy partner.” While another said, “This method taught me to be more confident in sharing myideas.” “It was fun; we got to talk to our friends instead of listening to the teacher all the time,”a student-participant added. The interest factor of engagement appears to be the most frequent
response, followed by cooperation and participation. Overall, the findings indicate that OCL
using the Google Docs Think-Pair-Share technique is a viable method for assisting students inbecoming more involved and engaged in learning.
Challenges Encountered During the OCL Implementation
One of the primary issues that students encountered during the OCL implementation was poorinternet connectivity. This problem resulted in lagging and spending more time than expected
in sending answers. A participant noted, “Working simultaneously with a partner was difficult
due to an unstable internet connection.” Time management was also a problem, as somestudents took a long time to respond to their partners. While most students enjoyed the Google
Docs Think-Pair-Share activities, others lacked the confidence to share their opinions with theentire class. One participant stated, “I’m a bit shy and intimidated as my partner dominates ourconversation.” Shyness, intimidation, and fear of embarrassment from giving incorrect
responses shown by the students remain a concern that must consider when teaching.
Convenience in the Usage of the Collaborative Tool (Google Docs)
Apart from the challenges the students encountered during the OCL implementation, anothertheme that emerged was convenience, defined as the quality of being easy, useful, or suitableto proceed with something without difficulty (Oxford Dictionary). The analysis specifically
identified Google Docs as a collaborative tool that was convenient for everyone, easy to access,and used. A student pointed out, “It was convenient and easy to access compared to otherapps.” “It was very nice; no need to use Facebook messenger to chat,” she said. They also
found it interesting as they could see each other’s answers while working on the document,

42

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

allowing them to catch any issues upfront. A student elaborated on this: “It was very nice; wewere able to discuss when there is a problem or issues right away.”
Discussion
The mean difference between the pretest and posttest scores confirmed that student
achievement improved significantly at the end of the study. This result could be attributed to
the OCL Google Docs Think-Pair-Share activities that allow students to craft and share ideasthat address the guiding questions posed in the activities. Likewise, this finding could be also
linked to the students’ collaboration that contributes to topic understanding (Falcione et al.,2019) and student-student interactions that encourages engagement leading to increased
achievement (Leow & Neo, 2016). Further, the paired t-test result revealed a significant
difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores in the PSAT. This suggests that the
OCL strategy, in which students learn collaboratively and in pairs, has a significant effect on
their achievement in Physical Science. This conforms with the findings of Al-Ammary (2013),
Ajayi et al. (2020), and Tsai and Guo (2012) that Online Collaborative Learning has asignificant influence and positive impact on student achievement and learning outcomes.
Moreover, this finding is also consistent with those of Othman et al. (2013), that a well-known“Think-Pair-Share” collaborative learning technique, which has been modelled in OCL,
significantly provides a positive impact on student performance.
In the present study, students performed Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) using Google
Docs Think-Pair-Share activities, which fosters social skills and develops cooperation when
students brainstorm in pairs while each learns from their partners. Thus, the improvement in
the cooperation factor of engagement in Table 3 could be associated with the Google Docs
Think-Pair-Share activities in the OCL approach. This result conforms to the study of Lamina(2020) that the enjoyment of sharing ideas and working with others enhanced cooperation.
Table 4 also shows a significant improvement in the interest factor of engagement, which could
be attributed to the emphasis on pair activities and intense thinking about the topic whileworking on the task. According to Hidi & Harackiewicz (2000), when students are interested
in the lesson, they are more likely to attend class, listen and participate, process information
well, and eventually perform better. Like the cooperation and interest factors of engagement,
the result in table 5 also indicates an improvement in the participation factor. This improvement
seems to be attributed to the Google Docs think-pair-share activities in the OCL approach, as
students had more opportunities to express themselves when they discussed and worked
together. This result is consistent with the findings of Lee et al. (2018), who found that exposure
to social interactions can help students improve their participation in the Think-pair-Shareactivity. Overall, the findings revealed that the OCL strategy significantly improved thestudents’ engagement in terms of cooperation, interest, and participation factors in learning
physical science. This supports the findings of Gopinathan et al. (2022) that there is aconsiderably significant relationship between digital collaboration tools, interaction, andmotivation toward student engagement.
Meanwhile, the summary of the student responses to the Learning Experience Survey showedthat students viewed OCL as a learning strategy positively, as most students reported improved
performance and engagement. This result conforms with the findings of Al-Ammary (2013)that most students claimed that by participating in OCL, they felt more comfortable sharing
their thoughts and comments. The result also backs up the findings of Othman et al. (2013) thatstudents like to work in small groups to learn more effectively. Additionally, this is consistent
with the study of Faulkner (2019), which showed that Google Docs promotes student learning

43

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

by increasing opportunities for collaboration. Furthermore, this coincides with Ding andHarskamp (2011), who found that student participation in collaborative learning boosts student
confidence and interest in science classes. Finally, the outcomes of this study confirmed thetheory of Lev Vygotsky (1978), a famous social constructivist thinker, that one might achieve
more depth comprehension than one’s capacity by engaging with and learning from more
knowledgeable peers.
Conclusion
This study determined the effects of the Online Collaborative Learning (OCL) strategy on
student achievement and engagement. Based on the findings of this study, the following
conclusions were drawn: (1) OCL strategy improved student achievement in physical science.
(2) OCL strategy increased student engagement in learning physical science. (3) Cooperation,interest, and participation were the factors that prompted student engagement in learning
Physical Science. (4) Students’ positive responses to the OCL were evident during theimplementation of the study.
Considering the positive effects of OCL in improving students’ achievement and engagement,teachers are encouraged to adopt this pedagogical approach to teaching other topics in physicalscience as it was proven to improve student achievement and engagement. Further studies on
OCL might be conducted in different science disciplines to improve 21st - century skills suchas collaboration and communication across grade levels. Lastly, future studies might also
employ other research designs, such as quasi-experimental, to generate more substantial dataon the effectiveness of OCL strategy in science teaching and learning.

44

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

References
Ajayi, P. O., & Ajayi, L. F. (2020). Use of online collaborative learning strategy in enhancing
postgraduates’ learning outcomes in science education. Educational Research andReviews, 15(8), 504–510. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2020.4023
Al-Ammary, J. (2013). Online collaboration learning: a way to enhance students’achievement at Kingdom of Bahrain. World Academy of Science, Engineering andTechnology, Open Science Index 74, International Journal of Educational andPedagogical Sciences, 7(2), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1075947
Andres, H. P. & Shipps, B. P. (2010). Team Learning in Technology-Mediated Distributed
Teams. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 213–222.
https://jise.org/Volume21/n2/JISEv21n2p213.html
Baanqud, N. S., Al-Samarraie, H., Alzahrani, A.I. et al. (2020) Engagement in cloudsupported collaborative learning and student knowledge construction: a modelingstudy. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 17, 56.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00232-z
Bates, A. W., (2015) Teaching in a digital age. Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R.F., Tamim, R.M. and Abrami, P.C. (2014) A
Meta-Analysis of Blended Learning: From the General to the Applied. Journal ofComputing in Higher Education, 26, 87–122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Researchin Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long,
A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods
in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative,
neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Ng, J. C. (2017). Interactivity in virtual learning groups: Theories, strategies, and the state ofliterature. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(1), 46–
52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkages. Research in higher education, 47(1), 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
Chiero, R., Beare, P., Marshall, J., & Torgerson, C. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of elearning in teacher preparation, Educational Media International, 52:3, 188–200,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1075101
Ding, N., & Harskamp, E. G. (2011). Collaboration and peer tutoring in chemistry laboratory
education. International Journal of Science Education. 33. 839–863.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.498842
Falcione, S., Campbell, E., McCollum, B., Chamberlain, J., Macias, M., Morsch, L., &Pinder, C. (2019). Emergence of different perspectives of success in collaborative
learning. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2).
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8227

45

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Farooq F, Rathore F. A, Mansoor S. N. (2020). Challenges of online medical education in
Pakistan during COVID-19 pandemic. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2020; 30 (Supp1):
S67–S69. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2020.Supp1.S67.
Faulkner, J. (2019). Google docs as supportive technology in high school career and technicaleducation. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies, 7642.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/7642
Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate students’ perceptions of online
learning. Res. High. Educ, 27, 1–13.
Fuchs, B. (2014). The writing is on the wall: Using Padlet for whole-class engagement.
LOEX. Quarterly: Vol. 40: No. 4, Article 4.
https://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol40/iss4/4
Gopinathan, S., Kaur, A. H., Veeraya, S. & Raman, M. (2022) The role of digitalcollaboration in student engagement towards enhancing student participation during
COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116844
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846933
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A criticalissue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002151
Hirtz, J. A. (2020). Does the interactive push-presentation system Nearpod effect student
engagement in high school anatomy? Doctoral Dissertations and Projects, 2422.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/2422
Koh, M. H., & Hill, J. R. (2009). Student perceptions of groupwork in an online course:
Benefits and challenges. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education /Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 23(2), 69–92.
https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/477
Kukard, K. (2020). Creating a collaborative learning environment online and in a blended
history environment during Covid-19. Retrieved from:http://hdl.handle.net/2263/80567
Lamina, O. (2020). Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL), Student achievement and engagementin learning chemistry. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3573527
Lee, C., Chuan, H., & Shahrill, M. (2018). Utilizing the think-pair-share technique in thelearning of probability. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education(IJEME), 2(1), 49–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v2i1.8218
Leow, F. T., & Neo M. (2016). Peer interaction and students’ perceptions towards
constructivist collaborative learning environment: motivation and affective factor.
Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Learning, 87–95.
https://login.pallas2.tcl. sc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx
Lightner, J., & Tomaswick, L. (2017). Active Learning – Think, Pair, Share. Kent State
University Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from:http://www.kent.edu/ctl/educational-resources/active-learning-think-pair-share/46

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Lin, Y., Chang, C., Hou, H., & Wu, K. (2016). Exploring the effects of employing Google
Docs in collaborative concept mapping on achievement, concept representation, andattitudes. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1552–1573.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1041398
Lowry-Brock, M. R. (2016). The effect of using Nearpod as a tool of active learning in thehigh school science classroom. Retrieved from:https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/10072
Magen-Nagar, N., & Shonfeld, M. (2018). The impact of an online collaborative learning
program on students’ attitude towards technology. Interactive Learning
Environments. 26. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1376336
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. US Department of Education. Retrieved from:https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pd
Mustakim, M., Trisnaningsih, T., & Adha, M. M. (2021). The effectiveness of online
collaborative learning during Covid-19 pandemic. In Advances in Social Science,
Education and Humanities Research, volume 513 4th Sriwijaya University Learningand Education International Conference (SULE-IC 2020) (Vol. 513, pp. 256-262).
Atlantis Press SARL. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201230.115
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: beyond no significant difference andfuture horizons. Retrieved from: https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf
Nickerson, L. A., & Shea, K. M. (2020). First-Semester organic chemistry during COVID19: prioritizing group work, flexibility, and student engagement. J. Chem. Educ., 97,
3201–3205. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00674
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together?
Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review,
27(4), 645 656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8
Othman, M., Othman, M., & Hussain, F. (2013). Designing prototype model of an online
collaborative learning system for introductory computer programming course.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 90. 293-302.
10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.094
Perets, E. A., Chabeda, D., Gong, A. Z., Huang, X., Fung, T. S., Ng, K. Y., & Yan, E. C.
(2020). Impact of the emergency transition to remote teaching on student engagement
in a non-STEM undergraduate chemistry course in the time of COVID-19. Journal ofChemical Education, 97(9), 2439–2447. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00879
Raba, A. A. A. (2017). The influence of think-pair-share (TPS) on improving students’ oral
communication skills in EFL classrooms. Creative Education, 8, 12–23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.81002
Razak, F. (2016). The effect of cooperative learning on mathematics learning outcomesviewed from students’ learning motivation. Journal of Research and Advances inMathematics Education, 1(1), 49-55. Muhammadiyah University Press.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/209895/.
Schneckenberg, D. (2014). Easy, collaborative and engaging – the use of cloud computing in
the design of management classrooms. Educational Research,56(4), 412–435.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.965569

47

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Slone, N. C., & Mitchell, N. G. (2014). Technology-based adaptation of think-pair-shareutilizing Google drive. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 3(1),102–104. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v3n1.4901
Tsai, C., & Guo, S. J. (2012). Towards an effective online collaborative learning
environment: A case study on traditional classroom instruction. The International
Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society 7(5), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v07i05/56234
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Writers, S. (2018, Feb. 14). Current Trends in Online Education. TheBestSchools.Org.
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/current-trends-online-education/
Corresponding author: Ana Liza Villano Gaad
Email: analiza.gaad@deped.gov.ph48

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Appendix A
Physical Science Achievement Test (Example)
1.

Which of the following can determine a molecule’s polarity?
a. The number of electrons shared in the bond.
b. The difference in atomic radius between the elements.
c. The difference in first ionization energy between the elements.
d. The difference in electronegativity between the elements.

12.

Which of the following is true of intermolecular forces?
a. The strongest force in chemistry.
b. The forces that exist within molecules.
c. The forces that exist between molecules.
d. The force that bonds hydrogen and oxygen in water.

30.

Why is cellulose so difficult for most animals to digest?
a. Cellulose is made up of chitin, which is indigestible.
b. There are many hydrogen bonds holding the subunits together.
c. The bonds holding cellulose subunits together are extremely strong.
d. They do not have the proper enzyme to break the bonds between subunits.
Appendix B

Cooperation, Interest, and Participation (CIP) Engagement Questionnaire

49

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

50

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Educational e-Portfolio Overview: Aspiring for the Future by Building on
the Past
Peng Zhang
Stamford American School, Hong Kong SAR
Gemma Tur
University of the Balearic Islands, Spain51

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Abstract
Education institutions are rethinking their approaches as the world adjusts to a new normal
after the pandemic. The e-Portfolio, an emerging tool in education that suits the current
context, was reviewed in the study to aspire for better future implementation. Numerous
studies have broadly investigated e-portfolios’ use in teaching, learning, or assessment. It has
risen to prominence, becoming commonplace. To narrow down the considerable volume ofresearch, develop new knowledge, and detect gaps in the existing literature, this study
conducted a systematic review of existing literature on e-portfolio use in education. Thisapproach synthesises secondary publications during the past decade. A keyword search of eportfolio and reviews yielded 812 review papers. These articles were examined further todetermine whether they met the predetermined criteria, and 12 review articles were identified.
It was discovered that if successfully implemented, e-portfolios have promising benefits.
Nevertheless, the implementation of e-portfolios also faces specific challenges. This article
also synthesised the participants’ perceptions of their e-portfolio experience. The focus of thepaper is to offer implementation suggestions for practitioners. The diversity of technologicale-portfolio platforms and related pedagogical frameworks were also discussed to inspire
future implementation. Conclusions in this research advocate further longitudinal research
into the pedagogical design of e-portfolio implementation.
Keywords: educational technology, e-portfolio, research synthesis, systematic review

52

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

As the world readjusts to a new normal in the aftermath of the global pandemic, educational
institutions throughout the globe are considering alternate models for educational offerings. It
is now crucial to go ahead and continue to take them up with enthusiasm, establishing new
methods of functioning while honouring the principles of the past. As a digital learning tool
to track the learning process, e-portfolios are flourishing in the areas of education,
particularly in teaching, learning, and assessment. Under these circumstances, this study
conducted a systematic review of the e-portfolio, discussed the current findings and emerging
new knowledge, and further made implementation recommendations for future practitioners
and further research.
Literature Review
Electronic portfolios, or e-portfolios, have grown in popularity since their early
implementation in the 1990s. While they became mainstream during the first decade of the
21st century, a shift in focus from portfolio to e-portfolio has occurred in research andpractice (Farrell, 2020). The term “portfolio” was first used to describe a compact container
to convey an unstructured collection of documents and materials; it has developed over timefrom paper to electronic, from local networks to the worldwide web (Farrell, 2020).
An e-portfolio is a web-based interface that houses a portfolio (Bryant & Chittum, 2013).
They have been referred to by multiple names, such as efolio, digital portfolio, web-based
portfolio, and online portfolio (Scully et al., 2018). These terms indicate whether material issaved on a web-based platform or a mobile device. A web-based interface allows users to add
to and modify their e-portfolios to be immediately accessible to others (Scully et al., 2018).
Multiple scholars have defined e-portfolios in various ways. Barrett (2007) comprehensively
defines an e-portfolio, pointing out several characteristics: using electronic technology,
allowing users to collect and arrange artefacts in multiple modalities, showing evidence, andbeing hyper-connected. Meyer et al. (2010) claimed that an electronic portfolio is a digitalarchive of visual and aural materials, including text, pictures, videos, and sounds. They may
also serve as learning aids since, in addition to organizing material, they are created to assista range of pedagogical procedures and assessment goals (Meyer et al., 2010). In addition,
they argued that e-portfolios are the Information Age’s equivalent of the artist’s portfolio forstudents in that they not only summarise a student’s creative accomplishments but also depict
the process of achieving those accomplishments (Meyer et al., 2010). Lorenzo and Ittelson(2005, p. 2) stated that an e-portfolio is “a digitised collection of artefacts, including
demonstrations, resources, and accomplishments that represent an individual, group,
organisation, or institution.” Haig et al. (2007) regarded an e-portfolio as a digital collectionof personal data that explains and demonstrates a person’s learning experiences andaccomplishments. Building on prior studies, Balaban et al. (2013) stated that an e-portfolio isa personal digital record that enables formal, informal, and non-traditional learning that
captures proof of accomplishments in the configuration of artefacts; learning reflection may
be shared with whomever the owner has granted a licence. Some other definitions brought up
different aspects of e-portfolio, such as self-evaluation (Morrison, 2003), learning reflection(Balaban et al., 2013), reacting to feedback (Siemens, 2004), assessment tools (Yang et al.,2017), and career passport (Clark & Eynon, 2009). Recently, an e-portfolio has been defined
as an assortment to give evidence of the owner’s experience, both teachers and learners, andas an instrument to collect assessments (Barak & Maskit, 2017).

53

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

e-Portfolio Emergence in Education
The gaining popularity of e-portfolios implementation in education stems from thedevelopment of educational technology. Policymakers, academics, and practitioners all
acknowledge that technology has the capacity to significantly alter and enhance education(Meyer et al., 2010; Zimmerman & Tsikalas, 2005). Developments in web technologies haveopened up new opportunities for educational experiences, including those for lifelong
learning, leading to the recommendation that e-portfolios be used as Personal Learning
Environments (PLE) (henceforth, PLE) or to represent one’s digital identity of the twentyfirst century (Barrett & Garrett, 2009; Meyer et al., 2010). As a multifunctional tool, an eportfolio can provide beneficial prospects for incorporating technology into education; inaddition to being the multimedia container, it also serves to improve students’ learning
experiences by putting the student at the centre of learning and supporting crucial
metacognitive abilities like goal setting, strategy identification, and learning reflection(Meyer et al., 2010).
The growing adoption of educational technology for teaching and learning, especially in thecontext of PLE, enables the flourishing of e-portfolios in educational settings (Castañeda &Tur, 2020). As a learning method, PLE is inextricably linked to promoting the learners’
agency via establishing circumstances and resources (Dabbagh & Castañeda, 2020). The
notion of agency has been more prevalent in learning research and highlighted as a vital
aspect of the educational process. In addition, PLE enables agency growth, according to
Castañeda and Tur (2020). Among all PLE-related experiences, e-portfolios appear to play asignificant function. As they spring up as potential tools for enforcing agency, e-portfolios
have the potential to be unique resources for reflective practice, a relational resource for peerto-peer support and dialogic learning, and contextual resource for learning-related decisionmaking (Buchem et al., 2020).
Apart from the rising popularity of PLE adoption in education, the advent of Self-Regulated
Learning (SRL) has also boosted the usage of e-portfolios in education. Process e-portfolios
are emphasised as a potential development strategy for SRL (Tur et al., 2022). The argumentfor SRL skills development has been connected to the concept of psychological ownership.
Buchem et al. (2020) claim that psychological ownership in the context of learning andeducation is founded in SRL and has been seen as a crucial element in the development of
metacognitive and critical thinking abilities. Diverse areas of study, including organisational
development and leadership, education, and consumption patterns, have paid growing
attention to psychological ownership (Buchem et al., 2020). e-Portfolios facilitate thedevelopment of psychological ownership in learners, which is advantageous in numerous
ways: including being viewed as a positive resource for attitudes (e.g., higher commitment
and responsibility), self-esteem, self-efficacy, motivation, accountability, performance, selfidentity, self-identity, self-adjustment, accountability, sense of belonging, and citizenship(Buchem et al., 2020).
As an educational technology tool reflecting PLE, SRL, and psychological ownership, eportfolio is flourishing in educational settings. In light of this, many governments globally,
particularly western countries, have encouraged the adoption of e-portfolios in theireducational policies (Hallam et al., 2008). Besides, educators at all levels employ e-portfolios
in their pedagogical practice to facilitate teaching and learning, especially in higher education
contexts (Farrell, 2020). Many universities or colleges actively create institution-wide eportfolio projects to cover a student’s college experience (Bryant & Chittum, 2013). As e-

54

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

portfolios are becoming increasingly prevalent at all levels of education, there is a rapidly
expanding body of research. Therefore, it is essential to review what we already know about
them. Under this circumstance, this study was created to review the existing secondary eportfolio literature landscape to synthesise the existing research and further examine theimplementation of e-portfolios in teaching, learning, or assessment.
Research Synthesis
This study adopted research synthesis, a method for systematically integrating data; it has
emerged as an essential tool for organising, integrating, and summarising the booming
research sector (Cooper, 2017). Research synthesis is the synthesis of existing knowledge andrelevant research results; it incorporates and evaluates information from previous studies
relevant to a given subject to increase its generalizability, applicability, and availability.
(Wyborn et al., 2018). Researchers have begun to incorporate the syntheses due to the rise insystematic reviews (Polanin et al., 2017). Through the process of integration, the purpose ofsynthesis is to expand the generalizability and application of the results and to generate newknowledge. Synthesis is presented as a method that addresses the issue of “information
overload” by producing products that enhance our comprehension of situations and distil
substantial evidence for decision-making (Wyborn et al., 2018). Research findings havedemonstrated that synthesis promotes the research world by fostering collaborative initiatives
and generating new knowledge (Baron et al., 2017; Wyborn et al., 2018).
Traditionally, research synthesis reviews and meta-analyses of primary research and its
findings. It can also be implemented in systematically reviewing secondary studies (Becker &Oxman, 2008), where the review is analysed rather than the primary study, providing anotherway to narrow down the large research volume and further generate comprehensive
knowledge (Bastian et al., 2010). Typically, researchers use syntheses of secondary studies todevelop new information and detect gaps in the existing large body of literature (Lipsey &Wilson, 2001; Pigott, 2012). Polanin et al. (2017) summarised that this method has multiple
names: meta-meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, overview, an overview of reviews, review ofreviews, second-order meta-analysis, tertiary review, and umbrella review.
As stated in the preceding section, the use of e-portfolios in education has thrived in bothpractice and academic research; many primary studies and reviews based on these primarystudies have been conducted. Thus, the research synthesis of reviews was utilized to narrow it
down, drawing on previous reviews and providing new knowledge for future research andpractice. The following research questions were formulated to guide the study (Based onthese overarching research questions, detailed research objectives were proposed undervarious categories with each research question):
RQ1: What are the classifications of e-portfolio and their functions?
• To analyse classifications of e-portfolios and categorize their functions
RQ2: How are e-portfolio implementations described in existing secondary literature?
• To synthesize the benefits of e-portfolio and the underpinning constraints
in implementation.
• To identify stakeholders’ perceptions on e-portfolios from the existing
literature.
• To describe e-portfolio platforms/tools, and the underpinning educationalframeworks.

55

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

RQ3: What are the implications and recommendations for future practitioners?
• To make recommendations for practitioners employing e-portfolios in
education.
MethodThe systematic review methodology was applied to answer the above-mentioned research
objectives and further review the implementation of e-portfolios in teaching, learning, orassessment by scoping, synthesising, and analysing existing secondary studies (reviews). The
paradigm for a systematic review proposed by Tawfik et al. (2019) was employed in thisstudy. Besides, the updated version of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review andMeta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guidelines (Page et al., 2020) and systematic review tool
Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016) were utilised for data collection and screening.
This study conducted a preliminary search to discover relevant publications, confirm thevalidity of the research idea, and confirm that there are enough articles to complete its
analysis before beginning the official systematic review procedure. Additionally, Tawfik etal. (2019) recommend that all phases of a systematic review be completed separately by two
to three reviewers to guarantee data quality and accuracy. Considering this, two reviewers
were engaged in all processes in this study.
Inclusion Criteria
The following inclusion criteria (see Table 1) were created to generate a selection of relevantpublications that precisely address the research questions.
Table 1
Inclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
Refer to e-portfolio
Secondary studies, including literature review and systematic review
In the area of education or educational technology
Written in English, Chinese, and Spanish
Papers published within the last decade (2011-2022)
Related to teaching, learning, or assessment
Search Parameter
This study aims to get a holistic view of secondary studies without the bias of English-only
papers. Consequently, review papers were sought in three languages: English, Chinese, andSpanish. In the three languages, different variants of the following keywords were applied(boolean operators “AND” and “OR” were employed to divide the keywords): “e-portfolio”,“electronic portfolio”, “digital portfolio”, and “review”. Considering that different databases
consist of academic papers in different languages, six academic databases covering thesethree languages were chosen: Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, ERIC, Redalyc, Dialnet, andChina Academic Journals Full-text Database (also known as CNKI). The search strings
depicted in Figure 1 were developed cooperatively by two researchers (see Figure 1).

56

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Figure 1
The Search Strings

Data Selection and Extraction
Rayyan, a collaborative platform for performing systematic literature reviews (Ouzzani et al.,2016), was employed to extract results from the original search (n = 812). Rayyan flagged 13
papers as ineligible, and duplicates (n = 276) were automatically excluded from the total.
Two researchers then conducted title and abstract screening and examined papers (n = 523)
using the previously agreed-upon inclusion criteria (see Table 1). It is noted that additional
duplicates that Rayyan did not remove were still identified at this phase. In this screening
phase, 465 papers were excluded by the researchers.
After the title and abstract screening process, 58 reports were sought for retrieval. However,seven of them were not retrieved. Before finalising the papers, the researchers downloaded
the full text and evaluated the 51 papers for eligibility based on the previously mentioned
criteria, 39 were excluded, and the final selection was 12 review papers. Figure 2 depicts theentire selection and extraction procedure. Among the 12 publications included in this study,
four are written in Chinese from the CNKI database, eight are in English, and no secondary
studies in Spanish fully match the selection criteria.
Figure 2
PRISMA Flow Diagram57

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Analytical Procedures
For all 12 chosen papers, the content analysis approach was utilised, and the researchquestions previously presented directed the analysis for the quality-of-study review. After
selecting the articles that match the inclusion criteria, they were accessed, read, andevaluated. At this stage, data collection was carried out using an instrument created ad-hoc
using Google Forms. The researchers validated the form through a pilot implementation toensure its unambiguity and unify the procedures for analysing and collecting qualitative
evidence.
The findings in the articles were categorised based on the research questions. In each inquiry
theme, there are detailed objectives to guide the analysis. Then, a qualitative analysis was
performed, and the texts were retrieved and contrasted between recurring themes, considering
the various scenarios that appeared in the reviews in which e-portfolios were implemented inteaching, learning, or assessment.
Findings
Findings from the retrieved data analysis are presented in the following themes: general
information, classification of e-portfolios, benefits and constraints, participants’ perceptions,educational and technological frameworks, and recommendations for implementation.
General Information
Before addressing the research questions, the search results were classified into the following
general aspects: country and educational context, research methodology, and inquiry theme(this section is only about the general information, the findings corresponding to specificresearch questions are exhibited, and discussed in subsequent sections). The general retrieved
information is displayed in Table 2.
In this study, we intend to diversify the country context, reduce the constraints of not being
inclusive, and improve generalizability. Thus, review studies in different languages (English,
Chinese, and Spanish) were included in the initial search; the final selections were mainly inEnglish (n = 8), and some were in Chinese (n = 4). Also, the chosen papers cover a wide
range of countries: Canada, the USA, the Netherlands, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ireland,
Australia, the UK, and China.
Regarding the research methodology, most of the selected reviews adopted a systematic
review approach (n = 7); one was a systematic scoping review, and the other conducted ameta-analysis. Some selected papers employed the traditional narrative review method (n =3), and some utilised Cite Space II to visualise patterns and trends in their bibliometricmapping reviews (n = 2). The search results also reflected that those systematic reviews
account for the vast majority of the bibliometric review papers on e-portfolios in education.
Regarding educational level, it was uncovered that some of the existing review papers arecontextualised in higher education; some are general reviews without a specific context.
None of the review studies primarily discussed the implementation of e-portfolios in K-12
education. Besides, within the area of higher education, it has been found that there is one
review article that has a specific focus on teacher education (Harun et al., 2021).
Furthermore, various themes were identified among the 12 review papers (See Table 2). The

58

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

themes cover the areas of teaching, learning, assessment, digital ethics, implementation,
research summary, and research trend.
Table 1
General Information about the Papers Included in the Study
Author /Date
Harun et al.
(2021)

Context

MethodTheme

Higher
Education:
TeacherTraining

Systematic
review

Pedagogicalaffordances of eportfolio

Not specified

Systematic
review:
meta-analysis

Self-regulated learning

IrelandHigher
Education

Narrative
review

Learning e-portfolio in
higher education

Australia

Higher
Education

Scoping review

Digital ethics in usingof e-portfolio

Not specified

Systematic
review

Self-directed learning

Malaysia

Segaran &Malaysia
Hasim (2021)
Scully et al.
(2018)
Wilson et al.
(2018)

Educational
Level

Beckers et al.
(2016)

Canada;USA;
Netherlands

Rahayu et al.
(2016)

Indonesia;
USA

Not specified

Liang et al.
(2016)

China

Not specified

Dai & Jiang(2016)

China

Not specified

Systematic
review
Mapping
Review(CiteSpace II)
Mapping
Review(CiteSpace II)

E-portfolio definition,model, type and system
Progress and trend on
e-portfolio research in
China
Research on e-portfolio
assessment
Critical success factor(CSF) forimplementation Eportfolio model

Rahayu &Sensuse(2015)

Indonesia

Not specified

Systematic
review

Wang & Xu(2014)

USA,
Australia,
UK

Not specified

Narrative
review

Progress and trend on
e-portfolio research
globally

Bryant &Chittum(2013)

USA

Higher
Education

Systematic
review

Evidence for eportfolios’ impact onlearners’ outcomes

Zhang (2011)

China

Not specified

Narrative
review

Research summary of
e-portfolio in China

59

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

The overall findings of the reviewed secondary literature broadly discussed the use of eportfolio in education, specifically in teaching, learning, or assessment. The following
discussions addressed the research questions and objectives based on the findings.
Classifications of e-Portfolio
The reviewed papers classify e-portfolios in diverse ways; the synthesised classifications of
e-portfolios in the selections are shown in Table 3. It is noteworthy that translations from
Chinese to English are carefully handled to make sure the term is consistent; also, synonyms
were combined to compare better, synthesise, and further visualise the data to create acomprehensive overview of the categories (e.g., “collection” and “dossier”; “assessment” and“evaluation”; “presentation” and “showcase”).
Table 3
Classification of e-Portfolio
Author / Date
Beckers et al. (2016)
Rahayu et al. (2016)
Rahayu & Sensuse (2015)
Harun et al. (2021)
Scully et al. (2018)
Wilson et al. (2018)
Bryant & Chittum (2013)
Wang & Xu (2014)
Liang et al. (2016)
Dai & Jiang (2016)
Zhang (2011)

Classification of e-portfolio
personal development, learning, collection/dossier, reflective
collection/dossier, showcase/presentation, development,
recognition
NA
reflection, assessment/evaluation, teaching, learning, jobsearch
showcase/presentation, development; assessment/evaluation
process tracking, showcase/presentation,assessment/evaluation
process tracking, collection/dossier, showcase/presentation,
learning, teachingNA
showcase/presentation, assessment/evaluation, learningNA
assessment/evaluation, showcase/presentatione-Portfolios’ Benefits and Constraints
The reviewed articles extensively discussed the advantages and disadvantages of e-portfolios
in education, further pointing out some key issues that need to be considered and welladdressed by practitioners.
Table 4 illustrates the synthesis of the positive effects that an e-portfolio can bring to
education. More than half of the selections (n = 7, 58.3%, respectively) agreed that an eportfolio could facilitate self-regulated learning, self-reflection, and self-evaluation; it also
benefits inter-curricular knowledge and 21st-century skills development. The effectiveness of
e-portfolios in promoting engagement, interaction, communication, and collaboration is also
widely agreed upon (n = 6, 50%). Furthermore, the chosen papers also refer to the following
values of e-portfolio: flexible and easy to access and use, prompting personal/professional
development and lifelong learning, the possibility of tracking the learning process, motifs forlearners, network building, enabling diverse assessments and feedbacks, potential use for60

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

employment, facilitate teaching and learning, addressing technological skills, and theinclusion of multimedia (See Table 4).
Table 4
Benefits of e-Portfolios
Benefits of e-portfolion%Support self-regulation and develop self-directed learning (SDL) skills
Address cross-curricular knowledge and 21st-century skills
Encourage self-reflective learning, facilitate self-reflection and selfevaluation
Nurture engagement, facilitate interaction, communication, and collaboration
Flexibility and accessibility
Facilitate personal/professional development and life-long learning
Visualize learning; enable learners and educators to track the learning
progress
Motivate learners
Strengthen social networks, facilitate building an online community, andenhance communication
Enable learners to have feedback from peers and teachers
Optimize learning outcomes
Support educators regarding teaching and evaluation
Easy to navigate and use: easy to keep/organize/arrange information
Potential use for employment, enhance future employment prospects
Demonstrate the technical skills and create an extensive digital footprint
Emphasize process-based, authentic, and diversified assessment
Enable learners to gather evidence of broad skills and competencies
Possibility to incorporate multimedia
Benefit information sharing and retrieval
Embody student-centeredness
Help with formulating study plans more purposefully

7
7

58.3%
58.3%

7

58.3%

6
5
5

50.0%
41.7%
41.7%

5

41.7%

4

33.3%

4

33.3%

3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
16.7%
16.7%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%

Even though the benefits of e-portfolio inclusion in education are clear, there are also
underpinning constraints; various issues should be addressed to reach its full potential andbetter implement e-portfolio in teaching and learning. The detailed findings are exhibited inTable 5.

61

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Table 5Constraints/Issues Need to be Addressed in e-Portfolio Implementation
Constraints/issues need to be addressed
Learners’ uncertainty, concerns, and reluctance due to relatively intense
workload and challenges in comprehending processes
There was a shortage of support (technological skills, internet issues, structuralaid)
Digital ethics: issues of privacy, confidentiality, consent, copyright andintellectual property when they are used in the classroom
Lack of interaction; has constraints in peer evaluation and collaborative
learning
Some platforms/tools are not user-friendly and difficult to navigate
Lack of originality and creativity: many of the current options for software
platforms are too standardized
Heavily dependent on participants’ skill and creativity
Creating an e-portfolio can be time-consuming and challenging
There is a conflict between the learning portfolio’s developmental (process)and evaluative (product) conceptual frameworks
Its reflective practice is limited in depth and flexibility
Lack of motivating function, scalability, sustainability, adoption,interoperability, etc.
Some software applications fail to integrate e-portfolio educational aims ofstress reflection, self-reflection, and participation
Skepticism about the spread of innovation
Issues of accountability

n

%

3

25.0%

3

25.0%

3

25.0%

2

16.7%

2

16.7%

2

16.7%

1
1

8.3%
8.3%

1

8.3%

1

8.3%

1

8.3%

1

8.3%

1
1

8.3%
8.3%

Participants’ Perception
As the majority of the chosen secondary papers are reviews of empirical research, some ofthem provide the perspectives of participants based on a synthesis of the experimental
investigations. The paper gathered, analysed, and summarised the results and arguments ofthe participants’ perspectives from the empirical studies in the retrieved reviews. The
following findings were obtained.
In general, participants’ perceptions of e-portfolio implementation were positive in mostpublications. Bolliger and Shepherd (2010) found that a large proportion of participants(85%) felt that e-portfolios boosted their motivation to study, and many agreed with words
like “assisted me in reflecting” and “helped me evaluate my own progress” (p. 304).
Similarly, most of the participants (learners) in Wakimoto and Lewis’ (2014) study foundthat e-portfolios could help them reflect on their abilities. The portfolios offered them insight
into the developmental aspect of becoming a professional. Notably, the learners regarded thequality of this peer review process as vital to the e-portfolio program’s success. The students
also highlighted the significance of the rubrics used to examine and provide comments oneach other’s work (Wakimoto & Lewis, 2014).
Not all perceptions are positive. Some practitioners think developing an e-portfolio can betime-consuming and laborious (De Jager, 2019; Harun et al., 2021; Zhong & Hartsell, 2015),
or the participants might be uncertain about using an e-portfolio (Chung & Kim, 2010;62

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Oakley et al., 2014). Besides, Razavi and Iverson (2006) claimed that younger learners thoughtthemselves to be clustering information into specific areas and made decisions about sharing
based on the sensitivity of the data. However, it is debated that students’ views of their learning
provide few details (Bryant & Chittum, 2013); questionnaires and interviews are simply a moreroundabout technique to measure students’ attitudes regarding e-portfolio. It is impossible tosay whether individuals who had negative feelings about an e-portfolio’s effect on theirlearning were influenced by defects in the programme or issues in its application (Bryant &Chittum, 2013).
Some selected review articles also documented a shift in participants’ perspectives.
According to Wang and Xu (2014), participants who participated in a study shifted theirattitudes from negative to positive about e-portfolios. They believed the e-portfolio was just a
job-search tool initially, and they thought it was tedious and time-consuming to develop,
needing the help of teachers and classmates. They also believed that the application’s main
goal was to achieve graduation requirements. Later, the participants thought the e-portfolio
was a collection of items to demonstrate personal and professional improvement, allowing
them to explore answers to problems via cooperation and ongoing reflection during theconstruction phase. This case is a reminder that how the e-portfolio is implemented will
influence the attitude change of participants. According to Chye et al. (2013), participants’
intrinsic motivation may influence favourable attitudes toward e-portfolio use. In practice,educators should use appropriate ways to motivate learners and optimise their learning
experiences.
Lewis (2017) stated that incorporating constructivist learning and social pedagogy
capabilities into e-portfolio implementation is crucial. In this way, learners perceive a moregenuine learning experience when course designers and teachers strongly understand alearning portfolio’s processes.
e-Portfolio and Educational Frameworks
The chosen articles referred to various educational frameworks; seven terms were identified
through data retrieval, computing, and visualisation (see Figure 3). Among these frameworks,
reflective learning is the most mentioned term, and evidence-based learning is the second
most cited. Autonomous learning and collaborative learning are also widely discussed.
Moreover, the papers talked about self-directed learning and self-regulated learning.

63

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Figure 3
Educational Frameworks Related to e-Portfolios Implementatione-Portfolio Platforms/Tools
Most of the reviewed papers mentioned the e-portfolio platforms/tools, but few discussed
them in detail. PEARL, Pebblepad, Taskstream, and Elgg are the most mentioned platforms;
LinguaFolio, Netfolio, STEPP, WIFI, and some Google platforms (Google Map, Google
Sites, Google Earth) are also widely discussed. Other tools/platforms such as Moodle,
Factline, Drupal ED, Behance, MOOC, Sakai, ASP, WordPress, NET, Factline, and Mahara
are also mentioned in some reviewed papers.
Overall, some trends can be observed:●●●●

The usage of specific e-portfolio tools (e.g., Mahara)
The development of environments owned by institutions (e.g., ePearl)
The use of Virtual Learning Systems (VLS) (e.g., Moodle)
The usage of social media (e.g., blogs)

Implementation Recommendations
To offer synthetic guidance for implementing e-portfolios, the practical recommendations
from the review papers were incorporated into four levels concerning the stakeholders of eportfolio implementation: institutional level, educator level, learner level, and platform level(see Table 6).

64

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Table 6
Recommendations for e-portfolio implementation
Institutional Level

Educator level

Learner Level

Platform Level

Making eportfolios part ofthe educational
process (e.g.,
implementing
school-wide)(Beckers et al.,2016)

Providing frequent
coaching to theirstudents (Beckers etal., 2016).

Setting goals,
analyzing tasks,
implementing
planning, having
primary goals inmind (Scully et al.,2018; Harun et al.,2021)

Building interactive
and conversational
e-portfolios (Wang& Xu, 2014).

Offering training
for both theeducator andlearner(technology,
ethics, etc.)(Beckers et al.,2016)
Providingpedagogical andtechnical
professional
development in aformal setting(Beckers et al.,2016; Scully et al.,2018)
Aligning eportfolio withcurriculum(Beckers et al.,2016)

Motivate students inusing e-portfolio(Beckers et al., 2016;
Wang & Xu, 2014).
Considering theopinions of more than
one evaluator while
evaluating (Gencel,
2017; Harun et al.,2021).
Integrating peer
assessment (Harun &Jhee, 2012; Harun etal., 2021).
Using e-portfolios asformative assessmentswith a long-term goal(Harun et al., 2021).
Scaffolding Explicitly(Scully et al., 2018;
Wilson et al., 2018).
Giving students
guidance and practicewith reflective
practice, especiallywriting reflection(Harun et al., 2021;
Scully et al., 2018).
Giving students
sufficient time (Scully
et al., 2018).
Giving students
formative feedback

Self-evaluating the
e-portfolio
assignment in order
to see what they
have accomplishedover time (Beckers
et al., 2016; Harun etal., 2021).
Avoiding adescriptive level oftextual reflection
without any more
profound insight(Harun et al., 2021).
Delving into thetechnological tools
and applications that
can aid in thecreation of an eportfolio (Harun etal., 2021; Scully etal., 2018).
Strengthening selfregulation and selfevaluation (Beckers
et al., 2016; Scully etal., 2018).
Collecting andchoosing
information
efficiently (Rahayu& Sensuse, 2015).

65

Optimising user
characteristics,
infrastructure,system quality,community, andservice quality(Rahayu & Sensuse,2015).
Building
comprehensive eportfolios platforms
with the traits tomotivate users(Wang & Xu, 2014).
Improving
readability,
usability, andaccessibility(Rahayu & Sensuse,2015).
The process of eportfolio creation
should be facilitatedrather thaninterrupted bytechnologicalplatforms (Scully etal., 2018).
Build a flexible andscalable social
learning platform(Liang et al., 2016)

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

(Scully et al., 2018).
Engaging students ine-portfolio design(Harun et al., 2021;
Scully et al., 2018).

Engaging inreflection and usingreflective writing(Harun et al., 2021).
Utilising feedback
from teachers andpeers forimprovement (Harunet al., 2021).

Offering continuous support (Scully et al.,2018)
Dual goal orientation: process and product(Scully et al., 2018)
Collaborating to develop a set of guidelines and procedures that include privacy laws that
protect user information, visuals, personal reflections, etc (Cowper & Crompton, 2010;
Fisher & Hill, 2017; Wilson et al., 2018).
Discussion
Data collected shows the heterogeneity of e-portfolio designs, in line with the experience by
Roco and Barberà (2022), and the results presented in this study show a great variety in termsof design, aims and platforms. Thus, in order to answer the research questions, the following
findings-based discussion is presented: categorization of e-portfolios, advantages andrestrictions, participants’ attitudes, educational frameworks, and implementation suggestions.
Multiple scholars have defined e-portfolio in various ways; the most cited scholar in theselected reviews is Helen C. Barrett. Grounding on the existing definition, this paper
proposed a synthesized description of an e-portfolio: an e-portfolio is a comprehensive
electronic collection of multimodal artifacts as learning evidence that can be used in teaching,learning, assessment, and showcasing; it illustrates skills development, focusing on thelearning process, progress, and achievement. It requires self-regulation, self-reflection, andself-evaluation. Besides, it was discovered that scholars classified e-portfolios into different
types: dossier, showcase or presentation, assessment, and learning-tracking (Beckers et al.,2016; Bryant & Chittum, 2013; Rahayu et al., 2016; Scully et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018;
Mathur & Mahapatra, 2022). It argued that the classifications of different functions of eportfolios are not isolated; instead, they are interconnected, and in education, they serve as
multi-dimensional tools in various aspects. Also, a wide range of participants’ views (bothpositive and negative) regarding the actual practice of e-portfolio implementation wasdisclosed (Bolliger & Shepherd, 2010; De Jager, 2019; Harun et al., 2021). It was also
revealed that the participants’ attitudes could be changed if the e-portfolio was employedappropriately and effectively (Wang & Xu, 2014). From the assessed data on the e-portfolio
classification, we identified that e-portfolios have the following potential functions: boost
learning, reflection, and self-development; they can also be employed in teaching,assessment, presentation, or even for recognition. The most mentioned types and functions of
e-portfolio are assessment, learning, showcase, and dossier, followed by development eportfolio and teaching e-portfolio. The findings resonate with Meyer et al. (2010)’s argument.
According to them, e-portfolios serve three general purposes: process, showcase, and66

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

assessment; they may be created as process portfolios that support the ways in whichembedded structures and strategies help users learn. Process portfolios are instruments for
managing learners’ own learning. They are intended to promote self-improvement, personal
development, and a dedication to lifelong learning (Meyer et al., 2010).
Regarding e-portfolios’ benefits, it is widely accepted that the e-portfolio might foster avariety of factors, including self-regulated learning, self-reflection, self-evaluation, intercurricular knowledge growth, and the development of 21st-century skills (Sutarno et al.,2019), such as collaboration skills, self-management skills, technological skills. These
aspects demonstrate that e-portfolio is a ‘practise of governance’, as a deliberate activity
designed to shape students’ professional and personal behaviour using tactics that leverage
students’ ambitions, aspirations, and interests (O’Brien et al., 2014). E-portfolios may
facilitate attempts at knowledge construction by facilitating reflection, refinement,
conferencing, and other self-regulatory activities, which are crucial for lifelong learning andlearning how to learn (Meyer et al., 2010; Roberts, 2018; Salazar & Arévalo, 2019).
Furthermore, e-portfolios are excellent for cataloguing and organising learning resources andclearly illustrate the learner growth process; they can also allow remote access, promoting
learning at any time and any place and facilitating feedback from classmates, parents, andinstructors (Barrett, 2009; Meyer et al., 2010). According to Wade, Abrami, and Sclater(2005), e-portfolios are associated with students’ capacities to self-regulate their learning andincrease the development of crucial educational skills and abilities, particularly literacy skills.
When students use e-portfolios, they undertake more ownership of their education, have abetter awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, and develop the ability to create
objectives (Meyer et al., 2010), which eventually is about autonomous learning and agency(Whitney et al., 2021). Apart from these aspects, e-portfolios also offer other advantages,
including being flexible and straightforward to access and use, recording the learning process,network development, allowing for a variety of evaluations and feedback, possibilities for
employment, and multimedia integration. Also, e-portfolios were seen as a flexible andstraightforward tool to access and use, recording the learning process and network
development, allowing for various evaluations and feedback, possibilities for employment,
and multimedia integration (Beckers et al., 2016; Harun et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2016;
Scully et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018)
However, there are also constraints on implementing e-portfolios, such as platforms’
accountability, usability, reliability, scalability, sustainability, and interoperability (Bryant &Chittum, 2013); participants’ uncertainty, reluctance, and unfamiliarity (Harun et al., 2021);
lack of technical support and scaffolding for participants (both educators and learners)(Scully et al., 2018). Particularly, the following key concerns need to be well addressed: theissue of digital ethics, including privacy, confidentiality, consent, copyright, and intellectual
property (Wilson et al., 2018).. According to Wilson et al. (2018), the new potential to utilise
e-portfolios in online social pathways increases student engagement and accessibility of use.
Nevertheless, they can also raise ethical problems specific to the virtual environment, such asprivacy, confidentiality, and data protection (Denton & Wicks, 2013; Kirkham et al., 2010;
Tan, 2011). These concerns need to be addressed to effectively employ e-portfolios in
educational practice.
The widespread of new educational concepts offers opportunities for e-portfolio integration.
The retrieved review papers also disclosed that various educational frameworks had been
associated with e-portfolios’ implementation, such as reflective learning, evidence-basedlearning, autonomous learning, collaborative learning, self-directed learning, and self-

67

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

regulated learning (Beckers et al., 2016; Bryant & Chittum, 2013; Harun et al., 2021; Lianget al., 2016; Rahayu et al., 2016; Rouco & Barberà, 2020, Scully et al., 2018; Wilson et al.,2018).Although e-portfolios are implemented under a wide variety of educationalframeworks and learning theories, there are no models to address them. Even though selfregulated learning is commonly cited and analysed (López-Crespo et al., 2022), there are noreferences about how teachers should support students’ cognitive skills. Likewise,
collaborative learning is frequently mentioned. Zubizarreta (2009) suggested a theoreticalmodel that highlighted the relationship between students and teachers; however, there are no
designs that address such a collaboration. To address these gaps, the paper calls for more
research on pedagogical or learning task design, particularly collaborative co-design models
implementing e-portfolios in teaching and learning.
Besides, it is striking that social media, particularly blogs (Marín, 2020), have increased
uptake for e-portfolio aims but do not seem to have such a prominent role in the reviews. In
the context of social media research, the open and networked characteristics have been
claimed as transformational for the e-portfolio style (Cambridge, 2010; Tur & Urbina, 2014).
Furthermore, under the PLE (Personal Learning Environments) approach, e-portfolios havebeen claimed as one of the most agentic proposals in which learners deploy individual,
relational, and contextual resources (Castañeda & Tur, 2020). Highly related, Rouco andBarberà argued the relationship of blog-based e-portfolio for networked learning (2022),
which might allow further collaboration for learning. In light of this overview, there is a lackof research on e-portfolios in social media and PLEs and for students’ agency, which should
be addressed in future research.
It was also uncovered that the current review mainly focuses on higher education or postsecondary education; more research on e-portfolios in other educational contexts (e.g., K-12
education) is needed. Helen Barrett, one of the most well-known researchers in the field of eportfolios, notes that the empirical study is quite restricted and focuses more on theconstruction of teaching portfolios than on K-12 student portfolios (2009). Besides, this paper
advocates collaborative learning and interaction while implementing an e-portfolio. Peer andteacher-student collaboration should be strengthened to reduce the pressure of independently
making e-portfolios and thus ease the uncertainty and reluctance of using e-portfolios. The
research gap in collaborative pedagogical design on e-portfolio implementation wasnoticeable. No selected papers refer to reviewing how e-portfolios are implemented in a
specific pedagogical design or employed in collaborative learning tasks; this area requires
more studies, particularly reviews, for further investigation. Besides, there is a noticeablevacant area for reviewing studies on e-portfolio tools or platforms.
In the post-pandemic stage, e-portfolios are rising in various educational settings. To
maximise the efficacy of e-portfolio use, the findings from the research synthesis suggest thatall stakeholders should take actions, address the challenges and concerns, and cooperate in eportfolio implementation. Detailed recommendations from the retired reviews werecategorised for policymakers and practitioners in this paper. These suggestions could be areferential guideline for future e-portfolio implementation or policymaking. For institutions,providing training for educators and students is a significant action that will affect the users’
technological skills, which are crucial in utilising an e-portfolio (Scully et al., 2018; Wilson
et al., 2018). They all need to incorporate e-portfolios into their curriculum and make school
policies for implementing e-portfolios (Beckers et al., 2016). Besides, they all need to look
for suitable platforms and invest in building on their intuitional-level e-portfolio to protect
school users’ information (Rahayu & Sensuse, 2015). For teachers, e-portfolios can be

68

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

employed in daily teaching, formative and even summative assessments; teachers also need
to offer constructive feedback to help students optimise their e-portfolio learning outcomes(Harun et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2018). Simultaneously, to keep students motivated. When it
comes to students, who are critical e-portfolio users, they need to utilise e-portfolio tools to
track their learning and facilitate self-evaluation and reflection (Bryant & Chittum, 2013;
Harun et al., 2021; Rahayu et al., 2016; Scully et al., 2018). Consequently, they become selfregulating and self-directing autonomous learners. As for the e-portfolio/tools, providers needto increase their usability, functionality, and readability to help users achieve better results; inparticular, collaboration functions should be added (Liang et al., 2016; Wang & Xu, 2014).
Conclusion
This study aimed to comprehensively understand secondary research without being limited toEnglish-only publications, potentially reducing cultural bias. Thus, English, Chinese, andSpanish review articles were searched, and papers from various backgrounds were included.
The present study was designed to cover both extended research periods and contexts. It isbased on the reviews of the last decade when e-portfolios became mainstream. Since only
reviews are included, the number of the chosen publications is limited. Besides, we
acknowledge that the study’s main limitation is the search string. Intending to include
unequivocal conceptions of e-portfolio that could work across languages and contexts, weonly focused on the most straightforward terms. However, this could have emerged as alimitation of the study.
To conclude, e-portfolios are part of a new generation of Web 2.0 communication andeducational technology. The immediate destination of e-portfolios may be found in this new,user-generated world, where an attitude of participation, cooperation, and sharing dominates(Knobel & Wilber, 2009). At present, the individual implementing e-portfolio is being madeavailable to a larger audience, particularly in the area of education. We acknowledged thevalue of existing secondary research over the past decades on e-portfolio use in education andreviewed them. Through systematic reviews of secondary studies, the paper discusses the eportfolios’ definitions, functions, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and relevant
educational frameworks. The following research gaps were identified: lack of studies on eportfolio in K-12 education; few current studies investigating e-portfolio implementation in acollaborative (co-design) mode; and more research are needed in employing social media and
PLEs in e-portfolio implementation for student agencies. Based on the overview,recommendations are made for the policymakers and stakeholders to use e-portfolio in
education better.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by the Project PID2020-113101RB-I00 “Codiseño de itinerarios
personales de aprendizaje en entornos conectados en educacion superior”, funded under theState Programme for R&D&I Oriented to the Challenges of Society, from the State Plan for
Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2017-2020 of the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation. State Research Agency.

69

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

References
Abrami, P., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic
portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La Revue Canadienne Del’Apprentissage Et De La Technologie, 31(3).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21432/T2RK5K
Balaban, I., Mu, E., & Divjak, B. (2011). Critical Success Factors for the implementation of
the new generation of electronic Portfolio systems. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 251–256.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5974031
Baron, J. S., Specht, A., Garnier, E., Bishop, P., Campbell, C. A., Davis, F. W., Fady, B.,
Field, D., Gross, L. J., Guru, S. M., Halpern, B. S., Hampton, S. E., Leavitt, P. R.,
Meagher, T. R., Ometto, J., Parker, J. N., Price, R., Rawson, C. H., Rodrigo, A., Winter,
M. (2017). Synthesis centers as critical research infrastructure. BioScience, 67(8), 750–
759. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix053
Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010). Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic
reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine, 7(9).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
Barak, L., & Maskit, D. (2017). Portfolio as documenting experience. In T. Barak & D.
Maskit (Eds.), Methodologies of mediation in professional learning,75–90. Springer
International.
Becker, L. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2008). Overviews of reviews. Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 607–631.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch22
Beckers, J., Dolmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2016). E-portfolios enhancing students’
self-directed learning: A systematic review of influencing factors. Australasian Journalof Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2528
Bolliger, D. U., & Shepherd, C. E. (2010). Student perceptions of eportfolio integration in
online courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295–314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2010.513955
Bryant, L. H., & Chittum, J. R. (2013). ePortfolio Effectiveness: A(n Ill-Fated) Search for
Empirical Support. International Journal of ePortfolio, 3(2), 189–198.
https://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP108.pdf
Buchem, I., Tur, G., & Salinas, J. (2020). Designing for ownership in technology-enhanced
learning (TEL): A core element for learners’ Srl and Agency. Interaction Design andArchitecture(s), (45), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-045-001psi
Cambridge, D. (2010). E-portfolios for Lifelong Learning and assessment. Jossey-Bass.
Castañeda, L., & Tur, G. (2020). Resources and opportunities for agency in PLE-related
pedagogical designs. Interaction Design and Architecture(s), (45), 50–68.
https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-045-002
Chung, H., & Kim, H. (2010). Implementing professional standards in teacher preparation
programs in the United States: Pre-service teachers’ understanding of teaching standards.
Kedi Journal of Educational Policy, 7(2), 355–377.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/c41a52a1c7558849518889e8abda61c0/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=946348

70

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Chye, S. Y., Liau, A. K., & Liu, W. C. (2013). Student teachers’ motivation and perceptionsof e-portfolio in the context of problem-based learning. Asia Pacific Education
Researcher, 22(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0022-4
Clark, J. E., & Eynon, B. (2009). E-portfolios at 2.0--surveying the field." Peer Review,
11(1). Accessed fromgale.com/apps/doc/A205052193/AONE?u=anon~dace4ebb&sid=googleScholar&xid=862070e9Cooper, H. M. (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Sage.
Dabbagh, N., & Castañeda, L. (2020). The PLE as a framework for developing agency inlifelong learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3041–
3055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09831-z
Denton, D., & Wicks, D. (2013). Implementing electronic portfolios through Social Media
Platforms: Steps and student perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network,
17(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v17i1.316
Farrell, O. (2020). From portafoglio to eportfolio: The evolution of portfolio in higher
education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1).
https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.574
Harun, R. N., Hanif, M. H., & Goh, P. S. C. (2021). The Pedagogical Affordances of eportfolio in Learning How to Teach: A Systematic Review. Studies in English Language
and Education, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.17876
Hongbin, D., & Hongxing, J. (2016). 基于文献可视化的电子档案袋评价研究 [Research on
E-portfolio Assessment Based on Literature Visualization]. The Chinese Journal of ICT
in Education, 16, 91–94.
Kirkham, J. J., Dwan, K. M., Altman, D. G., Gamble, C., Dodd, S., Smyth, R., &Williamson, P. R. (2010). The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised
controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ, 340.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c365
Knobel, M., & Wilber, D. (2009). Let’s talk 2.0. Montclair State University Digital
Commons. Retrieved October 10, 2022, fromhttps://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/teaching-learning-facpubs/82/
Lewis, L. (2017). EPortfolio as pedagogy: Threshold Concepts for Curriculum Design. ELearning and Digital Media, 14(1-2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017694497
López-Crespo, G., Blanco-Gandía, M.C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Fidalgo, C. & Sánchez-Pérez, N.
(2022). The educational e-portfolio: preliminary evidence of its relationship withstudent’s self-efficacy and engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 27,
5233–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10827-2
Marín, V. I. (2020). Research-Based Learning in Education Studies: Design Inquiry Using
Group e-portfolios based on blogs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
36(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4523
Mathur, M., & Mahapatra, S. (2022). Impact of ePortfolio Assessment as an Instructional
Strategy on Students’ Academic Speaking Skills: An Experimental Study. Computer
Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 23(3), 1–23.
http://callej.org/journal/23-3/Mathur-Mahapatra2022.pdf

71

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Meyer, E., Abrami, P. C., Wade, C. A., Aslan, O., & Deault, L. (2010). Improving literacy
and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with epearl.
Computers & Education, 55(1), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.005
Morrison, J. (2003). The National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII): An Interview
with EDUCAUSE’s Carole Barone. The Technology Source. other.
https://www.downes.ca/post/5181
Oakley, G., Pegrum, M., & Johnston, S. (2014). Introducing e-portfolio to pre-service
teachers as tools for reflection and growth: Lesson learnt. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 42(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.854860
O’Brien, P., Osbaldiston, N., & Kendall, G. (2014). EPortfolios and eGovernment: Fromtechnology to the entrepreneurial self. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(3), 284–
295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00826.x
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web andmobile app for Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., mulrow, cindy d,
Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2020). Updating guidance for reporting
systematic reviews: Development of the Prisma 2020 statement.
https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jb4dx
Pigott, T. D. (2012). Advances in meta-analysis. Springer US.
Pilling-Cormick, J., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Self-directed and self-regulated learning:
Conceptual links. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 33(2).
https://doi.org/10.21225/d5s01m
Polanin, J. R., Maynard, B. R., & Dell, N. A. (2017). Overviews in education research.
Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172–203.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631117
Rahayu, P., & Sensuse, D. I. (2015). CSF for implementation e-portfolio Model: A
systematic review. 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Systems
and Innovation (ICITSI). https://doi.org/10.1109/icitsi.2015.7437714
Rahayu, P., Sensuse, D. I., Purwandari, B., Budi, I., & Zulkarnaim, N. (2016). Review on eportofolio definition, model, type and system. 2016 International Conference on
Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI).
https://doi.org/10.1109/icitsi.2016.7858204
Rhodes, T., Chen, H. L., Watson, C. E., & Garrison, W. (2014). Editorial: A call for more
rigorous ePortfolio research. International Journal of ePortfolio, 4(1), 1–5. Retrieved
from http://www.theijep.com/pdf/ijep144.pdf
Roberts, P. (2018) Developing reflection through an ePortfolio-based learning environment:
design principles for further implementation,Technology, Pedagogy and Education,27(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989
Roco, M. & Barberà , E.(2020). Integrating E-Portfolio Strategy in the Architectural Design
Studio. The Design Journal, 23(4), 575–595.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1769974

72

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Roco, M. & Barberà, E. (2022). ePortfolio to promote networked learning: an experience inthe Latin American context. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 19, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00336-8
Salazar, S.; Arévalo, M. (2019). Implementación del portafolio como herramienta didácticaen
educación superior: revisión de literatura. Revista Complutense de Educación, 30(4),965–981. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.59868
Scully, D., O’Leary, M., & Brown, M. (2018). The Learning Portfolio in Higher Education:“A Game of Snakes and Ladders”. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18883.71208
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Elearnspace.
Retrieved April 22, 2022, fromhttps://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf
Sutarno, H., Putro, B. L., Judhie, R. R., & Piantari, E. (2019, November). E-portfolio
assessment model on collaborative problem solving (CPS) learning based on digitallearning environment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(3).
https://doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1280/3/032030
Tan, E.C.C. (2011). Encouraging student learning through online ePortfolio development. In
R. Kwan, C. McNaught, P. Tsang, F. Wang, & K. Li (Eds.), Communications in
Computer and Information Science: 177. Enhancing Learning Through Technology:
Education Unplugged: Mobile Technologies and Web 2.0, 8-21.
https://doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22383-9
Tawfik, G. M., Dila, K. A., Mohamed, M. Y., Tam, D. N., Kien, N. D., Ahmed, A. M., &Huy, N. T. (2019). A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and metaanalysis with Simulation Data. Tropical Medicine and Health, 47(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
Tur, G., & Urbina, S. (2014). Blogs as Eportfolio Platforms in Teacher Education:
Affordances and Limitations Derived from Student Teachers’ Perceptions andPerformance on their Eportfolios. Digital Education Review, 26, 1–23.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2014.0.1-23
Tur, G., Castañeda, L., Torres-Kompen, R., & Carpenter, J. P. (2022). A literature review on
self-regulated learning and Personal Learning Environments: Features of a close
relationship. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2121726
Wade, A., Abrami, P., & Sclater, J. (2005). An electronic portfolio to support learning.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La Revue Canadienne Del’Apprentissage Et De La Technologie, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.21432/t2h30p
Tuschling, A., & Engemann, C. (2007). From education to lifelong learning: The emerging
regime of learning in the European Union. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(4),451–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00204.x
Wakimoto, D. K., & Lewis, R. E. (2014). Graduate student perceptions of eportfolios: Uses
for reflection, development, and assessment. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 53–
58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.01.002
Weijun, W., & Jianli, X. (2014). E-portfolio 国际研究进展与发展动向——基于 ERIC
(2007～2014 年)文献的分析 [The International Research Progress and Development
Trends of E-portfolio ——Based on Analysis of the Eric (2007-2014) Literature].
Theory of Educational Technology, 14(08), 14–30.

73

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Whitney, I., Rowley, J., & Bennett, D. (2021). Developing Student Agency: ePortfolio
Reflections of Future Career among Aspiring Musicians. International Journal ofePortfolio, 11(1), 53-65. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1322805.pdf
Wilson, C. B., Slade, C., & Kirby, M. M. (2018). Digital Ethics and the Use of ePortfolio: A
Scoping Review of the Literature. International Journal of EPortfolio, 8(2), 115–125.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1196633.pdf
Wyborn, C., Louder, E., Harrison, J., Montambault, J., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Bednarek, A.,
Nesshöver, C., Pullin, A., Reed, M., Dellecker, E., Kramer, J., Boyd, J., Dellecker, A., &Hutton, J. (2018). Understanding the impacts of research synthesis. Environmental
Science & Policy, 86, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.013
Xindan, L., Xinghui, W., & Hongxing, J. (2016). 中国电子档案袋研究热点及发展趋势 —— 基于 CNKI 2005-2014 年期刊文献可视化分析 [The Hotspots and Trends of EPortfolio Research in China]. University Education, 54–57.
Yang, Min & Wang, Tianchong & Lim, Cher Ping. (2017). E-Portfolios as Digital
Assessment Tools in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_83-1
Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can Computer-Based Learning Environments(cbles) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist,
40(4), 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_8
Zhiyong, Z. (2011). 近几年我国电子学档研究综述 [Research Summary of E-Portfolio in
China]. China Education Technology Equipment Journal, 3, 25–26.
Zubizarreta, J. (2009). The Learning Portfolio: Reflective Practice for Improving Student
Learning. Jossey-Bass.
Corresponding author: Peng Zhang
Email: p.zhang@uib.es

74

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

“What Motivates Me?”: A Qualitative Perspective on Student
Collaboration in Small Groups
Priyadharshini Ahrumugam
Sunway University, Malaysia
Yesuselvi Manickam
Sunway University, Malaysia

75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Abstract
Collaborative learning, social interdependence and computer mediated communication (CMC)
have been broadly studied in higher education research. Collaborative learning has often been
associated with a social interdependence understanding. However, this study explores therelationship from an exclusively student motivation perspective in order to gain insight overthe factors that encourage students’ positive interdependence in small peer groups. Moreover,due to the COVID-19 pandemic which, has shifted student learning to online platforms learners
have found themselves engaging in computer mediated communication more than ever.
Therefore, the study aims to explore CMC’s influence over student motivations towards
achieving mutual-interest in their small groups. Besides that, past studies concerning theseareas have been mostly quantitative in nature, thus, this study used a qualitative approach by
conducting semi-structured interviews with 9 participants from the Communications
programme of a private higher educational institution in Klang Valley, Malaysia. The interview
findings identified few factors that transformed their self-interest motivation to mutual-interest
motivation. These being: accountability, quality of work outcome, type of coursework & groupsize. Additionally, CMC was not directly influential in encouraging students to grow mutualinterest in their small group. Besides that, there were no significant difference between the rolesof synchronous or asynchronous communication in specifically motivating students towards
achieving positive social interdependence. The findings prove beneficial for educators andeducational administrators when designing collaborative tasks and relevant policies or
guidelines.
Keywords: collaborative learning, computer mediated communication, higher learning, small
group, social interdependence, student motivation

76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

This paper looks at the higher education context, focusing on Year 1 undergraduate students’
involvement in small peer groups (4 members per group). The study has observed specificallystudents from a private higher educational institution in Malaysia who are enrolled in theCommunications programme. Often, a large part of the coursework undertaken centres oncollaborative tasks involving peer learning in small groups. The coursework in the study
programme have been mainly structured for group learning due to alignment with the work
nature in the Communications discipline especially careers in public relations or organisational
communication, which, will largely be centred around collaborative workplace environments.
Moreover, as the world has become exponentially digital so has human communication.
Computer mediated communication (CMC) has also been extensively used in the workplace
for some time, among its advantage acting as a tool to communicate with others from different
time zones or remote areas. Particularly in recent pandemic times, the students have had to
adapt and rely solely on CMC for their learning and group working, thus, changing the
dynamics of their day-to-day communication especially with their peers in the programme.
As the learning environment in the 21st century has seen extensive growth of a diverse student
demography, tertiary education preferences and learner (dis)abilities; thus, to be on par
educational institutions require pedagogical approaches and assessment methods that are
equally varied, dynamic and improved. On that account, higher educational institutions havegravitated rapidly towards active learning approaches or what is, student-centred learning andsince have been moving away from the traditional teaching practice of giving lectures andinducing rote-memorisation, lately seen even in scientific disciplines such as the naturalsciences and formal sciences. For instance, the engineering academia has chosen to incorporate
collaborative learning into its curricula whereby, students have exceeded in successfullyacquiring skills related to communication, teamwork and design (Apte & Bhave-Gudipudi,
2020; Felder & Brent, 2007). Thus, group learning has grown in importance and lately used as
pedagogy in higher education. Nevertheless, as a pedagogical approach collaborative learning
method does pose its own challenges, yet has shown proven efficacy among students inlearning settings that practise them. Students in collaborative learning settings learned tocommunicate better with their peers, encouraged to think critically and laterally, to have respectfor diversity, develop learning communities and cooperative attitude plus, feel motivated (Laal& Ghodsi, 2012; Tsay & Brady, 2010). Additionally, technology use in active learning has
noticeably been beneficial. The ECAR survey done in 2016 reported student participation was
higher in technology-integrated classrooms (Elaine Gioiosa & Kinkela, 2019). Hence,suggesting that students participate a great deal in CMC these days. As such, this has
encouraged more Malaysian higher education academics to pursue collaborative learning intheir classroom activities and assessments.
Vygotsky’s theorising on the social dimensions of learning led to the belief “that learners
construct their own meanings within social environments” through the zone of proximal
development which referred to “each person’s range of potential for learning, where thatlearning is culturally shaped by the social environment in which learning takes place” and inwhich, based on this fundament collaborative learning has become an area well researched(McInerney, 2005). Therefore, collaborative learning is an educational approach thatencourages interaction and transactive communication, knowledge/skill building throughproblem solving, product creation or task completion by groups of learners (Laal & Ghodsi,
2012; Schnaubert & Bodemer, 2018). The core of collaboration and cause of interdependence(Bonito, 2002; Cress, 2008 as cited in Schnaubert & Bodemer, 2018) has been due to“reciprocal influence” that signifies the supposed active interaction among learners who in time77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

influence each other in terms of “cognitions, motivation, and behavior, which may lead to both
greater differences between groups and convergence within the groups.” (p.2).
Collaborative learning has developed itself into many different methods to facilitate grouplearning with some being more established than others, namely: Cooperative learning,
Problem-based learning and Team-based learning. However, compared to the rest collaborative
learning and cooperative learning often are thought to be the same as both have a constructivist
epistemological background. Hence, an assertion made is that this study focuses oncollaborative learning, which is defined as a personal philosophy on consensus building wheregroup members respect and work towards enhancing each other’s abilities throughcontributions, sharing of authority besides being responsible for group actions in a cooperative
manner (Panitz, 1999). In comparison, cooperative learning is more teacher-centred inapproach, directive and based on a set of fundamental principles to facilitate group learners(p.5). In addition, Johnson, Johnson and Holubec’s (1991) 5 basic elements (positive
interdependence, individual accountability, group processing, face-to-face promotive
interaction, interpersonal & small group skills) (pp. 8–9) have been broadly adopted into thepractise of cooperative learning.
Terms of Reference
To address some of the terms that are used in this study, “social interdependence” in accordance
to Deutsch (1962) and Johnson and Johnson (1989), “exists when individuals share common
goals and each individual’s outcomes are affected by the actions of the others” (as cited inJohnson & Johnson, 2001). As for the term “motivation”, it is described as “the wants or needs
that direct behavior toward a goal.” (Lumen, 2022). A considerable part of this study’s inquiry
is aimed at student motivations structured around “self-interest” and “mutual-interest”. On that
note, “self-interest” is defined by actions performed for “the sole purpose of achieving apersonal benefit or benefits.” (Cropanzano, Goldman & Folger, 2005, p.985). Hence, “mutualinterest” has been defined in this study as any action that benefit or benefits another, whereby
above all the intended beneficiary is to be other than the self.
Purpose & Significance of Study
Albeit social interdependence theory and collaborative learning both have been researchedrather widely in the past, however, it is still an on-going inquiry and piques much interest on
what actually drives students to do well or poorly in collaborative work. Therefore, through theconcept lens of social interdependence, the study’s purpose is to garner a student-centred
perspective focusing exclusively on their motives in shifting gears from self-interest to mutualinterest in groupwork, factoring in a CMC setting. In effect, this would be an added observationin understanding the relationship between synchronous and asynchronous CMC with student
learners’ motivation, who currently in higher learning are made up of Millennials and Gen Z.
Thus, significantly informing educators and educational administrators or others in similar
positions to consider the motivating factors for students when designing group-based tasks or
related policies. This paper provides some highlighted findings that have successfully boosted
students’ interest towards peer collaboration for a mutual benefit rather than individual gain;
while adding knowledge whether the role of synchronous and asynchronous CMC enables acollaborative spirit.

78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Literature Review
Social Interdependence Theory
Social interdependence theory’s (SIT) premise is that the type of structure in a group
determines individual members interaction, such, determining the outcomes of the group(Johnson & Johnson, 2002). SIT’s historical roots can be trailed back to the early 1900s withthe emerging school of gestalt psychology at the University of Berlin. Accordingly, “[t]hey
posited that humans develop organized and meaningful views of their world by perceiving
events as integrated wholes rather than as a summation of parts or properties.” (Johnson &Johnson, 2009, p. 366). In other words, the human mind and human behaviour is looked upon
as a whole. This understanding lies directly from the German “gestalt” which closely means“form” or “shape” when translated; however, the word is often interpreted as “pattern” or“configuration” in psychology (Brittanica, 2020). Hence, the understanding is human minds
tend to sense events as part of a greater whole and as components of wider complexed systems.
According to Kurt Lewin (1935, 1948) it was proposed that a group’s essence is theinterdependence among members due to common goals, resulting in that group being a
dynamic whole whereby changes to the state of any member/subgroup in turn changes the stateof any other member/ subgroup; thus, drives them to accomplish the common goals (as citedin Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 2005).
Lewin’s contribution was extended further by his student Morton Deutsch, who in 1949 firstly
noted that there are a few types of social interdependence structures: positive (cooperation),negative (competition), or non-existent (individualistic efforts) (Deutsch, 1949, 1962 as citedin Johnson & Johnson, 2002). Accordingly, a positive social interdependence is achieved when“individuals’ goal achievements are positively correlated; individuals perceive that they canreach their goals if and only if the others in the group also reach their goals” while a negativesocial interdependence “typically results in oppositional interaction as individuals discourage
and obstruct each other’s efforts to achieve” whereas a non-existent social interdependence
occurs “[w]hen a situation is structured individualistically, there is no correlation among
participants’ goal attainments; each individual perceives that he or she can reach his or her goal
regardless of whether other individuals attain or do not attain their goals.” (p.120)
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)
Metz (1994) defined computer mediated communication (CMC), which presence had existed
since 1969, as “any communication patterns mediated through the computer” (as cited in
Laghos & Nicolaides, 2016, p.15). However, a more known definition was described by
December (1997) who had outlined it as “a process of human communication via computers,
involving people, situated in particular contexts, engaging in processes to shape media for avariety of purposes.” (p.1). Thus, when simplified to mean that CMC involves human- tohuman communication mediated by computers while also encompassing any form of digital
media or video telecommunication technology from the modern day. CMC’s advantage lies in
its availability anywhere and anytime through multi-platforms such as emails, social media
platforms, instant messaging, discussion forums, online distance learning programmes andmassive open online courses (MOOC). Furthermore, CMC’s other appeal is themultidimensional communication such as: one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, many-tomany and even one alone (Chew & Ng, 2021, p.27).

79

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

CMC is characterised by its synchronous and asynchronous communication means. Succinctly,
synchronous communication in a CMC context, applies to a face-to-face discourse with theintervention of technology or other tools in circumstances usually involving distance, whereas
asynchronous communication does not happen in real-time in which the person(s) involved caninteract with the message at a later time (Lim, 2017). CMC has the ability to encourage online
collaborative learning where students have shown to perform well since online discussions
potentially have the ability to improve learner-learner relationship due to the teacher’s nonpresence in the online collaborative space (Chew & Ng, 2021). Thus, giving the freedom forstudents to interact and share opinions as peers. However, its success possible provided if only
there is mutual respect and peer engagement.
MethodFor this exploratory and descriptive study, a qualitative approach was undertaken by employing
a semi-structured interview method. Characteristically, a benefit of the semi-structured
interview method is that even though “[t]he interviewer follows the guide, but is able to follow
topical trajectories in the conversation that may stray from the guide when he or she feels thisis appropriate.” (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). However, such a method can be challenging due to
its labour intensiveness and time-consumption in conducting the interviews and analysing data,
while in need of interviewers who are knowledgeable, competent and adaptable (Adams, 2015).
Nevertheless, semi-structured interviews enable deeper probing on the topic or matter in
discussion and thus, provides in-depth perspectives to understand the circumstances
surrounding it and of personal experiences.
Research Questions
Therefore, it is the study’s aim to explore whether students from the communications field are
driven by personal interest or incentivised by fellowship in groupwork. Whereas, the other aim
is to focus on CMC’s contributing role in shaping social interdependence in groupwork. Thus,
the research questions (RQs) investigated are:
RQ1: What encourages Communications students to participate cooperatively in theirgroupwork?
a) Are the students motivated by self-interest or mutual-interest?
b) What are the factors behind their motivation?
RQ2: What role does CMC play in students’ motivation in small group learning?
a) Which CMC modes assist mostly in transforming the communications programme
students’ self-interest to mutual interest in a group learning environment?
b) Does synchronous CMC or asynchronous CMC effect most in transforming thecommunications programme students’ self-interest to mutual interest in a grouplearning environment?
Interview Participants & Interview Process
The following describes the study’s targeted participants and how the interview sessions werecarried out. The group of individuals chosen through purposive sampling represented Year 1
students (19-25 years) from the Communications programme in a private higher educational80

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

institution in Malaysia. They were invited to participate as they took a core course in the samesemester. The students had to produce a podcast segment (large assignment) as a group of 4
members within a 4-week duration.
To highlight, students were initially asked to fill in a survey questionnaire disclosing theirabilities and skills in producing a podcast segment by the course instructor. This was mainly tofacilitate grouping of students based on their present skillsets towards the completion of the
project. Indirectly, it was to ensure each small group had an advantage and fairness observed
from the beginning of their assigned task with one delegated member identified as the Podcast
Editor. The rest of the members were given the opportunity to take on more fluid roles in the
project such as being the Group Leader (GL), Assistant Group Leader (AGL), Researcher and
Scriptwriter. In retrospect, the course instructor was careful to ensure that there was a balance
maintained between: students having been assigned to a group and students’ involvement at
freewill in the group as it was to preserve the spirit of collaboration and engagement within thegroupwork. Additionally, peer reviews were administered to ensure students worked towards
enhancing their group dynamics as they will be evaluated on their collaborative skills by themembers.
As for the interview process, a total of 34 invitations to participate were sent out to students
that were either the designated GL or AGL for this project. This was mainly because every
group had a student assigned as the GL and/or AGL. Hence, as a rationale, it was determined
to include these students as to some degree the participants experiences would appear
comparable as they had played similar roles in their respective groups. Moreover, it wasobserved being in Year 1, students were collaborating for the first time with peers who wererelatively new to them. Therefore, it was anticipated that they would be more objective whenassessing their motivation in a group with a lesser membership familiarity.
In the final outcome, a total of 9 participants from 7 different small groups had agreed to beinterviewed for this study. The interviews were conducted only upon the submission of the
project task so as to ensure participants did not feel obligated or bound to their small group, as
they were meant to be comfortable and unrestrained when sharing their experiences wheninterviewed. Each in-depth single interview session lasted an average between 60-70 minutes,
wherein “[a]bout one hour is considered a reasonable maximum length for [semi-structured
interviews] in order to minimize fatigue for both interviewer and respondent.” (p.493). All
participants had been interviewed via the online Zoom meeting software.
Preceding to that, relevant documents were sent in for institutional review and had attained
approval for ethics clearance. Before the interview session, all participants were provided witha participant information sheet that was sent via email for participant consent. A set of coreinterview questions were attached together for participants to know the scope of the interview
discussion. All participants had consented to their session being video recorded for this study’s
purpose.
Data collection & Analysis
The semi-structured interviews that were video recorded were transcribed for analysis andreporting purposes. In order to preserve the ethical code, each participant feedback wasanonymised using a codename (e.g.: P1, P2). Besides that, a copy of the recorded interview
session was sent to the participants for reviewing and for omission purposes, if any. Every one

81IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022of the participants had reverted with no corrections or omissions to be made, therefore all datacollected was transcribed in verbatim.
Subsequently, the data was thematically analysed. The researcher had applied a latent level ofanalysis as distinguished by Braun and Clarke (2006) which focuses “to identify or examine
the underlying ideas, assumptions, and conceptualisations – and ideologies – that are theorised
as shaping or informing the semantic content of the data” (p.84). Thus, the emergent themes
conceptualised from the 9 participants from the Communications programme concerning
reasons contributing to students’ social interdependence motivation in small group peer
learning (RQ1b) are: accountability (self & others), quality of task outcome, and type ofcoursework task & group size.
Findings and Discussion
This section discusses the findings on student social interdependence motivation in small groupcollaborative learning and the influence of CMC in harnessing their motivation.
Student Social Interdependence Motivation: Perspectives & Factors
One of the most significant aspect of social interdependence is the transformation of one’s
motivation from self-interest to mutual-interest (Shimizu et, al., 2020) in collaborative learning.
Therefore, the findings for RQ1 of the study discovered that the Communications programme
students had started out the project motivated by self-interest but for many of them in due
course it had transformed into mutual-interest motivation. There were mainly 4 themes that
surfaced from the interview findings in terms of factors that contributed to students’ keenness
in shifting their intent to do well for group benefit rather than personal benefit. These were:
accountability, quality of work outcome, type of coursework & group size. In terms of selfinterest motivation, participants are ostensibly prompted by individual task preference and also
personal grade achievements.
To restate, a positive social interdependence happens “when the actions of individuals promote
the achievement of joint goals” whereas a negative social interdependence occurs “when theactions of individuals obstruct the achievement of each other’s goals” (p.366). Therefore,
indicating positive social interdependence would advance the transformation of self-interest
motivation to that of mutual-interest in groupwork. Interestingly, the interview findings
reiterated these concepts with most participants expressing a positive social interdependence
experience in their small groups. Conversely, students who did not seem to work on a mutual
benefit spirit even until the project’s end had experienced a non-existent social interdependence(members mostly worked independently) compared to a negative social interdependence intheir groupwork. In this aspect, there was no progression in students’ motivation towards
achieving mutual-interest in the group.
The following are evinced descriptive responses (Table 1) by participants that had encounteredpositive social interdependence experience when collaborating in their small groups. In
summation, these participants found their motivation turn into mutual-interest when all
members in their small group stepped up and played equal roles towards achieving an optimal
outcome for the given task. The responses suggest that the participants were becoming
intrinsically motivated to deliver their best for the project when other members equallydisplayed similar behaviour, thus setting up an ad hoc support system within the small group.
This finding supports the literature that a positive social interdependent cooperation not only82

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

“tend[s] to result in more frequent use of higher-level reasoning and more intrinsic motivation,
but also promotes more positive interpersonal relationships and greater social support.”(Shimizu et.al., 2020).
Table 1
Responses to Positive Social Interdependence in Small Group Learning
Participant
P1

P3

P5

P7

P9

Interview Response…it started off as personal interest. I really wanted to learn how to produce a
podcast but after that, because it takes a lot of effort, […] I really needed
support from other group members […] It was very helpful when they werealways willing, […] So yeah, yeah, like they were very cooperative for thisassignment […] Everyone was really trying their best, so I was also putting it
as much effort as I could […] because I really think that everyone deserves to
do well for that one. […] Yeah, that kind of like made you feel that you wanted
everybody else to do well because everybody was pitching in to sort of help
each other out, perhaps.
I think it’s a mixture of both. I can’t say it’s entirely like self-interest…
because it’s a group assignment. But in starting stages... yeah, it’s selfinterest. But when during we are discussing about the script, right? It’s more
like towards mutual interest. […] Because mainly it’s a group project and how
others perform will...will influence others. And so, if at the same time,
everyone’s thinking about self-interest, I don’t think that everyone is going to
get benefit because everyone is too self-centered. Everyone wants the best forthem. […] But you also must want the best for others because you are a group.
Yeah, basically, you are one body.
I think that depends on the assignment. If it’s interesting […], I will give myall for this assignment…it’s my own interest; but mutual interest, probably
comes from the team members, the other team members if they are themselvesinterested and, like encouraging. For example, the podcast assignment, […]They were all very, very interested. We set deadlines and everything […] wewere all in it! So, I would say mutual interest, it was more mutual interest forthis assignment.
In relation to this assignment, I’d say both. […] as a student, […] there’s alsoa personal motivation but at the same time as a group leader it is also my role
to make sure that everyone in the group participates, knows what they’re
doing. We are all equally wanting, you know, for each other to do well in theassignment. So, I guess it’s both personal motivation but… at the same timeit’s also a cooperative one.
I think I’m more of a personal interest person when it comes to assignment.
Yeah. Especially like this assignment… because grades are very important tome. So, I tend to focus more on my interests. However, for the assignment theteam mates are good and hardworking… it tends to also be mutual interest as
well. It gets like self-interest and then becomes mutual interest. Yeah,[be]cause I know they put in effort to get good marks so I will try my best to
help them out as well. So, we all can get good marks together.

Nevertheless, there were 2 participants that had reported experiencing non-existent social
interdependence in their small groups. In a nutshell, their responses (Table 2) have shown that
there was lack of cooperation by members towards a “joint goal” which, in this instance, was83

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

the completion of the project. Such, these members felt discouraged until the project’s end tofeel motivated by any mutual-interest.
Table 2
Responses to Non-Existent Social Interdependence in Small Group Learning
Participant
P2

P4

Interview Response
I think it’s more of self-interest because … I found out that after the groupassigned, I noticed one group mate and I was like, oh my God, it’s this person
again! […] and I didn’t know about the other two. So, I was like, okay, youknow what? Maybe it won’t be so bad, I kept like a positive mental attitude
and then when the assignments started, I was like, oh my God… Okay, youknow what? They are not responding on time, […] I’ll just do it myself andjust get it done. […] So, it was more self-interest at that point. It was mutualat first and then slowly slipped to like self-interest.
Actually, for me it’s based on what kind of assignment it is. […] So, I will bevery motivated… own interest, I can say. […] my group they were not very
motivated. […] So, in the end, my marks were important for me to do well.

Furthermore, an underlying supposition from P2 and P3 responses respectively has been
indicative that students who enter groupwork tasks are aware of mutual-interest motivations,though superficially only. Apart from that, the interview findings revealed that the participants(P1, P4, P5 responses) may be more inclined towards self-interest motivation when involving
a course task that they enjoyed working a lot at a personal level. Another reason attributed itself
to maintaining student grades in the enrolled programme (P4, P9 responses). Nevertheless, forthis study, the highlighted reasons were considered as peripheral factors since participants had
only managed to gloss over these discussions during the interview.
Largely, from the interviews it can be understood that participants proved willingness to workwith group members on a mutual (benefit) platform when members showed personal“accountability” in the given group task. Accountability, be it involving the self or others, wasconstantly a recurring emphasis among the interview participants. Thus, it can be identified asa factor related to the transformation of one’s self-interest to mutual-interest in collaborative
learning. Accountability is when every student takes individual responsibility to achieve a joint
goal and bears ownership of the outcomes. During the interview, participants were candid topoint out that their motivations had changed when they had observed accountability by groupmembers who were showing commitment, reliability and competence over their delegatedtasks (refer to Table 1). Besides that, group member familiarity encourages self-accountability,
as P6 claimed “let’s say if I’m in a group with my friends… that I know, that means it’s mutualinterest. I want them to do well and I want myself to do well as well”. As for P8, who also
experienced positive social interdependence in the recent groupwork, opined that specificdesignated roles within the group encourages the accountability level of members stating that
“I think something that would create a mutual-interest is if…everyone has a specific role thatthey are good at. That only they can execute. So those kinds of settings, they really make methink about the group working… on a mutual-interest way, where I want everyone to do well.”Such, in relation, the presence of accountability (self and others) in a group nurtures
camaraderie that encourages a member’s motivation to grow from self-interest into mutualinterest.

84

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

From the interview discussions, participants have also identified “quality of task outcome” asbeing a relevant factor in informing their motivations to a mutually interested one. Participants
were keen to work on a common benefit basis when group members were committedly
producing high quality work based on their assigned roles while consistently trying to enhancethe overall outcome of the given task. For instance, P8 shared experiences that “when themembers do a lot more of good work, I can’t help it, that… I want to step it up, than expected,
for the group”. P9 additionally exemplifies, “when we delegate tasks, each one of the groupmembers will have their own parts. So, you know, like because you’re going through the
document as well. So, you see how their performances are. So, when you know the work
performances, like how well they elaborate the points, how well they can do and find theirpoints. Even the mistakes they do is very low. And, they do it like quick. It’s quick but the quality
is good, […] That becomes like the mutual interest.” On the other hand, P2 highlighted thatpoor work quality has been instrumental in hindering the transformation of the individual
mindset to a group mindset. In the interview discussion, P2 stated, “if it’s in a group, yes, thatshould be high quality results. But I think that if, if everyone else doesn’t have the same energy
as you to put it in the effort, then there’s no point in being a group. To like, not give any highquality work. And that’s when I started thinking that maybe I should just do it alone. I probably
can do it better alone.” Therefore, the stress on work quality put in by individual groupmembers has been pivotal to the transitioning of self-interest encouraged motivation to amutual-interest motivation for the participants in these small groups.
The third and final common factor given emphasised “type of coursework task and group size”.
A number of participants interviewed pointed out that the nature of the course task would
influence the way they would want to approach the task, either individually or as a group. For
the recent project, generally participants felt that the podcast segment required members toapproach it from a mutual-interest standpoint due to the many production levels involved in
the task such as researching, scriptwriting, podcast segment conceptualisation, production,role-playing and editing. Yet, more of the participants’ responses drew attention to small groupsize in boosting group closeness that embodies mutual-interest motivations. P2 had stated that,“I think it is possible and you can actually get to know them like personally too, in like a smallergroup. Whereas if it’s in a bigger group … you can feel left out sometimes because the groupis too big and then everyone’s like talking and often your kind of, like, should I join in, but it’salready so many people here.” According to P3, “I’ve been in groups with 13 people, that one,
I felt was more self-centered. Smaller groups, tend to have better dynamics, lesser personalities
to deal with and more connection in the group.” P7 agrees strongly that the sizing of the group,
whether small or large, matters by expressing that “there is a difference, because the moregroup mates you have, you will have to receive more different opinions, it gets tougher andmaybe, sometimes, one of them might not respond since everyone else is responding.[…] To behonest, I think the podcast assignment, 4 people is just nice, perfectly fine… because usually
the more people, the more conflict there’ll be” Hence, in brief small group settings offer its
members closer proximity. Such, members commonly find themselves able to deal with lesser
disputes since there’s lesser communication lines crossed among them. Also, member
involvement in the group task is higher, bringing about latent circumstances such as groupbonding and positive social interdependence.
CMC: Preference of Mode & Role in Encouraging Student Motivation
The other aspect of this study explored was the role of computer mediated communication(CMC) in encouraging students’ motivation. The interview responses had answered RQ2 ofthe study by imparting students’ perspective of their preferred tools of communication for85

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

groupwork which, were mainly (in sequence of preference): the multiplatform messaging app– WhatsApp, online word processor – Google Docs and video teleconferencing software –Zoom. Hence, their preferred CMC mode was mainly textual based while supplemented byaudio, image and/or video information. Furthermore, the students did not find disparity
between synchronous CMC or asynchronous CMC in transforming their self-interest to mutualinterest in the small groups, though generally they predominantly agreed CMC was able tofoster positive social interdependence due to reciprocal influence by members. However, it was
discovered from the interviews that the asynchronous communication was preferred and that it
did not dissuade students from feeling lesser of a member in their small group.
The Internet has become the most common source of information today and happens to be aplatform where social media presence is thriving, thus, much of the communication amongusers are engaged online. In recent times, due to the Covid-19 pandemic the Communications
programme students have been participating in their coursework tasks fully online. Thus,
students have found various CMC tools to stay connected and to complete given tasks,
particularly when involving groupwork. P9 iterated that CMC, “definitely does help, because,even though it is online, we are still working to complete the assignment together” but, since
CMC is technology-based P6 asserts that “it has its challenges, there are some with poorinternet…or simply low bandwidth to connect for our discussions. Then, it becomes a problem
for the group”. Subsequently from this study, all participants strongly claimed that they
preferred communicating using the multiplatform app WhatsApp with their group members.
The primary reason being its accessibility since it is a free application. Another reason
highlighted by participants was due to its convenience since students were able to text message,
record voice or video messages, upload files and check unread message and/or reply them attheir disposal. This is further evinced by the participants responses; for instance, P5 who stated,“[w]e used three platforms. First… we created WhatsApp group for casual texting andupdating everything on that script, […] Why? Because everyone has it, so that’s the first thing
we thought of,” whereas P7 shared, “WhatsApp. It’s friendly. Fairly informal. Anytime. As longas you have access to internet data, whatever place you are you can check messages.”
Subsequently, Google Docs was also highly regarded as a productive cooperative work space
as group members could compile work that were delegated to them, leave comments and even
improve on each other’s work. In P8’s response, it was mentioned that “working on Google
Docs was great. Sometimes, when I was checking on the script …requested by members, I could
make the changes there and then. […] They understood the changes made, when they read thechanges…[be]cause they trusted my judgment …that I was wanting to improve the script for
us all.”Hence, the text-based feature in WhatsApp and Google Docs was substantially useful toparticipants and treated akin to progress(ion) records on their project work. To add, mediatedcommunication is rarely impersonal (Walther, 1995 as cited in Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter,
2007). Therefore, WhatsApp and Google Docs’ writing-texting as well as direct editing
features can be seen as useful in tracing the development of each individual’s contribution,
timeliness and efficiency in the groupwork. P6 shares that “Yeah, it plays a part in our groupmates feeling. Like, yes, I think they are a good team player because they’re responsive andthey’re able to convey the information to the group well, and on time and effectively.”
Consequently, this has helped form certain opinions and feelings for specific members that are
more affirmative and optimistic, in consequence expanding on group members interactivity
levels in a positive manner leading to positive interdependence. Thus, CMC used forgroupwork has capabilities to rouse happiness and trustworthiness, correlating with one’s“emotivation”. In short, the portmanteau “emotivation” has been conceived to explain our86

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

distinct emotions which motivate behaviour (Beall & Tracy, 2017). Accordingly, the feelingof happiness may have coevolved with “a fundamental motivational system geared toward
promoting affiliation with peers” (Kenrick et al., 2010 cited in Beall & Tracy, 2017, p.4). In
this regard, CMC shows capability to promote peer affiliation which, by nature is inherently
motivated by mutual-interest and a sense to avoid solitariness.
As for the roles played by synchronous or asynchronous CMC, participants were quick to report
there were no differences between the two sets of communication pattern in influencing theirmotivations. However, the discussion findings prove intriguing when participants initiallyhighlighted their general preference for face-to-face communication, yet found synchronous
communication rather uncomfortable from their experiences. As mentioned by P1, “we were
all feeling shy with the video call,” and further to that, P3 who illustrates in-depth, “with faceto-face meetings, it’s different […] there’s body language and just something about… theinteraction level, better connection is fostered […] but on our Zoom call, it wasn’t the same.
Some did not turn on the video, […] one participant was directly staring at the member
speaking […] also, on screen people, just show you what parts they want you to see ofthem…it’s easier to filter”. Therefore, to these participants synchronous communication could
not replace face-to-face communication, even though both had similar characteristics in termsof being communication done in real-time. This finding can be supported by Chen and Wang’s
study (2009) who found that an obvious difference between synchronous online and face-toface communication discussions is the direct interaction that incurs in the latter whereby
learners chatter noisily and laugh together whereas members in online discussions appear silent
as they are more engaged in typing on the keyboard.
By comparison, the interview responses had leaned towards participants being partial overasynchronous communication in this project. Though the finding was unclear whether theirmotivations had changed when engaging in CMC, but almost all participants claimed that they
still felt group affiliation in CMC caused by member reciprocal influence. This was clearlyseen in P6’s response, “because usually, WhatsApp feature, you can like send multiple things…
like links, documents, and pictures and you can even record your audio if you… don’t want tohave an awkward call with your group mates, you can just voice record it and send it to thegroup. So, everyone can listen to it at the same time. […] so, we get a sense of belonging. […]We feel connected as part of that group,”. As a bid to answer why CMC did not affectparticipants social interdependence motivation, this could be linked to one’s communicationcompetency and length of that active communication when using computer mediatedtechnology (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). For the recent podcast group project, most of
the participants cited that the 4-week timeline was insufficient to get to know their memberssocially or personally as communication was mainly reserved for work-related matters. Besides
that, some members online communication had proven poor causing unnecessary
miscommunication as highlighted by P2, “I was surprised at the way he replied in the group,
it was… somewhat like rude, […] then in the video meeting a week later, actually he was okay”.
As a conclusion, the likely online communication incompetency among some members may
have demotivated others from nurturing a positive social interdependence in their small groups.
Conclusion
As an overview, the study’s qualitative inclined findings through both RQs inquiries haverevealed that students showed motivation towards a mutual-interest in circumstances where thesmall group working experiences have been such that: members show accountability, members
produce good quality of task outcome, the nature or type of coursework given and the allottedgroup size. Thus, in general 7 interviewed participants from the Communications programme87

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

were able to have experienced positive social interdependence in their podcast segment project.
As for the remaining 2 participants, they were unable to achieve social interdependence in theirgroup due to lack of member accountability, thus, stayed motivated by self-interest until thecompletion of their group project. As for CMC’s role in transforming motivation in small peergroups, students generally appeared in consensus that CMC assisted with the reciprocal
influence, such, enhanced the overall groupwork experience and group affiliation. It still
remains unclear on the direct influence of CMC on mutual-interest motivation sinceparticipants stressed member accountability as being most important to their groupmembership. Moreover, to the participants neither synchronous nor asynchronous
communication particularly heightened their recent collaborative experience. Yet, the indicatednotion has been that the participants preferred asynchronous communication for its nonrestrictive nature in checking/replying messages to the rest of the group members.
The study’s limitation is set in the fact that all participants wore a leadership hat in the small
peer groups as either a Group Leader or Assistant Group Leader. Therefore, the study was notable to explore the power-distribution paradigm to have gained a fuller insight into theinterpersonal interaction between leader-member relationships and its relationship to social
interdependence motivations. It is recommended that perhaps future research work could
explore these dynamics.

Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the support of academic staff on the Doctoral Programme in Higher
Education Research, Evaluation and Enhancement at Lancaster University from which thispublication has arisen. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/educational-research/study/phd/phd-inhigher-education-research,-evaluation-and-enhancement/

88

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

References
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In Wholey, J. & Hatry, K.H.
(Eds), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (4th ed., pp. 492 - 505). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Apte, M., & Bhave-Gudipudi, A. (2020). Cooperative learning techniques to bridge gaps inacademia and corporate. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 289295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.046
Beall, A. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2017). Emotivational psychology: How distinct emotions facilitate
fundamental motives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(2),e12303. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12303
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2020, May 26). Gestalt psychology. Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Gestalt-psychology
Chen, F., & Wang, T. C. (2009). Social conversation and effective discussion in online grouplearning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 587-612.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9121-1
Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). Interpersonal interactions and language learning: Face-toface vs. computer-mediated communication. Palgrave
McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Semi-structured interviews. Qualitative Research
Guidelines Project. https://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html
Course hero. (2022). Lumen Learning – Simple Book Production. Retrieved March 2022,
from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/introduction-tomotivation/
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2005). Self-interest: Defining and understanding ahuman motive. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), 985–991.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.353
December, J. (1997, January). CMC magazine: Notes on defining of computer-mediatedcommunication. December Communications, Inc. John December
johndecember.com. https://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/december.html
Elaine Gioiosa, M., & Kinkela, K. (2019). Active learning in accounting classes with technology
and communication skills: A two-semester study of student perceptions. Journal of
Education for Business, 94(8), 561–568.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1583161
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In P.A. Mabrouk. (Ed.), Active
Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences (pp.35-53). American Chemical Society:
Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2007-0970.ch004
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2001). Cooperation and competition, psychology of. In
Smelser, N.J. & Baltes, P.B. (Eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social &Behavioral Sciences (pp. 2747–2751). Pergamon.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01798-8

89

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Social interdependence theory and university
instruction - Theory into practice. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 119–129.
https://doi.org/10.1024//1421-0185.61.3.119
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence
theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.
https://doi.org/10.3200/mono.131.4.285-358
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09339057
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091
Laghos, A., & Nicolaides, C. (2016). Internet support communities, online peer support, social
networks/social media & internet use by hospitalized patients. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 6(4), 1520. https://ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_6_No_4_April_2016/3.pdf
Lim, F. P. (2017). An analysis of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in elearning. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 143, 230–234.
https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2017.143.46
McInerney, D. M. (2005). Educational psychology – Theory, research, and teaching: A 25‐year
retrospective. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 585-599.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500344670
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts
which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning (Ed448443).
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443
Shimizu, I., Kikukawa, M., Tada, T., Kimura, T., Duvivier, R., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2020).
Measuring social interdependence in collaborative learning: Instrument development andvalidation. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-02002088-3
Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2018). What interdependence can tell us about collaborative
learning: A statistical and psychological perspective. Research and Practice inTechnology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0084-x
Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication
pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ890724
Wrench, J. S., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2007). The relationship between computer-mediatedCommunication competence, apprehension, self-efficacy, perceived confidence, andsocial presence. Southern Communication Journal, 72(4), 355–378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940701667696
Corresponding author: Priyadharshini Ahrumugam
Email: priyaa@sunway.edu.my90

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

An Exploratory Investigation into Classroom Discourse in a Bruneian
University
Shana Mat Salleh
Universiti Teknologi Brunei, Brunei Darussalam
Nena Padilla-Valdez
Universiti Teknologi Brunei, Brunei Darussalam
Lee Kok Yueh
Universiti Teknologi Brunei, Brunei Darussalam

91

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Abstract
The paper inquired into the discourse practices in classroom teaching in a State university in
Brunei Darussalam. Respondents comprised four (4), local Bruneian lecturers, from two (2)academic streams: STEM-driven and entrepreneurship programmes. Subjected to data
saturation, teaching observations of each respondent were shadowed over several weeks. Data
were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using the Classroom Discourse Observation Protocol(CDOP) to determine the types and frequencies of teacher-student utterances. Findings showedthat the students were provided insufficient opportunities to interact meaningfully and that thelecturers who were leaning toward conventional teaching did minimal attempts to engage thestudents, failing to utilise appropriate prompts and basic questioning techniques believed tofacilitate critical thinking and deep learning. Classroom discourse was propelled by acorresponding approach in teaching; hence continuous readiness in classroom teaching needs
to be sustained, should students’ quality of learning be improved.
Keywords: Brunei, classroom communication, classroom discourse, teaching and learning

92

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

With globalisation and technological advancements, higher education institutions have seen an
increase in teaching approaches that prioritise student engagement and reciprocal interaction
with the lecturers. Cao and colleagues (2019) determined that teaching approaches can be
defined as the methods used in the delivery of the module content or how the lecturer fosters
their students’ conceptual development of the subject matter via their linguistic intention andstrategies within the class. An element of these approaches is the use of classroom discourse toengage students and strengthen learning. Classroom discourse refers to the specific language
used within the constructs of the classroom and can include delivery, feedback, instructional
language, or even basic conversational utterances (Tsui, 2008). It is recognised as being
instrumental in the construction of meaningful learning and so an awareness of a lecturer’s
discourse in the classroom can lead to not only an enhancement of students’ knowledge but
also their ability to comprehend and critically evaluate information (Howe & Abedin, 2013).
In higher education institutions, universities generally adhere to using mass teaching
methodologies such as lectures to deliver content to the students. A methodology wherelecturers tend to monologue extensively with very little active construction of the meaning of
the delivered content. An insight into the discourse used by the lecturers can aid in minimisingor addressing the routinely one-sided interaction as well as the notable disengagement ofstudents reported in higher education lectures (Trigwell & Prosser, 2020; Wang & Wang,2021). The creation of a more collaborative and interactive classroom by way of activities thatincorporates the subject matter can aid in knowledge retention long past the classroom (Shanet al., 2014). In addition, this inclusion of interactional communication in the classroom has
been shown to have a positive impact on student learning outcomes and by association, help
develop and nurture students’ soft skills such as critical thinking and learner autonomy(Hardman, 2016).
In Brunei, classroom communication is heavily influenced by the national philosophy Melayu
Islam Beraja (MIB) or Malay Islamic Monarchy which by large has formed the Bruneian
Malay identity (Hj Othman, 2012). The MIB philosophy is entrenched in all aspects of life inBrunei and the Malay culture is seen to impact behaviour, beliefs, and values which are
simultaneously aligned with Islamic religious beliefs resulting in a level of reverence andobedience afforded to lecturers and teachers alike (Othman, 2014) creating a significant
communicative and social gap. Cultural studies have placed Brunei in the same group as other
Malay dominant countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, portraying Malay culture as politeand self-effacing (Blunt, 1988; Mulder, 1996) as well as highly collectivist, hierarchical withhigh power distance as per Hofstede’s cultural dimension theories (Hofstede, 1980). Thus, due
to prior exposure and continuous immersion in rote-based or traditional teaching methods,
Bruneian students are accustomed to the view of lecturers as a figure of authority and so
conform to the behavioural construct of only speaking when spoken to (Salbrina & Deterding,2018).
Therefore, it stands to reason that in this case, the onus for a collaborative and interactiveclassroom will fall on the lecturer. This study will indicate the importance of a two-way
collaboration in higher education between both lecturers and students during the teaching andlearning process. Identifying the lecturers’ discourse moves made in the classroom can help
with the advancement of teaching skills.

93

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Objectives of the Study
This study seeks to investigate the following problems:
1. The emerging typologies of lecturer discourse practices in a higher education institutionin Brunei Darussalam;
2. Any differences in teaching approaches between lecturers from different programmes.
Literature Review
The use of lectures as a teaching approach in universities has persevered over the years andremained the main teaching method as it enables the mass delivery of knowledge over a shortperiod of time. Despite its popularity, academicians are well-aware of its shortcomings withregards to the lack of student engagement, its one-sided communication and of course its
inability to stimulate higher-order thinking (Charlton, 2006). To ensure the quality of teaching,a lecturer must be committed to developing a “constructional alignment of the course
instructional design”, to maintain an element of curiosity among the students thus peaking theirinterests long enough to be inquisitive and alter their learning style accordingly (Teaiwa, 2011).
It is therefore important for the lecturer to determine the kinds of teaching approaches suitable
which can mean the difference between a quiet and monologic class and a dynamic classroom
experience (Tienken et al., 2019).
A dynamic class can also be achieved by encouraging students’ participation in lectures byimplementing a few strategies such as providing ample thinking time, conducting discussions
in smaller groups, encouraging knowledge sharing and implementing activities related to thesubject matter (Abdul et al., 2020). This was supported by Balwant and Doon (2021) in theirresearch on teaching effectiveness, where it was determined that making modifications to theteaching approach and strategies by implementing summative and collaborative activities canlead to more understanding and increase communication among the students in their attempt
to explore their learning. Further to this, it is pertinent for lecturers to be aware of the
instructional strategies or teaching approaches used as it is shown to have strong links tostudents’ learning experiences which can lead to an increase in comprehension andunderstanding among the students (Lak et al., 2017).
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) theorised that in any classroom there is principally a three-partsequence that happens between any educator and student known as the IRF exchange structure.
This would consist of the I -initiation part, which would usually be in the form of a closed or arecall question, R- response from the student followed by the F- feedback statement or remark
from the educator in form of an acknowledgement of the response. Research has indicated thatin the third part of the sequence, Feedback can be used in a number of ways. More commonly,
it is used either as a closing statement in order to move on to the next planned lesson or activity
or as an opportunity for further learning thus extending the interaction. Classrooms which havefollowed this basic pattern of interaction have been noted to be limited in their ability toencourage participation (Mehan & Cazden, 2015). Essentially, lecturers would need to employ
a more comprehensive style of questioning.
The act of questioning by the lecturer can greatly increase the student’s learning as well as
open up new avenues of knowledge. There is also a number of research conducted on the typesof questions, their uses and expectations, as well as others on the analysis of feedback given,its purpose and effectiveness in responding to the question (Garcia-Carrion et al., 2020).

94

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Therefore, a lecturer must be aware of their communication and feedback so that they will beable to easily adjust their teaching and their content to address the gaps in students’ knowledge
and understanding. This however requires flexibility not just in the lesson plan but also in thelecturer’s delivery and explanation of the content (Howe et al., 2019). One way of achieving
this would be looking toward improving the lecturer’s communicative discourse in the overall
delivery of the content as well as interaction with the students.
Kranzfelder and colleagues (2020) developed the Classroom Discourse Observation Protocol(CDOP), a tool to evaluate classroom discourse, specifically focusing on those made by thelecturers – teacher discourse moves (TDM). This allowed the identification of different
discourse moves used by the different lecturers using similar teaching approaches. By
quantifying and analysing the TDMs uttered, the data can then be used to pinpoint areas of
weakness and strengths within the lecturers’ discourse and how they can impact students’learning experiences.
Methodology
The observations were conducted in February and March 2021, prior to the second wave of
COVID-19 infections in Brunei Darussalam. Thus, all observations were of physical face-toface classrooms. As the main point of the study is to look at the lecturer-student interaction as
well as any guided instructions by the lecturer, the utterances were recorded and transcribedverbatim.
Participants
Purposive convenience sampling (Creswell, 2014) was used, and the participants were local
lecturers from two different faculties in the university, the Engineering and School of Business.
Participation was voluntary and all participants consented to be observed and recorded during
their classes for the purpose of this study. All the lecturers have undertaken a nine-monthteaching training diploma at another local university. The full information on the lecturers canbe found in Table 1.
Table 1
Information on Lecturers
Engineering

School of
Business

Lecturer

AS

BD

CG

DZ

Number of years teaching in higher education

7

12

18

15

Received formal teaching training

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Level of students taught

2

2

4

3

Number of students

44

32

9

11

Number of times observed

4

3

4

4

95

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Instrument
The transcriptions were then analysed using the Classroom Discourse Observation Protocol(CDOP) as developed by Kranzfelder and colleagues (2019). The instrument was used to
identify the lecturers’ utterances and categorise them into specific lecturer-centred and studentcentred utterances to find out the most commonly used type of interaction. The CDOP coding
system differentiates between lecturer-centred utterances and student-centred utterances todetermine how each classroom is taught. The intention was to gain a reflection on the dynamics
of teaching and learning in the lectures within the four classrooms as well as gain an insight
into any differences that can be seen between the two faculties.
The CDOP features 15 codes, five of which are lecturer-centred: sharing, real-worlding,evaluating, linking, and forecasting. Whereas the remaining 10 codes were more studentcentred: generative, checking in, clarifying, connecting, contextualising, representing,
explaining, constructing, requesting, and challenging. With CDOP, the quantifying of theteacher’s discourse markers (TDM) was conducted every 2 mins within the length of the class.
For this research, the TDMs were transcribed verbatim and coded throughout to ensure allutterances were accounted for and categorised accordingly. This was done so to allow for thedata to give a true account of the communication happening in the lectures.
Results
The results show that the classes were predominantly using lecturer-centred discourse markers
with three of the lecturers’ classroom communication (BD, CG and DZ) recorded as containing
more than 50% of lecturer-centred TDMs. On the other hand, lecturer AS’s classroom
communication although containing mainly student-centred TDM also featured a highpercentage of lecturer-centred TDM (46.9%) albeit significantly lower than the other lecturers.
This can be seen in Figure 1 which illustrates the overall division of utterances between thelecturer-centred and student-centred utterances during the classes observed. Looking at the data
overall, there do not seem to be any significant differences or similarities between the lecturers’
classroom dialogue based on any of the variables mentioned in Table 1.

Percentage usage of TDM

Figure 1
Usage Comparison of Lecturer-Centred Versus Students-Centred TDMs
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

21
32.3

35.6

46.9

67.7

64.4

79

AS

BD

CG

DZ

53.1

Lecturers
Lecturer-centred

Student-centred96

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Table 2 shows the percentage value of each TDM used by the lecturers. The data shows that
not all the TDMs were used by the lecturers, in particular the student-centred TDMs. Most
notable are the TDMs representing, explaining, constructing, requesting, and challenging, allof which invite or encourage the students to present, participate, justify or evaluate theirreasonings or their classmates' reasonings. This significant absence of the student-centred
TDM revealed the extent to which the classroom communication was very lecturer-centred
across the two disciplines.

Student-centred

Lecturercentred

Table 2
Percentage of TDM Contained in the Lecturers’ Classroom Communication

Evaluating
Forecasting
Linking
Real - worlding
Sharing
Generative
Clarifying
Checking -inConnecting
Contextualising
Representing
Explaining
Constructing
Requesting
Challenging

Lecturer percentage of total utterances (%)
AS
BD
CG
DZ
1
1.8
7.7
2.4
0
4.4
0
2.3
0
3.2
0
7.4
0
2.2
16.3
14.3
45.9
56.1
40.4
52.6
40.6
26.2
15.9
20.2
1.1
0
2.9
0.8
10.4
4.9
2.9
0
1
1.2
1.4
0
0
1
12.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Lecturer-Centred TDM
Figure 2 shows the graphical representation of the lecturer-centred TDM in the lecturers’
classroom communication. The results revealed that the highest percentage of TDM containedin all four lecturers’ classroom communication was sharing, averaging 49%. This TDM is thelecturer sharing information related to the subject matter and providing a solution or answers
to any questions posed. The second TDM that featured in all the lecturers’ recorded
communication was evaluation albeit at different degrees with lecturer CG having the highest
usage at 7.7% in comparison to the others who used the marker on average two per cent over
the observation period. This code is categorised as a lecturer-centred TDM as it is in responseto students’ utterances as elicited by the lecturers. Real-worlding where the lecturer related
ideas to current knowledge or personal experiences were only seen in three of the lecturers(averaging 8.2%). Similarly, the other TDMs such as forecasting and linking were uttered byonly two of the lecturers, DZ (2.3% & 7.4%) and BD (4.4% & 3.2%).

97

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Figure 2
The Division of Lecturer-Centred TDMs Used by the Participants
100

Percentage use of TDM

90
80
70

56.1

60

40.4

30
20
10
0

52.6

45.9

50
40

16.3
1

0

0

7.7

1.8 4.4 3.2 2.2

0

AS

BD

0

0

2.4 2.3

CG

7.4

14.3

DZ

Lecturer
EVALUATINGFORECASTING

LINKING

REAL-WORLDINGSHARING

Table 3 shows excerpts of lecturers’ discourse to illustrate the CDOP codes as identified fromthe recorded classroom communication.
Table 3
Excerpts of the Different Lecturer-Centred TDMs Uttered by the Lecturers
Lecturercentred TDM
Sharing

Lecturer Utterances
AS

RealworldingCG

Evaluating

BD

Linking

DZ

Forecasting

DZ

So instead of using X and Y to define the position of a particle,
we can use the. The polar coordinate system, which is basicallyinstead of having X&Y we are going to define it using the radiusof a curvature radius of a circle.
Ok, so you remember Sony Ericsson, before it was just Sony andit was just Ericsson. Then they combined they were one of the top(sic) after Samsung.
L: So, which side is strongest?
S: Side B?
L: Yes exactly!
Ok, this brings me back to what we learnt in our micro-econ
section to do with special and different services…copy tax,
payroll tax…remember? This is a continuation
So, now we focus more on the local level of business and in a few
weeks we will move on to more on a federal level and the country
level and we can look at the differences, and you can determine.

Student-Centred Utterances
Student-centred TDMs comprise 10 codes which reflect utterances by the students in response
to initiation from a lecturer. However as mentioned, only a small number of these TDM codes
were used collectively by the lecturers during the observations (generative, clarifying,98

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

checking-in, connecting, and contextualising). Figure 3 shows the graphical representation of
the TDMs in the lecturers’ classroom communication. As can be seen in Figure 3, the mostused TDM code is generative, (averaging 26%) where the students recall basic facts, concepts,
or related information as asked by the lecturer (Kranzfelder et al., 2019).
Figure 3
The Division of Student-Centred TDMs Used by the Participants

Percentage use of TDM

Student-centred TDM used
50
40

40.6
26.2

30
20

10.4

10

1.1

0

1

0

0

AS
GENERATIVE

20.2

15.9
4.9

2.9 2.9 1.4

1.2 0

BD
CLARIFYING

12.5
0.8 0

CG

CHECKING - IN

CONNECTING

0

0

DZ
CONTEXTUALISING

It should also be noted that within the student-centred TDM codes the generative code is infact the most featured TDM for all the lecturers but second (AS: 40.6%, BD: 26.2%, and DZ:
20.2%) third overall (CG: 15.9%) during their classes. With regards to the other TDM codes,
however, not all five were present in the lecturers’ utterances. Lecturer CG and BD were
missing the TDM codes contextualising and clarifying respectively from their classroom
communication, whereas lecturer DZ did not have TDM codes checking in and connecting intheir classroom communication. The lack of student-centred TDM codes in theircommunication supports the notion that the classes are very much lecturer-centred.
Table 4
Excerpts of the Different Student-Centred TDMs Uttered by the Lecturers
Student-centred TDM Lecturer Utterances
GenerativeAS

Ok, this is your UΘ. So, what would we do next?

Clarifying

DZ

S: Tax
L: Ok, but you need to be specific, what kind of tax?

Checking inBDSo far are we good?

ConnectingCG

Remember Sony? Ok so, what about that is applicable
here?

ContextualisingCG

Ok, lets focus on Brunei first and look at franchises, howmany do we have in Brunei?

99

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Discussion
Lecturer-Centred
Given that the classes observed were lectures, it would come as no surprise as sharing
information or “story-telling” is seen to be the most successful method of teaching large groups
large amounts of information (Schmidt et al., 2015). This was supported by Kranzfelder andcolleagues (2020), who in their research on STEM lecturers’ classroom discourse found code
sharing to have been more frequently used at an average of 75%. However, Rakhimov andcolleagues (2020) stated that lectures should be modernised to include discussions and generalinteractive communication among all parties involved.
Indeed, the mass sharing of information as a method of teaching in has long been considered asafe and more reliable way of disseminating knowledge consistently, especially to larger
classes. In this study though, only the engineering classes had a large number of students (N=44
and 32), whereas the classes in the School of Business had a comparatively smaller number ofstudents (N=9 and 11). This negates research conducted by Trigwell and Prosser (2014) whichconcluded that the size of a class should not determine the teaching approach, nor should it
affect the ability of the lecturer to offer more of a varied and interactive approach (Trigwell &Prosser, 2014). Implementing such an approach can result in a more dynamic lesson, leading
to an increase in knowledge retention and academic achievement.
In addition to this, the presence of the TDM evaluation in all the lecturers’ vernacular is anindication of the lecturers’ attempts to create a dialogue in the class. So, it does seem to be
indicative of interaction between the lecturer and the students, however, the lower values
illustrate the lack of feedback or responses the students are giving the lecturers in return. An
example of this can be seen in the exchange in table 3 which showcases one of the instances of
the TDM evaluating being used where lecturer BD initiated the class with a question(generative), the students responded accordingly, and their response was then accepted by thelecturer (evaluate). As seen from the exchange, although there is initiation made by the lecturer,
the type of question asked does not encourage a comprehensive reply. Similarly, with theengineering lecturers, the questions asked were of basic types that do not require much analysis
or critical thinking.
This clearly shows the importance of lecturer-centred training in areas of classroom
communication and the development of skills related to the promotion of exploratory talk or
dialogic strategies which would then pave the way for university lecturers to be more than justmethods of disseminating large volumes of theory or information (Garcia-Carrion et al., 2020).
This corresponds with Hardman (2016) who determined that instructional classroom
interactions coupled with ineffective questioning techniques can reduce the need for any direct
engagement between the lecture and the students. Further noting that educators need to movebeyond known-information questions or recitation questions and use more information-seeking
questions or referential questions which can elicit “genuine communication” which in turn canlead to the core goal of the class – learning.
When the two disciplines are further compared, it can be seen that the business lecturers’
classroom communication contained a higher percentage of the TDM real-worlding (14.3%
and 16.3%) unlike the engineering lecturers where only one lecturer’s communication
contained real-worlding and a much smaller percentage (2.2%). In the case of lecturer CG,
real-worlding code is the second most frequently used code during the classes. Real-worlding100

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

requires the lecturer to refer to shared public knowledge along with the lecturers’ and thestudents’ personal experiences (Kranzfelder et al., 2019), likely as a way to create linkages
between students’ current knowledge and the taught material. Schmidt et al., (2015) believedthat using pre-conceived ideas or current known ideas and linking them to the subject matter
stimulate the knowledge formation of the brain. This was supported by Pimentel and McNeill(2013) who discovered that the use of correct elicitation methods and allowing the students to
respond accordingly can be one of the ways to break the monotony of lecturer-centred
discourse.
The very minimal use of the TDM real-worlding in engineering classes can be explained dueto the nature of the subject. The engineering modules observed were mathematics and physics
related and in addition to this, the students were in level two of their studies. This meant thelecturers would have some difficulty in providing a reference to the module as it was a highly
theoretical module featuring calculations and measurements. Whereas the business modules
were more relatable to real-life situations as it incorporates real business corporations andsituational events within the module. This can nonetheless be modified by the lecturer having
a pre-conceived strategic plan to incorporate activities that encourages classroom participation
through collaborative or interactive means (Balwant & Doon, 2021).
Student-Centred
The generative code refers to the lecturers’ elicitation of the students on basic facts, concepts,
or related information (Kranzfelder et al., 2019) and serves to kickstart the discussion in theclassroom. However, given that the percentage use of the TDM code does reveal that thelecturers’ attempts were not fully utilised. This can be further illustrated in Table 5 whichshows the full extended generative utterance by lecturer AS initially detailed in Table 4. In
Table 5, lecturer AS repeatedly questioned the class since there was no discernible responseeach time.
Table 5Extended Extract of Utterance by Lecturer AS
Line Lecturer Utterance
85
AS
Ok, this is your UΘ. So, what would we do next?
86AS
We have to prove the unit vector, right? (2s)87
AS
Ok let’s group them together here, so we have the r value here.
88
AS
What about this here? (2s)Ok, this is your UΘ. So, if we add the two values what will we get? It’s
89
ASgoing to be your acceleration. am I right? (3s)Alright, so we now have your acceleration, So, we add this value here and90
ASwhat do you notice? (1s)91AS
not your acceleration, but your? (2s) radial acceleration.
This passivity from the students is theorised to be a learned response cultivated by repeatedexperience of having their responses or feedback dismissed in lecturer-centred classrooms (Laket al., 2017). This is generally a long-term effect and something students have adopted over a
period of years based on their own classroom experience growing up. Abdul and colleagues(2020) confirmed that students will tend to simulate their lecturers’ teaching approaches andclassroom behaviour. Therefore, passive students exist because the lecturer allows them to exist
without any attempt at breaking the educational mould that the students are used to.

101

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

On the surface, the data indicated that there is a degree of elicitation from the lecturer, denotingthat classroom participation is present although to a very small degree. From the results, theTDM checking-in is seen to be used more by the engineering lecturers than the businesslecturers. The TDM code checking-in was also used by all lecturers involved though at
different frequencies, with it being the second most used TDM by lecturer AS at 25.9%
compared to the others who all checked in at less than 5% of their overall observed lessons.
This exchange between the lecturer and students is characterized by Sinclair and Coulthard(1975) as IRF (Initiation-Response-feedback) and is commonly recognised as a lecturercentred approach, but as argued by others, the “feedback” part of the interaction can be used
as a pedagogical tool to promote discussion and expand the dialogue between the lecturer andstudents. In this study, the TDM checking-in is designated a student-centred TDM as it isutterances where the lecturer asks the students if they have any questions or requireclarification, (Kranzfelder et al., 2019), in these classrooms the opportunity is not always seizedby the students who instead remain silent or nods in response to signal agreement or
understanding. Using strategic evaluative feedback or effective follow-up questioning
techniques that encourage an elaborative response can increase not only the opportunities fordiscussion but also open up new opportunities for learning (Garcia-Carrion et al., 2020; Howeet al., 2019). The results do certainly pinpoint the notion that the lecturers observed are notfully applying ideal techniques relating to these teaching approaches and so having moreawareness of this can help towards achieving meaningful participation in the classrooms.
Recommendations
The research has highlighted a number of items where further exploration would be beneficial.
This paper lacks a comprehensive investigation into the lecturers’ full communication with thestudents. In particular, there was no observational insight into the communicative patterns of
the lecturers during the class, specifically regarding their opening remarks, delivery andconclusive statements in the class. Insight into the lecturers’ full communication patterns canhelp determine the weaknesses in the communicative teaching approach. Willemsen et al.,(2018) theorised that applying a more open and welcoming discourse from the start of the classand continuing by maintaining such strategies throughout the class to encourage participation.
Therefore, future research may want to include these elements in the analysis and look for any
commonalities in the lecturers’ speech patterns when teaching and how it encourages feedback
from the students.
Another area for exploration can be the addition of analysis into the non-verbal communication
utilised by the lecturers. Non-verbal communication and behaviour can play an important rolein the overall teaching and instructional communicative process. Sztejnberg and Jasiński
(2019) found that the use of eye contact and facial expression was deemed significant by
students in reinforcing any classroom communication. Thus, adding this particular aspect may
provide more depth into the reasons behind the lecturers’ utterances and their relationship tolearning.
Conclusion
This paper seeks to investigate the types of discourse used by lecturers along with any
differences that may be observed between those teaching different programmes in theuniversity. From the study, it was clear that all the lecturers were observed to use very teachercentric approaches unlike those envisioned by the university. While there were certainly
attempts by the lecturers to use student-centred TDMs, the ensuing responses from the students

102

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

were minimal and passive. It became apparent here that the lecturers were not using effective
questioning techniques which would have allowed for the IRF-like exchange structure to
evolve into more of a dialogical discussion. This further suggests that lecturers need to be awareof how language use can affect classroom dynamics. Thus, the continued use of CDOP as atool to explore and investigate TDMs across the university can be beneficial for thedevelopment of a framework to improve classroom communication and encourage a more
dynamic and dialogical-based teaching and learning environment.

103

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

References
Abdul, N. B., Mahmud, M., Wello, B., & Dollah, S. (2020) Instructional communication:
Form and factors affecting students participation at higher education class. Asian EFL
Journal, 27(3.1).
Blunt, P. (1988). Cultural consequences for organization change in a Southeast Asian state:
Brunei. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2(3), 235–240.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1988.4277262
Cao, Y., Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Toom, A. (2019). Teacher educators’
approaches to teaching and connections with their perceptions of the closeness of
their research and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 125–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.013
Charlton, B. G. (2006). Lectures are an effective teaching method because they exploit
human evolved “human nature” to improve–Editorial. Medical Hypotheses, 67, 1261–
1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2006.08.001
Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approach. London: Sage.
García-Carrión, R., López de Aguileta, G., Padrós, M., & Ramis-Salas, M. (2020).
Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00140
Haji-Othman, N. A. (2012). 10 It’s not always English: ‘Duelling Aunties’ in Brunei
Darussalam. English language as hydra: Its impacts on non-English language
cultures, 9, 175. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697516-016
Hardman, J. (2016). Opening-up classroom discourse to promote and enhance active,
collaborative and cognitively-engaging student learning experiences. Innovative
Language Teaching and Learning at University: Enhancing Participation and
Collaboration, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.000400
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. CA: Sage.
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four
decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
Howe C., Hennessy S., Mercer N., Vrikki M., Wheatley L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogueduring classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 28(4-5), 462–512.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Kranzfelder, P., Bankers-Fulbright, J. L., García-Ojeda, M. E., Melloy, M., Mohammed, S.,& Warfa, A. R. M. (2019). The Classroom Discourse Observation Protocol (CDOP):
A quantitative method for characterizing teacher discourse moves in undergraduate
STEM learning environments. PLoS ONE, 14(7), e0219019.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219019

104

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Kranzfelder, P., Bankers-Fulbright, J. L., García-Ojeda, M. E., Melloy, M., Mohammed, S.,& Warfa, A. R. M. (2020). Undergraduate biology instructors still use mostly teachercentered discourse even when teaching with active learning strategies. BioScience,70(10), 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa077
Lak, M., Soleimani, H., & Parvaneh, F. (2017). The effect of teacher-centeredness method vs.
learner-centeredness method on reading comprehension among Iranian EFL
learners. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1.
Mehan, H., & Cazden, C. (2015). The study of classroom discourse: Early history and current
developments. Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue, 13–36.
https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_2
Mulder, N. (1996). The common cultural construction of social life in inner, littoral southeast
Asia. South East Asia Research, 4(1), 41–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0967828X9600400104
Noben, I., Deinum, J. F., & Hofman, W. A. (2022). Quality of teaching in higher education:
reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations. International Journalfor Academic Development, 27(1), 31–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1830776
Othman, N. (2014). Employee performance appraisal satisfaction: the case evidence from
Brunei's Civil Service (Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester).
Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms:
Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3),367–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061
Rakhimov, O. D., Manzarov, Y. K., & Keldiyarova, M. (2020). Modern lectures and methodsof organizing problematic lectures. Проблемы науки, 2, 46–49.
Schmidt, H. G., Wagener, S. L., Smeets, G. A., Keemink, L. M., & van der Molen, H. T.
(2015). On the use and misuse of lectures in higher education. Health Professions
Education, 1(1), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.010
Shan, S., Li, C., Shi, J., Wang, L., & Cai, H. (2014). Impact of effective communication,achievement sharing and positive classroom environments on learning performance.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(3), 471–482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2285
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used byteachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Sztejnberg, A., & Jasiński, T. L. (2019). Evaluation of Relative Importance of the Nonverbal
Communication Types by Students in Higher Education. International Journal ofLatest Research in Humanities and Social Science, 2(1), 61–67.
Teaiwa, T. (2011). Preparation for deep learning: A reflection on ‘teaching’ Pacific Studies in
the Pacific. The Journal of Pacific History, 46(2), 214–220.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223344.2011.607269
Tienken, C. H., Goldberg, S., & Dirocco, D. (2009). Questioning the questions. Kappa Delta
Pi Record, 46(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2009.10516690
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches
to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education 37, 57–70.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003548313194

105

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring university teaching and learning, experienceand context. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50830-2.
Tsui A. B. M. (2008) Classroom Discourse: Approaches and Perspectives. In: Hornberger N.
H. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Boston, MA: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_154
Wang, X., & Wang, J. (2021). Implementing an interactive approach in translator
education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1879871
Willemsen, A., Gosen, M. N., Van Braak, M., Koole, T., & De Glopper, K. (2018). Teachers’
open invitations in whole-class discussions. Linguistics and Education, 45, 40–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.03.001
Corresponding author: Shana Mat Salleh
Email: shana.salleh@utb.edu.bn

106

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

WhatsApp Remote Reading Recovery: Using Mobile Technology to Promote Literacy
during COVID-19
Mariana León
Quality Leadership University, Panama
Nanette Archer Svenson
Centro de Investigación Educativa de Panamá, Panama
Debbie Psychoyos
Fundación ProEd, Panama
Nyasha Warren
Centro de Investigación Educativa de Panamá, Panama
Guillermina De Gracia
Quality Leadership University, Panama
Andrea Palacios
Centro de Investigación Educativa de Panamá, Panama

107

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Abstract
School closures because of the COVID-19 pandemic affected over a billion young people
worldwide and presented a threat to long-term learning, particularly for public school
students in low socioeconomic situations. This article offers quasi-experimental evidence ona low-cost strategy for distance learning applied in the Republic of Panama to minimize thenegative consequences of the pandemic on public elementary school children’s readinglevels. We conducted a 12-week intervention that utilized mobile phone technology anddissemination of reading material through WhatsApp, a cross-platform messaging freeware
service, to maintain and improve children’s reading levels during the pandemic school
shutdown. The objective was to determine the feasibility of using WhatsApp as a digital tool
to facilitate education and inform evolving practice and policy responses. Results among 292
students between the second and sixth grades indicated overall mean gains of up to 10.3% in
the number of words read per minute, with statistically significant improvements overall andhigher gains among the second and third grades. In addition, the adoption rate was high, witha reported average of 84% completion of the daily readings. The results of this low-techintervention have immediate and longer-term implications for using mobile technology as asupplemental or complementary learning tool, especially for developing regions and during
school closures or school vacations.
Keywords: EdTech, evaluation research, literacy

108

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic closed schools and negatively affected learning for 1.6 billion
young people, over 90 percent of the worldwide student population, threatening long-term
education outcomes for a generation of learners (United Nations, 2020). School closure isassociated with widespread learning loss (Andrabi, Daniels & Das, 2020; Angrist et al., 2020;
Jaume & Willén, 2019; Slade et al., 2017). Moreover, this interruption at critical schoolingstages, such as when children learn to read, can negatively affect outcomes and contribute tohigher dropout rates and reduced productivity. Translated into economic terms, the WorldBank projects that the educational interruption caused by COVID-19 could represent a global
financial cost of up to $10 trillion (Azevedo et al., 2020).
The effects of school closures can be particularly devastating for students from lowsocioeconomic situations without access to resources that facilitate learning from home.
Many governments and schools around the world have turned toward technology as the most
expedient means to providing distance learning, yet those without adequate access to
information and communications technology (ICT) are at a distinct disadvantage (Angrist etal., 2020; Azevedo et al., 2020, Save Our Future, 2020). Adequate access is of criticalconcern in developing regions where much of the population often lacks ICT infrastructure
and where COVID-19 has exacerbated existing educational inequalities (Azevedo et al.,2020; Save Our Future, 2020; United Nations, 2020).
COVID-19 has made more visible not only the digital divide within and between countries
but also how these technological differences disproportionately impact developing countries
and poor communities. Given this scenario, the most effective national responses to the
COVID-19 education crisis must include a range of high- and low-tech measures to propel
instruction delivery and reach as many families as possible. Successful distance learning
strategies rely on multiple delivery approaches and will vary according to the conditions
associated with each context (Save Our Future, 2020; Angrist et al., 2020).
This article presents evidence of a low-tech strategy applied in the Republic of Panama
designed and implemented to minimize the negative consequences of the pandemic on public
primary school children’s reading levels. Thus, we examined the results from a 12-week
distance learning intervention that utilized mobile phone technology to promote themaintenance and improvement of children’s reading levels during the pandemic school
shutdown.
Literature Review
Literacy in Panama
Panama’s national standardized test, the Crecer evaluation, which annually measureslearning outcomes in third graders through five performance levels, shows that roughly halfof public school third graders test at low or very low literacy levels (MEDUCA, 2018). These
data also reveal considerable achievement gaps. Third graders in private schools obtainsignificantly higher scores than their public counterparts. Similar results in regional
UNESCO-led evaluations highlight outcomes below the averages for much of Latin America
and the Caribbean (UNESCO, 2016). These pre-pandemic statistics highlight inequities
between Panama’s public and private school systems and reflect relative underperformance inthe public schools. With prolonged absence from school, the risk is that students’ attainment
levels will further diminish across a range of academic outcomes (Carroll, 2010; Gottfried,2014).

109

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

The combination of pervasive underperformance and school closures because of thepandemic became a concern for elementary school literacy. Moreover, since learning in othersubjects at all levels is linked to early reading comprehension, setbacks at this stage will
likely affect future learning negatively in multiple ways (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997;
National Institute for Literacy, 2008). Thus, for Panamanian public school students, the
COVID-19 crisis threatens an entire cohort’s learning possibilities.
COVID-19 and Education: Worldwide and in Panama
The coronavirus pandemic disrupted education systems in almost every country, forcing most
schools to close for extended periods and jeopardizing education outcomes for over a billion
learners of all ages and over 100 million students in Latin America and the Caribbean alone(UNESCO, 2020). This situation has intensified the global education crisis, pushing an
already precarious situation to the brink of catastrophe. Even before COVID-19, internationalorganizations had documented the extent of global educational inequities and how
disproportionate opportunities for quality learning keep large blocks of young people fromreaching their potential and participating productively in the global economy (Education
Commission, 2016; Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2018; Save Our Future, 2020; UNESCO,2016). For example, half of the children in low- and middle-income countries are not learning
to read correctly by age 10 (Save Our Future, 2020). Furthermore, less than 25 percent ofchildren in low-income countries and only 50 percent in lower and middle-income countries
complete secondary education (Education Commission, 2016). Nearly 90 percent of theworld’s school-aged children live in low- and middle-income countries; thus, this inequity
lays the foundation for a skills gap that will negatively affect economic growth and have farreaching social repercussions (Education Commission, 2016).
The COVID-19 crisis worsened these pre-existing disparities. The learning losses may extend
beyond this generation, reversing decades of educational progress. The UN estimates thatnearly 24 million additional children and youth may drop out or be unable to access school
because of the pandemic’s economic impact alone (United Nations, 2020).
The Republic of Panama, a small country in Central America with a population of
approximately four million, has just over 400,000 registered primary school students, 87% in
its public system (INEC, 2017). The pandemic forced a strict national quarantine and school
closure beginning in March 2020. The Panamanian school year runs from March to
December, which resulted in most students attending school in 2020 for only a few days
when the new school year began before the COVID-19 shutdown.
The government announced an official return to class starting July 20, 2020, but all activity
shifted to distance learning, which continued through 2021. Panamanian schools encounterednumerous obstacles in their struggle to return to classroom learning and led global lists ofnations with the most consecutive days out of school (De Hoyos & Saavedra, 2021; Svenson,2021). Before the outbreak of COVID-19, Panama did not have broad-based remote learning
platforms or academic content prepared for home delivery via the Internet, TV, or radio.
Since the second half of 2020, Panama’s Ministry of Education, or MEDUCA for its
acronym in Spanish, implemented radio, TV, and internet-based programming, as well as
conducted numerous training to bring its teachers up to date with educational technology(EdTech) (MEDUCA, 2020).

110

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Nevertheless, the fact that many public system students and teachers in Panama (and the restof Latin America) did not have adequate access to or experience with using advanced ICT(Saez, 2020) complicated distance learning. Additionally, many families had little access to
supplemental learning materials or programs in their homes, compounding pandemic
education difficulties. Given the circumstances of prolonged school absence and limited
learning opportunities, these students risk considerable academic setbacks (MEDUCA,
2020), especially regarding reading skills, as these skills form the base for subsequent
learning (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; National Institute for Literacy, 2008).
Distance Education, Technology, and Equity Implications
Digital technology offers many possibilities for education (Yang, Kuo, Ji, & McTigue, 2018),
and Panama’s MEDUCA worked to build more technology-assisted learning into its systembecause of the pandemic (MEDUCA, 2020). However, a family’s ability to utilize thisdepends on its access to connectivity. Many do not have access to a fixed Internet connection,
computer, or even electricity. Only an estimated 40% of public-school students have accessto the Internet at home, and less than 30% have a computer (INEC, 2017).
Although Internet access is limited in many parts of the country, mobile connections are more
extensive. 100% of Panamanians report cellular phone ownership (indicating that some havemore than one), and 62% report some Internet use (Kemp, 2020). This coverage varies
considerably by region; the indigenous territories and other areas far removed from urban
centers are among the most disadvantaged concerning cellular accessibility (De Leon, 2020;
INEC, 2017). Nevertheless, most Panamanian families in the public school system have atleast one mobile phone and some type of access to the Internet, even if it is intermittent.
In early 2020, there were 2.4 million social media users in Panama, an increase of 9.0% over2019 (Kemp, 2020). Most Panamanian social media users also have access to WhatsApp, afree instant message application that operates across multiple platforms to transfer text andmultimedia material (Dichter y Neira, 2015). The accessibility of this ubiquitous, potentially
inexpensive, user-friendly platform has made WhatsApp a convenient for learning andmessaging. Research is beginning to signal its success as an educational tool.
An exploratory qualitative study conducted in Israel with high school teachers found
WhatsApp class groups helpful in communicating with students, creating a sense of
belonging, promoting dialogue, and using and sharing a learning platform (Bouhnik &Deshen, 2014). It is helpful for studies to explore student perceptions regarding the use of
WhatsApp, as successful adoption for educational interventions would depend mainly on
students’ willingness to use and enjoyment of using such a platform. In India, a controlled
trial used WhatsApp to improve children’s English reading and comprehension skills in
grades 4 through 7 across 50 rural government schools in the Bundi district (Voluntary
Services Overseas (VSO)/Pratham Foundation, 2015). Pratham Foundation’s (2015) study
serves as a precursor to show that WhatsApp works as a learning tool for small children. Also
in India, a comparative study showed that fourth-semester medical school students who
studied pathology via WhatsApp, as opposed to didactic lectures, achieved higher averagescores on post-test assessments (Gon & Rawekar, 2017).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, WhatsApp demonstrated potential as a supplementary
instructional vehicle for students at all levels. In addition, it garnered the interest of educators

111

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

in developing countries because it offers a relatively low-tech, low-cost means for delivering
digital learning to a large portion of the school-age population.
WhatsApp as an Educational Tool
Research documents the positive effects of reading interventions over vacation periods whenchildren, especially low-income students, are out of school for consecutive months with few
opportunities to reinforce reading skills (Allington et al., 2010; Beach et al., 2018). In
addition, research has also shown how mobile technology is a feasible alternative fordelivering reading material to children, particularly those living in rural areas or lacking
educational and technological resources (Sung et al., 2015; Kim, Miranda, & Olaciregui,2008). Combining these two proven concepts to promote continued reading among primaryschool students during out-of-school periods through widely available mobile technology
became a significant challenge during COVID-19. This challenge prompted the design ofmobile literacy programming utilizing cell phones and the WhatsApp messaging platform toaddress the reading dilemma during the pandemic school closure.
WhatsApp is a familiar vehicle used by most households and Panamanian teachers tocommunicate with parents. A routine learning opportunity occurred within an already known
and comfortable digital system by adding a reading delivery element to this communication.
This ease-of-use aspect would increase the likelihood of adoption and application of thelearning opportunity as it did not require learners or facilitators to confront the navigation ofcomplexities associated with new platforms or applications (Plutino, Borthwick, & Corradini2019). This study sought to determine the feasibility of using WhatsApp as a digital tool tofacilitate education through an educational intervention of daily delivery of readings by
WhatsApp to students in elementary school. The goal was for students to maintain (orexpand) their reading skills during school closure.
Using input from other programs that demonstrated positive results (Bouhnik & Deshen,
2014; Gon & Rawekar, 2017; Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO)/Pratham Foundation,2015), this intervention targeted elementary school students in the public system (grades 2-6)
who were able to read and had access, through their families, to a mobile phone and a
WhatsApp account. The hypothesis was that by establishing a daily reading habit, thesestudents could sustain (or possibly expand) existing abilities and avoid reading setbacks due
to prolonged classroom absence. The project delivered grade-appropriate digital stories
through parent-teacher WhatsApp groups to 292 students to stimulate daily reading during
the COVID-19 quarantine. Intervention pre- and post-tests measured students’ reading levels
and evaluated rate, fluency, and comprehension. These tests were also conducted remotely
via WhatsApp.
The main research question guiding the study was: can WhatsApp be utilized effectively as
an EdTech tool to maintain or increase reading levels in elementary school children? The
specific questions were:
1. Did a reading intervention through WhatsApp significantly improve words read per
minute (WRPM)?
2. Did a reading intervention through WhatsApp lead to a more substantial improvement
in lower elementary grades (2-3) than in students in higher elementary grades (4-6)?
3. Were levels of take-up achieved through a reading intervention delivered throughWhatsApp?

112

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

MethodDesignThe study was quasi-experimental, with a single sample of participants who received theWhatsApp Remote Reading Recovery intervention, evaluated through a pre-test before theintervention began, a post-test one at week seven, and a post-test two at week 12. During thefirst seven weeks of the intervention, which took place between May and June of 2020, thepublic school system was not offering courses in any format, meaning most students in the
country were not receiving formal educational instruction. During weeks 8 to 12 of theintervention, the public school system started offering online courses. The study measures
were speed, through the count of words read per minute (WRPM). Another measure for thisstudy was the level of adoption, or take-up, self-reported by parents to teachers to confirm
that the child had completed the daily reading. Teachers used spreadsheets (manual or digital)
to keep track of adoption levels.
Teachers were responsible for sending out the PDF files via WhatsApp with the daily
readings to the parent or caretaker of each student participating in the project. Furthermore,teachers collected data by recording WhatsApp video calls and using pre-existing benchmark
readings with word count rubrics to measure WRPM. Once the data were collected,
tabulated, cleaned, and checked, researchers conducted the statistical analyses.
EthicsThis study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee at Quality Leadership
University. In addition, all participants’ guardians provided digital written informed consent
through WhatsApp.
Participants
Study participants were elementary school students in the public school system from second
to sixth grade. Teachers contacted the students’ parents via WhatsApp, invited them and theirchildren to participate in the study, and obtained parental consent.
The sample of 292 (grades 2-6) was composed of 47% male (n=138) and 53% female
students (n=154). Distribution among the grades and geographic regions studied is depicted
in tables 1 and 2, respectively. The distribution of participants by educational region showsthat most participants were within the metropolitan area of Panama (Panama Center, West,
North, and San Miguelito) and accounted for 76% of study participants. Despite recruitment
efforts, teachers and students from indigenous communities did not participate in theintervention. Nine out of sixteen educational regions in Panama participated in this study.

113

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Table 1
Distribution of Participants by Grade
Grade

%

n

Second

30

88

Third

13

37

Fourth

22

63

Fifth

19

56

Sixth

16

48

Table 2Distribution of Participants by Educational Region
Region%n

Bocas del Toro

1.5

4

Chiriqui

2

5

Cocle

12

35

Colon

1.5

4

Panama Center

22

64

Panama Norte

618

Panama West

27

79

San Miguelito

21

61Veraguas

7

21

Procedure
In April 2020, Panama’s Centro de Investigación Educativa (Center for Education Research,
CIEDU), ProEd Foundation, and Quality Leadership University (QLU) came together todesign and implement the WhatsApp Remote Reading Recovery project. MEDUCA and acorps of 60 volunteer public school teachers supported this initiative, maintaining contact
with students and their families throughout the onset of the pandemic and the closure ofschools. The project was also the focus of an official MEDUCA COVID-19 teacher-training
program. The teacher training, project fieldwork, and evaluation research were implemented
from April to August 2020 to produce results to inform MEDUCA decision-making related tosupplemental digital literacy support and contingency planning for potential future education
disruptions.

114

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

The first phase of this project involved recruiting, training, and coaching MEDUCA primaryschool teachers to implement the intervention. Teachers had the opportunity to take acertificate course in action research within MEDUCA’s teacher training program, which
included an applied component that required teachers to be field implementers of the project.
The teacher-training portion lasted approximately 80 hours, including synchronous
instruction, discussions, small group coaching, and follow-up sessions. As an incentive tofollow through with the requirements of this project, teachers received a certificate ofparticipation and points toward the Panamanian point-based promotion system for publicschool teachers. Teachers participated from regions around the country in the teacher
development program and used WhatsApp to send their students daily readings over 12
weeks for a total of 60 readings.
Teachers committed to sending each student one reading per weekday during theintervention. Teacher training included courses on literacy assessment, daily reading
distribution and pre/post-test materials, WhatsApp broadcast group setup, communications
design for parents, and data registration. All volunteer teachers also participated in monthly
workshops and weekly coaching sessions to maintain implementation fidelity. Teachersmonitored daily take-up of the intervention by logging delivery, receipt, and completion of
the readings. Researchers used these data to measure take-up levels of the readings as apercentage of the total content delivered throughout the intervention. Teachers also videorecorded students’ pre- and post-test words read per minute through WhatsApp. Six
researchers coached the teachers and took notes during each follow-up session to provide
qualitative data to complement the analysis. The discussion of results contains observations
that occurred during these sessions.
The second phase of this project involved taking the data from the video recordings of all
students’ pre- and post-test readings and quantifying it to assess WRPM. We stored all video
data in a cloud drive. Five additional teachers who had received previous literacy training
through the ProEd Foundation but did not take part directly in the first phase of the project
implementation received training as evaluators to process the data recorded.
Data Analysis Techniques
We used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the data. An inspectionof boxplots revealed five outliers in the data; however, outliers were kept as part of thesample. Words read per minute for each time point was normally distributed, as assessed by
the Shapiro-Wilks test (p>0.05). Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the assumption of
sphericity had not been violated, χ2(2)=0.898, p=0.638. We conducted a one-way repeatedmeasures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether there were statisticallysignificant differences in WPRM throughout the 12-week reading intervention. Afterward,
we conducted a Bonferroni post hoc test to determine whether there were statisticallysignificant differences in WRPM between the different time points.
Results
This section presents the results of the implemented intervention designed and implemented,
which aimed to minimize the pandemic’s negative consequences on public primary school
children’s reading levels.

115

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Overall, with the five grades combined, the results indicated a statistically significant gain in
WRPM over time F(2,582)=52.16, p<0.001, partial η2=0.15, with WRPM increasing fromweek 0 (M=81.51, SD=1.84) to week 7 (M=95.18, SD=1.91), and then slightly decreasing inweek 12 (M=89.89, SD=1.88). The mean WRPM was 81.5, with a reported increase at theend of the 12 weeks to 89.9, representing a 10.3% increase. However, the mean WRPM atweek 7 was 95.2, representing a 16.8% increase at the midpoint of the intervention. Post-hoc
tests revealed a statistically significant increase in WRPM from week 0 to week 7 (M=13.67
WRPM, 95% CI [10.34, 17.0], p<0.0005), and from week 0 to week 12 (M=8.38 WRPM,
95% CI [5.21, 11.55], p<0.0005), despite a statistically significant decrease in WRPM that
occurred from week 7 to week 12 (M=-5.29 WRPM, 95% CI [-2.03, -8.54], p<0.0005). Theintervention elicited significant gains, including an effect size of partial η2=0.15, whichindicated a large effect according to SPSS rules of thumb (SPSS, 2022).
The lower elementary grade group comprised 125 second and third-grade participants. Upona closer look at this group, WPRM was statistically significantly different at the different
time points during the intervention for the lower elementary grade group, F(1.864,
231.084)=75.099, p<0.001, partial η2=0.377. The effect size for the lower elementary groupis larger than that for the overall group. In addition, post hoc tests revealed a statisticallysignificant increase in WRPM from week 0 to week 7 (M=20.944 WRPM, 95% CI [16.218,
25.670], p<0.001), and from week 0 to week 12 (M=15.496 WRPM, 95% CI [11.089,
19.903], p<0.001), despite a statistically significant decrease in WRPM that occurred fromweek 7 to week 12 (M=-5.448 WRPM, 95% CI [-9.163, -1.733], p=0.002). This group started
with significant gains, which decreased in the second half of the intervention, but resulted ina significant general increase.
The upper elementary grade group was comprised of 167 fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade
participants. For this group, WPRM was statistically significantly different at the different
time points during the intervention for the upper elementary grade group, F(1.915,
317.870)=9.727, p<0.001, partial η2=0.055. Post-hoc tests revealed a statistically significant
increase in WRPM from week 0 to week 7 (M=8.222 WRPM, 95% CI [3.825,
12.618], p<0.001), an increase that was not statistically significant from week 0 to week 12(M=3.054 WRPM, 95% CI [-1.179, 7.286], p=0.246), and a statistically significant decreasein WRPM that occurred from week 7 to week 12 (M=-5.168 WRPM, 95% CI [-10.175, 1.179], p=0.041). This means that this group started with significant gains, which decreasedin the second half of the intervention, and resulted in a general increase that was not
significant. However, SPSS rules of thumb indicate that a partial eta squared of .055 isequivalent to a small to medium effect (SPSS, 2022).
Another measure tabulated for this study was the rate of adoption, or take-up, where we usedavailable data from a sample of 187 students in second and fourth grade and found that, on
average, students completed 84% of the daily readings or an average of 51 of a total of 60
readings. This means that most students regularly completed the daily readings and assigned
tasks.
Inter-Rater Agreement
We ran inter-rater agreement tests to ensure evaluative uniformity and assessment fidelity fora randomly selected sample portion. Inter-rater agreement is a critical – and often overlooked– component affecting assessment fidelity; thus, incorporating high inter-rater agreement
within the research design is vital for ensuring data integrity (Reed, Cummings, Schaper &116

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Biancarosa, 2014). Therefore, we implemented the following process to determine the degreeof inter-rater agreement:
1. Groups of students were assigned to the five evaluators. Each video was evaluated by
one of the evaluators, and a group of students was randomly selected to be assessedby a second evaluator to obtain the degree of inter-rater agreement. The second
randomized evaluation was conducted for 74 of the 292 students, or approximately
25% of the sample.
2. Each evaluator calculated the total WPRM for the pre-test, post-test one, and post-testtwo.
3. The results of the records chosen for inter-rater agreement were added to a separate
table. Each teacher’s record was placed side by side, with an additional column
marked "difference" to measure the difference noted in the result by evaluator.
4. Differences greater than three words per minute were considered “not in agreement”
and marked in red.
5. Only the WRPM within the three-word difference was considered for the calculationof inter-rater agreement.
We obtained an overall inter-rater agreement of 82% in WRPM. Typically, inter-rater
agreement of 80% and above is in the acceptable range (McHugh, 2012).
Discussion
The initial aim of this project was to stem reading loss, which seemed inevitable for many
students given the prolonged classroom absences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,
particularly for those in the early stages of solidifying their reading skills. However, the gains
we observed with processing the data far surpassed this aim and provided positive empirical
data in support of the EdTech potential for mobile literacy interventions, especially indeveloping regions. The results also contained more nuanced implications for specific gradelevels.
Figure 1 presents a visual depiction of mean WRPM over time for lower elementary andupper elementary groups. The figure also demonstrates how the lower elementary group hada steeper increase between week 0 and week 7, compared to the upper elementary group,
making up for the slight decline that both groups experienced from week 7 to week 12,
allowing for the overall increase from week 0 to week 12 to be significant. Possible
explanations for this backslide in the final weeks of the project leading up to post-test 2
include the following:a. The “reopening” of classes in July 2020 via distance education channeled student
attention toward multiple subjects.
b. The use of slightly higher-level readings for post-test 2.
c. Pandemic-related stress and fatigue in connection with the reopening of classes in
July 2020, a situation for which no one was adequately prepared and which caused
additional stress for teachers, parents, and students.
d. The 12-week length of the intervention, with daily readings Monday through Friday,
entailed a total of 60 readings, which may have been excessive for some students.

117

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Figure 1
Mean Words Read per Minute over Time for Lower Elementary and Upper ElementaryGroups110

Mean words read per minute

105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
Week 0Week 7

Week 12Time
Lower Elementary

Upper Elementary

Results suggested that the gains associated with the mobile reading intervention significantly
impacted the younger students in early primary. It is also important to note that theintervention effect was much higher for the lower elementary grade group (partial η2=0.377)
than for the upper elementary grade group (partial η2=0.055). This is consistent with otherstudies that have noted how gains in basic skills acquisition are likely to happen more quickly
in lower grades (LoGerfo, Nichols & Reardon, 2006).
These findings are especially noteworthy given the recently released NWEA data on theeffects of COVID-19 on students in the early elementary years (Kuhfeld & Lewis, 2022).
This NWEA research shows how first- and second-grade student achievement at the end of
2021–22 was lower compared to pre-pandemic reading trends by 6 to 7 percentile points andhow this learning loss was greater than that of students in grades 3-5. The study also
demonstrates how high school students were disproportionately impacted, with reading losses
often double those of their counterparts in low-poverty schools. Suppose mobile literacy
interventions such as WhatsApp Remote Reading Recovery can be quickly implemented intimes of crisis and school closure. In that case, it may be possible to reduce early-grade
reading losses, even in typically marginalized areas, which continue to impact achievement
beyond the crisis period.
Likewise, the relatively high percentage of take-up – an average of 84% completion of thedaily readings – coupled with the high retention rates noted for teachers and families
throughout the 12-week project bodes well for this intervention’s future applicability. Thismeasure is crucial to international organizations interested in the gains obtained throughreading interventions and the probability that participants will follow through with the118

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

intervention to determine the feasibility for broader application in the future (McKenzie,
2011; 2019).
Relative to previous research conducted with the utilization of WhatsApp in a learning
context (Bouhnik & Deshen, 2014; VSO/Pratham Foundation, 2015) and given the take-up
statistics achieved in this study, this research reinforces the value of the WhatsApp platform
as a viable vehicle for content delivery due to teachers,’ families’ and students’ familiarity
with and willingness to adopt WhatsApp for educational purposes beyond simple messaging.
Additionally, this research builds on prior evidence for WhatsApp’s utility in promoting
language and literacy outcomes (VSO/Pratham Foundation, 2015). Finally, it echoes theconclusions of other pandemic studies that present positive results with WhatsApp use foradvancing literacy in developing country primary school scenarios (Chai & Bin Rasi, 2021;
UNGEI, 2022).
Follow-up sessions with teachers provided insights which we highlight below:
a. Familiarity with the user-friendly WhatsApp platform appeared helpful for
maintaining participation throughout the intervention for teachers, parents, andstudents.
b. Many teachers who had access to a computer in their homes used the WhatsApp
desktop version and reported ease of navigation.
c. The utilization of high-quality international-standard digital materials was essential tothe project. It helped children view reading as a diversion instead of a homeworkassignment and propelled participant take-up.
d. The literature recommends that establishing a daily reading habit is instrumental toachieving more significant literacy gains throughout the intervention (Cullinan, 2000).
e. The WhatsApp-aided literacy promotion methods used in this project relied upon atriangulation of teacher-family-student relationships conducive to supporting literacy
gains.
f. The flexibility of the WhatsApp platform facilitates its utilization in combination withother distance learning strategies, including radio, television, and internet instructiondelivery.
g. One of the biggest obstacles to project implementation was the cost of data plans. For
example, though WhatsApp is a cost-free application, its usage requires access to acellular signal and a data plan. Telecommunications companies united to reduce data
costs during the pandemic (Mi Diario, 2020). Still, implementation was reportedly
uneven and inconsistent, often leaving poorer families without resources to invest incontinued data access, especially in cases of suspended employment. Moreover,homes in remote areas (particularly the indigenous territories) often do not have
immediate or constant access to cellular signals.
Implications
A survey conducted by UNICEF Panama in June 2021 showed that almost 70% of lowincome household children participating in distance education during the COVID-19
pandemic were doing so via mobile phone, and most on a device they shared with otherfamily members. The survey also noted that online learning is not accessible in mostindigenous and many rural communities in Panama due to a lack of signal (UNICEF, 2021).
These figures reiterate the importance of the work presented in this article. Mobile learning ispossible for most Panamanian schoolchildren – if they have the connectivity. The same is119

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

true for students in almost every country throughout the world. Thus, mobile education has
been a topic of increasing discussion, even pre-pandemic, mainly because of its potential fordeveloping regions (West & Chew, 2014).
This project emphasized how the realization of mobile technology’s potential for education
gain is intrinsically tied to three critical issues. The first is connectivity, which depends
directly on access to a signal, the Internet, and a mobile electronic device. To mitigate theseobstacles and move toward more and better signal coverage as well as an increase in thenumber of mobile devices available per family, most countries and school districts will likely
need to pursue effective public-private partnerships with signal providers, mobile device
manufacturers, and other key actors. The second critical issue affecting the implementation ofmobile tech education programming is capacity. Teachers, students, and often students’families must be familiar with and comfortable using mobile devices and the corresponding
software and platforms involved. This usually requires some capacity development activity(training, coaching, mentoring, or a combination of these) to enhance all participants’knowledge and skill sets, without which meaningful commitment over the long term isdifficult to achieve. The third critical issue for implementation is quality course content,
regarding both didactic materials and pedagogy. Instruction based on exciting and engaging
materials and teaching methods has a much better chance of delivering real learning
opportunities. These elements – connectivity, capacity, and content – individually and incombination, can make or break a given mobile EdTech intervention.
Since mobile technology offers the most ubiquitous modality available worldwide forpropelling remote learning, its potential for leveling the educational playing field isenormous. Future directions should seek to enable and encourage possibilities to explore thisrealm in literacy and other academic areas. Advancing mobile learning to the point that it
begins to level the educational playing field, nationally and internationally, will require
enormous effort and dedication of resources from multiple sources.
Conclusion
We hope this study will inform the school system, government, private sector, and generalpublic in Panama regarding the potential for and obstacles to propelling literacy gains
through low-tech, low-cost distance learning options that utilize mobile technology. Thisknowledge is helpful for and applicable to crises such as COVID-19, but it also has
implications for situations beyond the current pandemic. For example, school closures occur
during annual school holidays, other public health crises, and natural disasters or weatherrelated shocks, among other disturbances. At such times, instructional methods to substitutein-person instructional delivery are needed. Mobile learning is a valuable tool, and theprocedures detailed in this project are easily adaptable across various circumstances. In
addition, they may add value as complements for supplemental coursework design whenschools are open during the regular academic year.
The results also signal promise for digitally supported distance education tools that can beused in less technologically connected communities. This type of instruction offers multiple
benefits. For example, it educates students on a given topic (literacy, in the case of thisproject); it trains teachers and students to utilize familiar digital devices and platforms forinnovative educational purposes; it makes it possible for less technologically connectedschools and households to tap into some of the more sophisticated digital learning content
currently being developed throughout the world.

120

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

References
Abadzi, H. (2012). Developing cross-language metrics for reading fluency measurement:
Some issues and options. GPE Working Paper Series on Learning No. 6. World Bank.
https://doi.org/10.1596/26819
Andrabi, T., Daniels, B., & Das, J. (2020). Human capital accumulation and disasters:
Evidence from the Pakistan earthquake of 2005. RISE Working Paper 20/039.
https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2020/039
Azevedo, J.P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Iqbal, S.A. & Geven, K. (2020). Simulating thepotential impacts of Covid-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: A
set of global estimates. World Bank Education Group.
https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9284
Allington, R., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., Zmach, C., &Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economicallydisadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31, 411–427.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.505165
Angrist, N., Bergman, P., Brewster, C., & Matsheng, M. (2020). Stemming learning loss
during the pandemic: A rapid randomized trial of a low-tech intervention in
Botswana. Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3663098
Beach, K., McIntyre, E., Philippakos, Z., Mraz, M., Pilonieta, P., & Vintinner, J. P. (2018)
Effects of a summer reading intervention on reading skills for low-income black andHispanic students in elementary school. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(3), 263–
280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1446859
Bouhnik, D., & Deshen, M. (2014). WhatsApp goes to school: Mobile instant messaging
between teachers and students. Journal of Information Technology Education
Research, 13, 217–231. https://doi.org/10.28945/2051
Carroll, H. C. M. (2010). The effect of pupil absenteeism on literacy and numeracy in the
primary school. School Psychology International, 31(2), 115–130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310361674
Cullinan, B. E. (2000). Independent reading and school achievement. School Library Media
Research (SLMR). Volume 3, ISSN: 1523-4320 www.ala.org/aasl/slr.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation toreading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–
945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934.
De Hoyos, R., & Saavedra, J. (2021, March 4). World Bank Blogs. It is time to return tolearning. Retrieved from: https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/it-time-returnlearning.
De Leon, N. (2021). Educación en tiempos de COVID-19: Análisis para Políticas Educativas
en la República de Panamá. Centro de Investigación Educativa (CIEDU). Retrieved
from: https://ciedupanama.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/Informe_Educaci%C3%B3n-en-Tiempos-COVID-_CIEDU-1.pdf.

121

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Diamond, G. (2021). Is WhatsApp an unsung hero in the COVID-19 education crisis. United
Nations Girls’ Education Initiative. Retrieved from:https://www.ungei.org/blog-post/whatsapp-unsung-hero-covid-19-education-crisis
Dichter y N. (2015). Los adultos y el uso de WhatsApp en Panamá. Retrieved from:https://www.dichter-neira.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/25.-Insider_PA_Uso-dewhatsapp.pdf.
Education Commission. (2016). The learning generation: Investing in education for achanging world. A report by the International Commission on Financing Global
Education Opportunity. Retrieved from:http://report.educationcommission.org/report/.
Elacqua, G., Marotta, L., Bertoni, E., Méndez, C., Olsen, A. S. W., Román, A., & Soares, S.
(2020). Is school funding unequal in Latin America? Education Division, Social
Sector, Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved from:https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Is-School-FundingUnequal-in-Latin-America.pdf.
Farouk Chai, Z., & Bin Basri, M. (2020). Encouraging reluctant readers to read using
WhatsApp in the times of COVID-19. International Conference on Educational
Research. eISBN 978-967-2405-24-5.
Geert van den Berg, R. (2022). Effect size – a quick guide. SPSS Tutorials Web Site.
Retrieved from: https://www.spss-tutorials.com/spss-repeated-measures-anova/
Ginneti, P. 1989. An analysis of intermediate grade gifted students and their bookexperiences as preschool children. PhD diss. University of Akron. Abstract inDissertation Abstracts International 50/06A, 1614.
Gon, S., & Rawekar, A. (2017). Effectivity of e-learning through WhatsApp as a teachinglearning tool. MVP Journal of Medical Sciences, 4(1), 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.18311/mvpjms/0/v0/i0/8454
Gottfried, M. (2014). Chronic absenteeism and its effects on students’ academic andsocioemotional outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 19(2), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.962696
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2020). The economic impacts of learning losses.
Education Working Papers, No. 225. OECD Publishing, Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/21908d74-e.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censo (INEC). (2017). INEC – Publicaciones. Retrieved
from: www.inec.gob.pa/publicaciones.
Jaume, D., & Willén, A. (2019). The long-run effects of teacher strikes: Evidence from
Argentina. Journal of Labor Economics, 37(4), 1097–1139.
https://doi.org/10.1086/703134
Kemp, S. (2020). DataReportal. Digital 2020: Panama. Retrieved from:https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-panama.
Kim J. S., Quinn D. M. (2013). The effects of summer reading on low-income children’s
literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom andhome interventions. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 386–431.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483906

122

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Kim, P., Miranda, T. & Olaciregui, C. (2008). Pocket School: Exploring mobile technology
as a sustainable literacy education option for underserved indigenous children in Latin
America. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 435–445.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.11.002
Kuhfeld, M., & Lewis, K. (2022). COVID-19 in the early elementary years: A comparison ofachievement in spring 2019 and spring 2022. Collaborative for Student Growth.
NWEA Research.
LoGerfo, L., Nichols, A., & Reardon, S. F. (2006). The Urban Institute. Achievement gains
in elementary and high school. The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50771/411290-AchievementGains-in-Elementary-and-High-School.PDF.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Inter-rater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica
22(3):276–82. Retrieved from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232646799_Interrater_reliability_The_kapp
a_statistic.
Mi D. (2020). Telefónicas se unen para ofrecer paquete de plan gratis en tiempos decoronavirus. Retrieved from: https://www.midiario.com/nacionales/telefonicas-seunen-para-ofrecer-paquete-de-plan-gratis-en-tiempos-de-coronavirus-chequee/),
Ministerio de Educación de la República de Panamá. (2019) Resultados de pruebas CRECER
2018. Panama: MEDUCA.
Ministerio de Educación de la República de Panamá. (2020) Plan de acción de la estrategia
de MEDUCA para enfrentar el COVID-19: La estrella de la educación no se detiene.
Panama: MEDUCA. Retrieved from: https://www.meduca.gob.pa.
National Center for Family Literacy/National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early
literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Retrieved from:https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf.
Plutino, A., Borthwick, K. & Corradini, E. (2019). New educational landscapes: Innovative
perspectives in language learning and technology. Voillans, France: Researchpublishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.36.9782490057481
Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (2018). Returns to investment in education: A
decennial review of the global literature.” Education Economics, 26(5), 445–458.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2018.1484426
Reading A-Z (2020). About Reading A-Z. Retrieved from:https://www.readinga-z.com/about-readinga-z/.
Reed, D. K., Cummings, K. D., Schaper, A., & Biancarosa, G. (2014). Assessment fidelity inreading intervention research: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational
Research, 84(2), 275–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314522131
Rest of World. (2020). News. WhatsApp school is now in session. Retrieved from:https://restofworld.org/2020/lebanon-schools-whatsapp-group/.
Saez, D. (2020). Connectivity challenges during Covid-19: Telecommunication strategies.
PREAL Blog, July 7, 2020. Retrieved from:https://www.thedialogue.org/blogs/2020/07/connectivity-challenges/.
Santarossa, C., & Castillo, J. (2017). Mobile learning: What’s up in the classroom? Retrieved
from: https://ltsig.iatefl.org/whats-up-in-the-classroom-whatsapp/123

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Save Our Future. (2020). Averting an education catastrophe for the world’s children. Save
Our Future White Paper. Retrieved from: https://saveourfuture.world/white-paper/.
Slade, T., Piper, B., Kaunda, Z., King, S., & Ibrahim, H. (2017). Is ‘summer’ reading loss
universal? Using ongoing literacy assessment in Malawi to estimate the loss from
grade-transition breaks. Research in Comparative and International Education, 12(4),461–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499917740657
Suárez Lantarón, B. (2018). Whatsapp: su uso educativo, ventajas y desventajas. Revista deInvestigación en Educación, 16(2), 121–135.
Sung, Y., Chang, K., Yang, J. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language
learning? A meta-analysis. Taiwan Educational Research Review, 16, 68–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.09.001
Svenson, N. A. (2021). Panamá, el país con más tiempo sin aulas del mundo. Agenda
Pública. May 12, 2021. Retrieved from: https://agendapublica.es/panama-el-pais-conmas-tiempo-sin-aulas-del-mundo/.
UKFIET The Education and Development Forum. (2020). Lessons from this worldwide
experiment with distance learning. Retrieved from:https://www.ukfiet.org/2020/lessons-from-this-worldwide-experiment-with-distancelearning/.
UNESCO. (2016). Tercer Estudio Regional Comparativo y Explicativo: Reporte técnico.
Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247123.
UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 – Education is the bedrock of a just society in the post-COVID
world. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse.United Nations. (2020).
Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. Retrieved from:https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wpcontent/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid19_and_education_august_2020.pdf.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2021). Situación de las Familias con Niños,
Niñas y Adolescentes durante la pandemia por COVID-19 en Panamá - Tercera
Encuesta de Hogares, Junio 2021. Retrieved from:https://www.unicef.org/panama/informes/tercera-encuesta-de-hogares.
Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO)/Pratham Foundation (2015). SMS story project: Bundi,
Rajasthan. Retrieved from: https://www.vsointernational.org/whatsapp-instantmessaging-lessons-lead-to-30-reading-improvement-in-indian-schools.
West, M., & Chew, H. E. (2014). Reading in the mobile era: A study of mobile reading indeveloping countries. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), Paris. Retrieved from:https://reliefweb.int/report/world/reading-mobile-era.
WhatsApp Download. (2020). Download WhatsApp. Retrieved from:https://www.whatsapp.com/download/
WhatsApp Help. (2020). How WhatsApp can help you stay connected during the coronavirus(COVID-19) pandemic. Retrieved from:https://www.whatsapp.com/coronavirus/educator/?lang=fb

124

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

World Bank. (2020a). World Bank Education and COVID-19. Retrieved from:https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2020/03/24/world-bank-educationand-covid-19.
World Bank. (2020b) World Bank Education Global Practice. Guidance Note: Remotelearning & COVID-19. Retrieved from:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/531681585957264427/pdf/GuidanceNote-on-Remote-Learning-and-COVID-19.pdf.
Yang, X., Kuo, L., Ji, X., & McTigue, E. (2018). A critical examination of the relationshipamong research, theory, and practice: Technology and reading instruction. Computers& Education 125, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.009
Corresponding author: Mariana León
Email: mariana.leon@qlu.pa

125

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Reviewers: Volume 11 – Issue 3
The editorial team would like to thank the following reviewers for their contributions to thepeer review for this issue of the journal. Their dedication and assistance are greatly appreciated.
Senior Reviewers
Dr Adebisi Thomas Ajibade
Dr Tyrone Bynoe
Dr Ivy Chia
Dr Luisa Daniele
Dr Heloisa Delgado
Dr Habsah Hussin
Dr Andrew Leichsenring
Dr Thelma Manansala
Dr Leonardo Munalim
Dr Jacinta Ifeoma Obidile
Dr Cornelius Riordan
Dr Ilaria De Santis
Dr Suja NairDr Elena Raevskikh
Dr Ilana Klima Ronen
Dr Akihiro Saito
Dr Meliha Simsek
Dr Randy A. Tudy
Dr Mary George Varghese
Dr Stephanie Wendt
Dr Huiyuan Ye

Reviewers
Dr Supamit Chanseawrassamee
Dr Ana Garcia-Diaz
Dr Blessing Dwumah Manu
Dr Sainbayar Gundsambu
Dr Cuong Huu Nguyen
Dr Queen Ogbomo
Dr Ruben Sanchez
Dr Maria Staton
Dominika Provázková Stolinská
Mirella Ramacciotti
Dr Kyle Whitfield
Dr Mukesh Yadav

126the iafor

journal of education

ISSN: 2187-0594