Perceived Online Learning Environment and Students’ Learning Performance in Higher Education: Mediating Role of Student Engagement

  • Zhang Tao
  • Bin Zhang
  • Ivan Ka Wai Lai
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 843)


Colleges and universities have focused on increasing the number of online courses and programs offered to remove the obstacles in terms of time and space. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is used to explore the relationships among the parameters. The results of this study indicate a positive relationship between perceived online learning environment and university students’ learning performance mediated by students’ engagement. Therefore, educators should develop online student engagement strategies in order to increase online student engagement. Furthermore, for improving online students’ learning performance, educators should invest their resources to develop a good online learning environment.


Online learning environment Learning performance Engagement Online courses 


  1. Asunka, S.: Online learning in higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Ghanaian university students’ experiences and perceptions. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 9(3), 1–23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V.O., Lan, W.Y.: Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 11(1), 61–80 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartsch, R.A., Cobern, K.M.: Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput. Educ. 41(1), 77–86 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boekarts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (eds.): Handbook of Self-Regulation: Theory, Research and Applications. Academic, San Diego (2000)Google Scholar
  5. Brock, L.L., Nishida, T.K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K.J., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E.: Children’s perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic performance: a longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. J. Sch. Psychol. 46(2), 129–149 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J., Hamaker, C.: Learning styles: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study in higher education. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 68(3), 427–441 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cangur, S., Ercan, I.: Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. J. Modern Appl. Stat. Methods 14(1), 14 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carliner, S., Shank, P. (eds.): The E-Learning Handbook: Past Promises, Present Challenges. Wiley, Hoboken (2016)Google Scholar
  9. Chauhan, A.: Massive open online courses (MOOCS): emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digit. Educ. Rev. 25, 7–17 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. Cheong, I.A.: Educating pre-service teachers for a sustainable environment. Asia-Pacific J. Teach. Educ. 33(1), 97–110 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delen, E., Liew, J., Willson, V.: Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: self-regulation in online video-based environments. Comput. Educ. 78, 312–320 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frederick, H.R.L.K.S.: Cracking the paradox of Chinese learners: looking into the mathematics classrooms in Hong Kong and Shanghai. How Chin. Learn Math.: Perspect. Insiders 1, 348 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gan, C.L., Balakrishnan, V.: Enhancing classroom interaction via IMMAP–an interactive mobile messaging app. Telematics Inform. 34(1), 230–243 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene, T.G., Marti, C.N., McClenney, K.: The effort—outcome gap: differences for African American and hispanic community college students in student engagement and academic achievement. J. High. Educ. 79(5), 513–539 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)Google Scholar
  17. Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A.: An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 40(3), 414–433 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: Multidisciplinary J. 6(1), 1–55 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Järvelä, S., Veermans, M., Leinonen, P.: Investigating student engagement in computer-supported inquiry: a process-oriented analysis. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 11(3), 299–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahu, E.R.: Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 38(5), 758–773 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klein, K.J., Knight, A.P., Ziegert, J.C., Lim, B.C., Saltz, J.L.: When team members’ values differ: the moderating role of team leadership. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114(1), 25–36 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuh, G.D.: Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of student engagement. Change: Mag. High. Learn. 33(3), 10–17 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, W.S.: Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance intention and task-technology fit perspectives. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 70(7), 498–507 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marino, S., Hogue, I.B., Ray, C.J., Kirschner, D.E.: A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J. Theoret. Biol. 254(1), 178–196 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J., Lonn, S.: Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J. Educ. Psychol. 93(1), 187 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, K.A.: The influence of online teaching on faculty productivity. Innovat. High. Educ. 37(1), 37–52 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moore, M.G., Kearsley, G.: Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning. Cengage Learning, Boston (2011)Google Scholar
  28. Nouh, T., Anil, S., Alanazi, A., Al-Shehri, W., Alfaisal, N., Alfaris, B., Alamer, E.: Assessing correlation between students’ perception of the learning environment and their academic performance. JPMA 66(12), 1616–1620 (2016)Google Scholar
  29. Park, J.H., Choi, H.J.: Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12(4), 207–217 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. Peng, W.: Research on model of student engagement in online learning. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Tech. Educ. 13(7), 2869–2882 (2017)Google Scholar
  31. Reeves, T.C., Benson, L., Elliott, D., Grant, M., Holschuh, D., Kim, B., Kim, H., Lauber, E., Loh, S.: Usability and Instructional Design Heuristics for E-Learning Evaluation (2002)Google Scholar
  32. Reinecke, L., Eden, A.: Media use and well-being (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., Müller, H.: Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. Online 8(2), 23–74 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. Shea, P., Bidjerano, T.: Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Comput. Educ. 75, 103–111 (2014). Scholar
  35. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., Kindermann, T.: Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 100(4), 765 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stahl, G.: Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge, pp. 451–473. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2006)Google Scholar
  37. Stein, D.S., Wanstreet, C.E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., Wheaton, J.E.: Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. Am. J. Distance Educ. 19(2), 105–118 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suksudaj, N., Lekkas, D., Kaidonis, J., Townsend, G.C., Winning, T.A.: Features of an effective operative dentistry learning environment: students’ perceptions and relationship with performance. Eur. J. Dental Educ. 19(1), 53–62 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Volery, T., Lord, D.: Critical success factors in online education. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 14(5), 216–223 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu, M., Benson, S.N.K., Mudrey-Camino, R., Steiner, R.P.: The relationship between parental involvement, self-regulated learning, and reading achievement of fifth graders: a path analysis using the ECLS-K database. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13(2), 237–269 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang, Y.F.: Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 24(2), 181–198 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang, Z., Kenny, R.: Learning in an online distance education course: experiences of three international students. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 11(1), 17–36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangxi Teachers Education UniversityNanningChina
  2. 2.Zhuhai CollegeJilin UniversityZhuhaiChina
  3. 3.City University of MacauMacauChina

Personalised recommendations