


































Frontiers of Contemporary Education 
ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce 

1 
 

Original Paper 

Maintaining Middle School Students‟ Engagement in Virtual 

Learning Environments 

Blanca Ibarra
1
 & Pierre Lu

1*
 

1
 The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, USA 

* Pierre Lu, E-mail: mingtsan.lu@utrgv.edu 

 

Received: December 26, 2020    Accepted: February 1, 2021    Online Published: August 31, 2021 

doi:10.22158/fce.v2n2p1                    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v2n2p1 

 

Abstract 

The current COVID-19 pandemic has created many challenges for teachers as they transition to 

teaching in virtual learning environments. Virtual learning environments have forced educators to adapt 

teaching strategies and become creative and innovative to maintain student engagement (Korkmaz & 

Toraman, 2020). Middle school social studies teachers have always dealt with a lack of student interest 

in learning history, and the current instructional setting is requiring a reimagined teacher craft to 

deliver high-quality instruction. The interaction between students and teachers often depends on the 

content, highly effective questioning, choice in response methods, technology tools, or learning 

platforms (Czerkawski & Lyman, 2016). A conceptual understanding of the types of engagement, 

including cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Buric & Franzel, 2020; Raes, Vanneste, Pieters, Windey, 

Van Den Noortgate & Depaepe, 2020; Van Uden, Ritzen & Pieters, 2013; Ding, Kim & Orey, 2017) will 

help inform the types of instructional strategies that will be most effective at increasing and maintaining 

student engagement. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to describe the experiences and 

problems associated with engaging students in virtual learning environments for middle school social 

studies teachers in a border school district with over 40,000 students. The overarching theme that 

emerged from the data collected was that teachers play a significant role in creating a learning 

environment that supports students, encourages participation through interactive technology, and 

nurtures relationships to promote student engagement. Findings suggest educators understand the 

challenges educators face to keep students engaged and motivated, and some of the best practices that 

can increase student engagement in virtual learning. 

Keywords 

student engagement, cognitive engagement, affective engagement, behavioral engagement, virtual 

learning  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

The current COVID-19 pandemic has created many challenges for teachers as they transition to teaching 

in virtual learning environments. Student disengagement has made it difficult for teachers to gauge 

student mastery of content, differentiate instruction, provide feedback, form relationships with their 

students, and created an emotionally “distant” learning environment (Korkmaz & Toraman, 2020). There 

is insufficient research into best practices for maintaining student engagement in remote learning for 

middle school students. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a need to research the challenges and 

difficulties educators face in keeping students engaged in virtual learning environments. Virtual learning 

environments have forced educators to adapt teaching strategies and become creative and innovative to 

maintain student engagement (Korkmaz & Toraman, 2020). Middle school social studies teachers have 

always dealt with a lack of student interest in learning history. The current instructional setting requires a 

reimagined teacher craft to deliver high-quality instruction while motivating disengaged students to 

become engaged in learning. The interaction between students and teachers often depends on the content, 

highly effective questioning, choice in response methods, technology tools, or learning platforms 

(Czerkawaski & Lyman, 2016). A conceptual understanding of the types of engagement, including 

cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Buric & Franzel, 2020; Raes, Vanneste, Pieters, Windey, Van Den 

Noortgate & Depaepe, 2020; Van Uden, Ritzen & Pieters, 2013; Ding, Kim & Orey, 2017) will help 

inform the types of instructional strategies that can be most effective at increasing and maintaining 

student engagement.  

A qualitative research study grounded in a transcendental phenomenological perspective was conducted 

to identify the current challenges teachers face in engaging students, the levels and types of recent 

engagement in virtual learning, and the best practices that have been effective at cognitively, affectively, 

and behaviorally maintaining student engagement. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to 

describe the experiences and problems with engaging students in virtual learning environments for 

middle school social studies teachers in a border school district with over 40,000 students. This study 

also aimed to understand the virtual learning environment dynamics to identify challenges and practical 

strategies to maintain student engagement in virtual learning. The following questions guided the inquiry 

process: 

(1) What instructional strategies do educators currently use to assess mastery learning during online 

instructional delivery? 

(2) What programs or technology tools do educators use to allow for student input, feedback or 

collaboration during online instruction? 

(3) How do educators keep students engaged in the virtual learning environment? 

(4) How do educators motivate students to participate in the virtual learning environment? 

The research findings will help improve teaching in learning in virtual learning environments in the k-12 

setting and help educators understand best practices that educators are currently using to keep students 

engaged and motivated to succeed academically. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Literature Review 

2.1 Types of Student Engagement 

Student engagement is a multi-dimensional concept that has recently become the focus in virtual learning 

environments. According to Trowler (2010), “student engagement is concerned with the interaction 

between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions 

intended to optimise the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of 

students and the performance, and reputation of the institution” (p. 3). There are three general types of 

engagement: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Buric & Franzel, 2020; Raes, Vanneste, Pieters, 

Windey, Van Den Noortgate & Depaepe, 2020; Van Uden, Ritzen & Pieters, 2013; Ding, Kim & Orey, 

2017). The type of engagement that a student exhibits will vary based on their abilities and determine the 

types of support they will require to show all three types of engagement. For example, Borup, Graham, 

West, Archambault, and Spring (2020) state that a student that is genuinely interested in a subject area 

demonstrates cognitive engagement and will not need support, but if they have a negative attitude 

towards school work, they will need support in order to demonstrate behavioral engagement and 

complete the classwork. Behavioral engagement refers to the specific tasks the students must exhibit in 

class, such as logging in to the online platform, accessing and completing work on the LMS (learning 

management system). Ding, Kim, and Orey (2017) indicate that students can demonstrate behavioral 

engagement in online discussions by submitting comments or responses to peer responses in an online 

discussion forum.  

Cognitive engagement, on the other hand, refers to specific actions displayed by students that indicate 

interaction with the content such as paying attention, seeking feedback, taking pride in work completed, 

asking questions, and submitting responses when the teacher checks for understanding (Borup, Graham, 

West, Archambault & Spring, 2020; Buric & Frenzel, 2020). Raes, Vanneste, Pieters, Windey, Van Den 

Noortgate, and Depaepe (2020), argue that teachers can cognitively engage students through online 

quizzes and polls during the lecture. Also, students who are cognitively engaged will dedicate more effort 

to writing and submitting responses in online discussion (Ding, Kim & Orey, 2017) because cognitive 

engagement “incorporates thoughtfulness and willingness to exert the effort necessary to comprehend 

complex ideas and master difficult skills” (Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004, p. 60). Emotional or 

affective engagement refers to how students react to a learning environment, including teachers and peers 

with positive dispositions such as excitement or lack of interest in completing work and boredom 

(Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). Affective engagement is essential because if students feel 

welcomed and supported, they will tend to participate in online discussions with peers (Ding, Kim & 

Orey, 2017), which can contribute to both behavioral and cognitive engagement (Borup, Graham, West, 

Archambault & Spring, 2020; Buric & Frenzel, 2020). 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2.2 Teacher Support in Relation to Student Engagement 

Fredericks, Blumenfeld, and Paris‟s (2004) review on student engagement revealed a strong correlation 

between teacher support and students‟ varying engagement levels in the classroom. Teachers can support 

students‟ cognitive engagement by providing high-quality explicit instruction that incorporates 

opportunities to collaborate with peers and providing students with the necessary tools and resources to 

process the content (Borup, Graham, West, Archambault & Spring, 2020). Buric and Frenzel (2020) 

suggest that effective instruction requires that teachers use cognitive activation, which involves 

instructional strategies and activities that promote critical thinking, brainstorming, and activating prior 

knowledge. Effective cognitive activation can contribute to cognitive engagement. Behaviorally, 

teachers can support students by helping them navigate technology platforms to ensure they can access 

the resources needed, helping them manage their learning environment, and monitoring progress (Borup, 

Graham, West, Archambault & Spring, 2020) which teachers in virtual learning environments can do 

through the use of interactive learning platforms. Borup, Graham, West, Archambault, and Spring (2020) 

suggest that in order for teachers to support students‟ affective engagement, they need to make it easy for 

students to communicate with them, and they must invest time in getting to know their students. “To 

strengthen relationships while online, participants need to establish their social presence: „the ability of 

participants… to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting 

themselves to the other participants as „real people‟” (Garrison et al., 2010, p. 89 as quoted in Borup, 

Graham, West, Archambault & Spring, 2020). Dixon (2010) suggests that in order for students to be 

engaged in online learning, there needs to be collaboration among students and strong teacher presence 

because the level of interaction influences the students‟ level of engagement. 

2.3 Learner Interactions and Student Engagement in Online Learning 

Bollinger and Martin (2018) suggest three types of interactions that contribute to student engagement in 

online learning: learner-to-learner interaction, learner-instructor interaction, and learner-content 

interaction. In learn-to-learner interaction, students collaborate on projects and assignments and engage 

in discussions by sharing their viewpoints and ideas. However, for this interaction to occur, teachers 

develop a learning environment where students feel like they belong and are comfortable sharing 

(Bollinger & Martin, 2018; Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). Learner-instructor interaction 

involves educators establishing an online presence and communicating with students utilizing various 

methods such as email or chat features in video conferencing software (Bollinger & Martin, 2018). It also 

involves instructors designing appropriate instructional activities that promote active rather than passive 

learning. Dixon (2010) suggests that active learning involves discussion forums, collaborative group 

projects, and critical thinking, whereas passive learning relies on a traditional lecture, videos, reading of 

a text, and assessments. Learner-content interaction refers to the number of times students engage with 

instructional content such as videos, online games, interactive software platforms, class assignments, and 

class lectures (Bollinger & Martin, 2018). However, factors such as student characteristics and home and 

classroom environment affect the level of engagement. Borup, Graham, West, Archambault, and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Spring‟s (2020) Academic Communities of Engagement (ACE) framework advances the idea that 

students‟ characteristics, course environment, and unique environment contribute to student engagement 

in online courses. A student‟s interest in the subject matter, habits of mind, self-efficacy, and ability to 

control their behavior affect their engagement in a course. The class‟s design depends on teachers‟ 

pedagogical skills and knowledge of instructional strategies that contribute to student interest, such as 

using cooperative learning, project-based learning, or a particular delivery style (Czerkawski & Lyman, 

2016). Lastly, in terms of the personal environment, Borup, Graham, West, Archambault, and Spring 

(2020) suggest that the teachers can directly or indirectly influence the level of support students receive 

to contribute to their academic engagement.  

 

3. Method 

3.1 Researchers’ Roles and Overview of Method 

We are educators and educational researchers. One author is currently a K-12 teacher in the United States 

and the other is a university professor in educational research. The literature review of student 

engagement revealed three forms of engagement: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Using this 

conceptual framework of student engagement, we chose to study middle school social studies teachers 

because one of the authors has direct contact with this group of teachers and we witness first-hand the 

lack of student engagement in virtual learning environments. With access to the teachers‟ Google 

Classrooms, the researchers could see behavioral engagement with the submission of individual student 

assignments. Through informal virtual walkthroughs since the beginning of the school year, the 

researchers have witnessed varying levels of cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement among 

students and seen some instructional strategies be more effective than others. Through the observations, 

we came to formulate the questions of what specific strategies teachers were using to check for 

understanding and motivate and engage students. We wanted to understand the underlying factors that 

influenced the level of engagement in individual teacher‟s classrooms in middle schools. The initial 

survey for data collection gauged the types of engagement teachers self-reported and generated an 

understanding of best practices currently being used. Survey results created a general understanding of 

what the average middle school social studies teacher was doing to engage students. Formal observations 

of teachers and follow-up interviews helped validate survey results and gain a deeper understanding of 

teachers‟ experiences and challenges in keeping students engaged in virtual learning environments. 

3.2 Context, Site, and Participants 

One of the researchers is the social studies instructional coordinator for the border school district 

involved in this research study, and thus she has direct knowledge of the challenges and successes 

teachers face in the virtual learning environment obtained through informal observations since the 

beginning of the academic school year. For this research inquiry, we chose to collect data through an 

observer perspective from four middle school social studies teachers and interview the research 

participants. This sample of social studies teachers was selected using a purposive sampling method 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

based on use of technology, high student interaction, interactive learning platform, and active and 

positive student-teacher rapport observed during initial informal observations. Selected teachers received 

an email asking them if they would be interested in participating in the research study and participate in 

an interview. The participants consisted of two female teachers and two male teachers, three of whom 

teach 6
th

-grade social studies, and one teaches 7
th

 grade. All four teachers have experience teaching social 

studies from 1-7 years, all within the school district, and all are highly proactive. These teachers 

participated in a full-length 55-minute formal observation conducted through access to the Google Meet 

class session and participated in an interview to discuss their teaching and learning practices. The four 

teachers were individually interviewed after school for 45 minutes using a structured interview approach 

and asked the following questions: (1) What has been your biggest challenge in virtual learning? (2) 

What instructional strategies have you used to keep students engaged in learning and check for mastery? 

(3) What tech tools have you used to engage students? (4) How do your students show engagement in 

learning? (5) What strategies do you use to motivate students to learn? 

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis 

A survey instrument to measure middle school social studies teachers‟ experiences with student 

engagement in the virtual learning environment guided the initial research inquiry. The survey was 

created utilizing Google Forms and consisted of seven questions, of which six were multiple response 

options, and one was open-ended. The survey was designed in this format to ensure participation and 

completion and guided by evidence collected during informal observations. The survey was sent via 

email to 80 middle school social studies teachers at the border school district with over 40,000 students 

on October 2, 2020, and remained open for two weeks. The survey closed on October 16, 2020. The 

response rate was 58.75%. The email explained to teachers that participation was strictly voluntary, no 

emails or identifying information were collected, so responses were confidential, and participation was 

anonymous.  

A coding schema guided the identification of emerging themes in participant observations and interviews. 

Thematic analysis was conducted. Examples of our interview coding are demonstrated in Table 6. 

Examples of participant observation coding are demonstrated in Table 7 below. Survey results were 

disaggregated and cross-referenced to identify students‟ types of engagement in respondents classrooms‟ 

by years of teaching experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1. Interview Questions Coding 

Question Answer Relationships Distractions Technology  

What challenges are 

you currently 

experiencing with 

engaging students? 

Students aren‟t coming into class 

don‟t know what the teacher is 

doing to making class engaging 

 

Wi-fi at home most students get 

assignments done, but struggling 

students are facing issues both at 

home and at school 

 

Yes   

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 Students can be on cell phone or 

another website, and it is hard to 

know if they are engaged 

 

Connection with students, rapport 

with students; likes to know them 

as people, not being able to know 

them 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

Yes  

 Visuals Technology  

What strategies have 

you found to be 

effective in engaging 

students? 

 

Activity ready at the beginning; 

students want to do bellringers; 

See-Think-Wonder (analyze 

images) 

 

Visuals, props (Koran), 

backdrops (Islamic during the 

interview); Quizziz, NearPod, 

Google Forms 

 

Visuals for Islam I showed them 

the Koran; Picture of an Islamic 

center in town; Quizziz 

 

Quizziz (students think its fun, 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and I gauge from there if they 

understood)-review of what they 

have learned 

 

Yes 

  Behavioral Affective Cognitive 

How do your 

students show 

engagement in class? 

 

90% submit responses and  

communicate through the  

chat feature, only about  

10% unmute their 

microphones to say  

something; Students raise  

had on camera when they  

have a question or to  

answer a question 

 

All three ways they ask  

questions, show interest,  

the next day they did their  

own research (King Tut for  

Egypt); looked up more  

laws about Hammurabi‟s  

Code 

 

They show neatness in their work; 

They will say that learning about 

history is fun 

 

If teachers just sit their students 

will participate 25%, 75% 

participate more with her helping 

them; All classes are different; 

give and take 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

  Humor/Fun Relevancy Relationships 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

How do you motivate 

students to keep 

learning? 

Having fun with them; not having 

a monotony in class; community 

building; Buzzers when say 

something correct or “fire” buzzer 

when they are on a roll 

 

Relevant lessons; Connect to 

what they can see around them 

 

Complementing them by saying 

“thank you,” “you‟re welcome”; 

Students show off their work; See 

them-who they are; We have a 

genuine interest in what they are 

going to talk about 

 

Storytime (lesson introduction); I 

left them on a cliffhanger about 

Miguel Hidalgo. I told them they 

chopped off his head on 

Halloween; Make it as fun as 

possible; Entice with storytime; 

students will say “yay” when she 

says it is storytime 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

  Technology Interactive-Ba

sed 

Game-Based 

What tech tools have 

you used with your 

students? 

GimKit; ClassKick students have 

the ability to help each other out 

unlike PearDeck and NearPod; 

likes the games; 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Yes 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

EdPuzzle, Google Slides, 

Quizziz; Students ask to play 

Kahoot 

 

Purpose Games; try to work on 

tools that shows them that they 

are going to work on it; want to 

be able to monitor student 

progress 

 

Gimkit; Adapts Google Forms 

and types answers in chat only if 

they participate and then students 

turn in assignment 

Yes 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

Yes 

 

 

 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 

Note. Emerging codes revealed by analyzing interview questions. 

 

Table 2. Participant Observation Coding Results 

 Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D 

Visuals/ 

Support 

The teacher plays 

Ancient Egypt video 

and tells students to 

listen for three things 

they did not know 

about Egypt. 

Teacher displays 

graphic organizer and 

guides students by 

typing out responses 

in the organizer for 

them to see and add to 

their notes 

Trailer video from 

Disney‟s Aladdin to 

introduce the Middle 

East region 

 

Introduces 

vocabulary terms by 

showing artifacts-oil 

barrel, gold pharaoh 

statute, and Bible for 

religions;  

 

Behind the teacher 

in her room is a 

backdrop of the Taj 

Mahal and an anchor 

chart with an outline 

of Gandhi and the 

word civil 

disobedience 

displayed and the 

definition 

 

The teacher uses 

visuals (primary 

sources) and 

highlights words in 

red throughout the 

The teacher switches 

the slide to a political 

cartoon of the Law of 

April 6, 1830, and tells 

the students, “I‟m 

going to explain what 

to with this political 

cartoon because I‟ve 

seen some students 

having a hard time.” 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

lesson 

(discrimination, 

South Africa). 

Technology 
The teacher puts a 

link to ClassKick in 

the chat  

Teacher post‟s link to 

NearPod lesson in the 

chat 

The teacher tells 

students, “we are 

going to use 

NearPod” and places 

a link to NearPod in 

the chat 

The teacher then 

displays an assignment 

for students to 

complete drag and 

drop interactive 

matching activity on 

Google Slides on the 

Texas Revolution. 

 

 Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D 

Engagement 
The teacher asks 

students, “can 

someone tell me what 

they learned about 

Egypt.” 

One student responds, 

“Egypt lasted for 300 

years” another student 

responds, “pyramid 

was 220 x 220”. The 

teacher thanks 

students for 

contributions. 

Behavioral 

engagement (students 

respond on NearPod) 

 

Next 

question-“Which area 

on the map shows 

you the country of 

Egypt” (100% of 

students responded 

correctly) “good job, 

class.” 

 

 

Teacher checks for 

understanding with a 

multiple choice 

question-What is 

non-violent refusal 

to obey laws and 

demands called?” 

75% of students 

answer correctly 

  

The teacher asks, “If 

you saw something 

that wasn‟t right, 

would you speak up? 

Would you try to 

change it” Teacher 

monitors responses 

students are posting 

in NearPod 

 

The teacher displays 

her screen and tells 

students that only 6 of 

22 have turned in their 

Flipgrids that were 

assigned the previous 

day. She says, “there is 

no excuse for you not 

to turn it in. I want you 

to talk from 50 

seconds to 1 minute 

and 20 seconds on the 

causes of the Texas 

Revolution. 

Rapport/ 

Teacher 

“It is okay if you do 

not know how to spell 

Teacher smiling 

throughout the lesson 

The teacher reads 

aloud names of 

Student asked in the 

chat, “is it okay if I eat 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Characteristics it; just type it as best 

as you can or 

pronounce as best as 

you can.” 

 

and says thank you to 

students that provide 

responses 

 

The teacher 

welcomes every 

student individually 

by name as they log 

in to the Google Meet 

as each student‟s 

name appears on the 

screen. 

students that have 

joined NearPod and 

(gives wait time and 

reposts link for 

late-arriving 

students) 

because I didn‟t get to 

finish my food.” The 

teacher responds, 

“listen first to what I 

am going to explain, 

and then you can 

finish eating. I know 

you don‟t have your 

camera on, and we 

cannot see you.” 

 

 
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D 

Learning 

Environment/ 

Support 

Teacher displays 

graphic organizer and 

guides students by 

typing out responses 

in the organizer for 

them to see and add to 

their notes 

Teacher says, “Nice, 

I like your 

answers”-teacher 

read and rephrased 

answers that students 

submitted and praised 

each student by 

mentioning their 

names; 

 

Assignment-pictures 

for each category of 

the Middle East, the 

teacher provided 

references for the 

assignment and 

embedded resources 

(video and map to 

label) 

 

The teacher 

displayed Google 

Form questions with 

Gandhi reading and 

explained the 

directions for the 

independent 

assignment. 

 

The teacher displays 

Google Classroom 

on her screen to 

show students where 

the review for the 

test they will be 

taking on Friday can 

be found. 

The teacher tells 

students, “I do not 

want you to feel 

embarrassed to put 

questions in the chat 

and do not put them in 

the Google Classroom 

stream because I may 

not see them, and I 

want your questions to 

be answered.” 

Note. Examples of participant behaviors witnessed during observations of emerging themes in the 

research study. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Results 

4.1 Interactive Learning Platforms 

There were 47 respondents to the survey, of which 40.5% had, on average, between 0-10 years of 

teaching experience, and 59.5% had 11 or more years of teaching experience. In terms of interactive 

learning platforms, 78.7% responded they used Smart Learning Suite, while 27.7% responded they used 

NearPod, and 21.3% use PearDeck to engage learners. One teacher wrote, “with Pear Deck, students 

seem to be more engaged. Some students who are usually shy and rarely participate are more receptive to 

the activities in this program”. In reference to NearPod, another teacher responded, “NearPod has been 

an outstanding technology tool for our students to stay engaged and teachers monitor their live 

participation whether it be a drawing activity to matching to quiz questions and use of STAAR 

strategies”. Survey results indicate that teachers have employed the use of technology games to keep 

students engaged (see Table 5). One respondent wrote, “my students love to play Quizziz and show a lot 

of excitement when they find out they are going to play”. 

The theme from these survey results indicates that teachers are using interactive learning platforms and 

technology games to engage students in virtual learning. Teacher A, a 6
th

-grade social studies teacher, 

mentioned using GimKit, ClassKick, PearDeck, and NearPod to engage students. He said, “I tell my 

students that GimKit is not free, and I am paying for it, and this encourages them to participate”. Teacher 

C, a 6
th

-grade social studies teacher, said she preferred to use games that allow for integration with 

Google Classroom to monitor and ensure students are working on the game and not doing something else. 

Teacher B said, “we play Quizziz, but my students ask to play Kahoot”.  

4.2 Level of Student Engagement 

As for the level of engagement that teachers saw in the virtual classroom, 95.7% responded students 

posted responses in the chat to answer teacher questions, 85.1% said students asked questions in the chat, 

85.1% said students unmuted their microphones to answer and ask questions, and only 31% reported 

using interactive platforms for students to submit responses. Also, only 29.8% reported they allowed 

students to share their screens to present work or products completed to the class (see Table 1).  

 

Table 3. Student Engagement Behaviors 

Student behaviors % of respondents reporting 

students exhibited behavior 

Posting responses in chat to teacher questions 95.7% 

Asking questions in the chat 85.1% 

Unmuting microphones to answer/ask questions 85.1% 

Submitting responses through interactive platforms 31.0% 

Student share screens to present products 29.8% 

Students participate in breakout rooms 10.6% 

Note. Percentage of students exhibiting the engagement behavior in respondents‟ classrooms. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.3 Types of Student Engagement 

Teacher responses to the question regarding types of engagement observed in class revealed that 53.2% 

were cognitively engaged as evidence by students asking higher-order thinking questions, 78.7% were 

emotionally engaged as evidenced by students displaying general interest, and 63.8% were behaviorally 

engaged as evidenced by students completing tasks and assignments (see Table 2).  

 

Table 4. Types of Engagement 

Types of Engagement % of respondents reporting 

indicated type of engagement  

Students asked higher order thinking questions 53.2% 

Students display general interest 78.7% 

Students complete assigned tasks 63.8% 

Note. Percentage of respondents indicating the type of engagement of students in the class. 

 

4.4 Challenges in Virtual Learning Environments 

Survey responses suggest that students are showing varying levels of behavioral, cognitive, and affective 

engagement. On average, during the participants‟ observations, 50-75% of students had their cameras off 

during the class. The students who had cameras on had them facing the ceiling, a wall, a window, or too 

high only to see the student‟s forehead. The students who did have cameras on seemed to look focused, 

but it is difficult to tell if they are affectively engaged in the teacher‟s lesson or another website. 

Participants expressed that some of their biggest challenges in virtual learning included attendance, 

access to wi-fi, distractions, and connections with students. Teacher C, a 6
th

-grade social studies teacher, 

mentioned that she sometimes sees students talking on the side during class or posting BRB in the chat 

during class. She said, “one student told me that he had to go help his mom and another said he had to 

help his little sister because she fell and he left the microphone unmuted, so I could hear the kid crying in 

the background”. Teacher D, a 7th-grade teacher, expressed that she “feels helpless” and says she misses 

having that connection and rapport with students and knowing them as people. She said, “I often tell my 

students I wish I could see you; I am learning with you; it is okay if you have questions. There is no such 

thing as dumb questions”. Teacher A said that his biggest challenge is attendance because he feels that 

students think the class will be boring. After all, they do not know him, so he tries to do different 

activities every day and uses humor to make the class more engaging. However, it is not until students 

start logging in to the class that they become aware of the variety of tools and strategies he uses to teach. 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.5 Affective Engagement  

All participants stated that their students exhibited varying engagement levels, but they consistently 

mentioned affective engagement. Teacher B stated that students post comments in the chat, such as “this 

is interesting, I enjoy it”, and he mentioned that students show interest by going and doing research on 

topics covered in class. For example, he stated that while learning about Egypt and Mesopotamia‟s 

ancient civilizations, a couple of students went and searched about King Tut and the Code of Hammurabi 

and shared what they had learned with him in class the following day. Teacher C commented that 

students took pride in their work by showing neatness in what they do, and they want to show it off. 

Teacher D alluded to educators‟ vital role in securing student engagement, consistent with Fredericks, 

Blumenfeld, and Paris‟s (2004) assertion that the level of teacher support in the classroom impacts 

student engagement. She stated that she is willing to help them and has noticed that she will have more 

student participation when she uses questions to check for understanding during the lesson on Google 

Forms than when she does not (behavioral engagement). She noticed 75% of her students participating 

when they contribute to the responses, and she then shares what they say in the chat so that they can then 

input the information on their end in the Google Form. She self-reflected during the interview and said: “I 

know that it seems like the students are not working, but they are, and it is a give and take, and I have 

noticed that their retention on scores on assignments and tests has increased since I started doing this”. 

4.6 Types of Instructional Strategies Used 

As for the types of instructional strategies used, survey respondents indicated they used the following: 

breakout rooms (17%), collaborative group projects (40.4%), collaborative group activities (46.8%), 

game competitions (51.1%), and student oral presentations (34%) (see Table 3).  

 

Table 5. Instructional Strategies 

Instructional Strategies Used % of respondents reporting using 

strategies  

Breakout rooms 17% 

Group collaborative projects 40.4% 

Group collaborative activities 46.8% 

Game competitions 51.1% 

Student oral presentations 34% 

Note. Percentage of respondents indicating the use of instructional strategies. 

 

One teacher responded that the “best strategy to keep students engaged is to purposefully question them”. 

Another survey respondent expanded on this same idea by writing, “Constantly questioning-I feel this is 

important calling them out by name using incentives such as raffles allowing them to have discussions 

about open-ended questions and connecting it to today‟s society. Trying to expose the content knowledge 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

through all the multiple intelligences and having high expectations regardless if it is virtual”. While 

teachers report using instructional strategies such as breakout rooms, collaborative projects/activities, 

and oral presentations, none of the strategies were observed in the participants‟ classrooms during formal 

observation and not mentioned during the participants‟ interviews. Participants stressed that visuals and 

technology tools are what they feel has helped them keep students engaged in learning. Teacher A said 

students like the bellringers he does, specifically the See-Think-Wonder, and fill in the blanks. He thinks 

students like these activities because he values their opinions: “I use post-its and write down what every 

student tells me, and I stick it onto the picture”.  

Teacher B and C mentioned that visuals, scavenger hunts, props, and backdrops have helped engage 

students. During teacher B‟s class observation, he used props of a miniature gold pharaoh statue, an oil 

barrel for oil, and the Bible for religions to introduce the Middle East lesson‟s key vocabulary terms. He 

also used a movie trailer of the famous film Aladdin and asked students to find evidence indicating the 

country was developed or developing. Many students submitted responses in the chat, indicating their 

response. Similarly, Teacher C mentioned making relevant connections between a lesson on Islam and 

showing students a mosque picture in their city. Through Class Kick and NearPod, Teacher A states he 

can monitor what students are doing and requires that students submit a response to questions he asks to 

assess understanding and ensure cognitive engagement.  

4.7 Summary 

A thematic analysis approach of the data collected revealed the main themes: teacher characteristics, 

relationships, interactive technology, and support. The overarching theme that emerged from this data 

was that teachers play a significant role in creating a learning environment that supports students, 

encourages participation through interactive technology, and nurtures relationships to promote student 

engagement. 

 

5. Discussion 

5.1 Student Engagement Survey Findings  

The survey findings measuring student engagement in middle school social studies classrooms revealed 

that games and interactive learning platforms effectively contributed to cognitive, affective, and 

behavioral engagement. Specifically, the results revealed that teachers who had 0-5 years of teaching 

experience and 11-15 years of experience reported having more than one type of engagement in the 

classroom. 38.5% of teachers who were relatively new to the profession reported that their students 

displayed cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement, and 55.5% had students that exhibited at least 

two types of engagement (see Table 4).  

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 6. Types of Engagement by Years of Experience  

# of 

Respondents 

Years of 

Experience 

All three forms 

of engagement 

Cognitive 

engagement 

Affective 

engagement  

Behavioral 

engagement 

13 0-5 38.0% 53.8% 100% 69.0% 

6 6-10 33.3% 50.0% 66.7% 83.3% 

9 11-15 55.5% 77.8% 77.8% 66.7% 

12 16-20 25.0% 41.7% 25.0% 41.7% 

7 20+ 28.6% 42.9% 85.7% 42.9% 

Note. Types of engagement in respondents classrooms by years of experience. 

 

These results can likely be because 92% of this same group of teachers reported that their students posted 

responses in the chat, asked questions in the chat, unmuted their microphones to respond, and used 

interactive platforms for teaching.  

5.2 Technology Tools Used in Virtual Learning Environments 

100% of the 0-5 years experience group of teachers use digital games such as Kahoot, Quizziz, Purpose 

Games, and Quizlet live to engage their students and interactive platforms such as the Smart Learning 

Suite, NearPod, and PearDeck (see Table 5). The most effective instructional strategies to maintain 

student engagement amongst this group of teachers included collaborative group projects and game 

competitions based on survey results. 

 

Table 7. Technology Tools  

# of 

Respondents 

Years of 

Experience 

Quizziz Kahoot Purpose 

Games 

Quizlet 

Live 

Smart 

Learning 

Suite 

NearPod 

13 0-5 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

6 6-10 83.3% 83.3% 66.7% 66.7% 83.3% 16.7% 

9 11-15 88.9% 100% 0% 55.6% 88.9% 44.4% 

12 16-20 58.3% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 83.3% 0% 

7 20+ 42.8% 42.8% 42.8% 42.8% 85.6% 0% 

Note. Percentage of respondents indicating the use of interactive learning platforms or games. 

 

The participants in this research inquiry fell in the 0-5 years of teaching experience range and have 

medium to high affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement levels. Factors such as teacher 

characteristics, technology tools, and rapport affect the engagement level of students. During classroom 

observations, the teachers demonstrated the following behaviors towards students: they thanked them for 

submitting responses in the chat, recognized and provided feedback for correct responses, showed 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

genuine enthusiasm while teaching, and encouraged students to share their opinions. The one 

characteristic that defined these participants was passion-they all took great pride in what they were 

teaching and provided specific and vivid details to engage learners. All participants used technology 

tools to engage students and provide support, whether it was through Google Slides, Google Forms, or 

NearPod. Exemplars, posting of questions, and essential details in the chat by the teacher helped students 

cognitively engage in the content. To facilitate access to resources, teachers modeled how to access 

needed materials and resources to complete assignments by sharing screens and modeling the steps on 

Google Classroom. Teachers used intentional questioning to obtain student feedback, and an 

overwhelming majority of students submitted written responses through the chat or the interactive 

platform utilized. Few students unmuted their microphones to volunteer responses on their own. Even 

when teachers intentionally called on students, there was some wait time before a student unmuted the 

microphone to respond. It is evident that in the participants‟ virtual classrooms, teachers have created a 

supportive and caring environment that is conducive to learning and engagement. Nevertheless, students 

still do not turn on their cameras, and few unmute their microphones to participate. Thus, despite all of 

their dispositions, planning, and caring for students, they are still struggling with keeping students 

affectively, behaviorally, and cognitively engaged. 

5.3 Implications, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research 

The findings in this research study suggest that teachers play a significant role in shaping the learning 

environment, and the instructional decisions they make influence the types and levels of engagement that 

students display in the virtual classroom. The mediating factor is that even though students log in to the 

classes, everyday teachers still do not “know” their students and have not fully developed a relationship 

that typically develops in traditional classrooms. Even though some teachers go above and beyond to 

create an inviting virtual background environment or use visuals, videos, and games, teachers can ask 

questions in a virtual room that will remain silent if possible for the entire class period because students 

will not respond.  

This study‟s limitations are that it focused only on middle school teachers in one subject area and on 

participants‟ responses selected through the same school district. Therefore, generalizability may be 

limited. A broader research inquiry may reveal a better understanding of types of engagement exhibited 

in virtual learning environments over a prolonged time and a broader area with a larger sample size. An 

additional research area might be exploring how to incorporate social-emotional learning principles and 

activities in social studies classrooms to help teachers develop relationships with their students to 

increase student engagement. Also, since teachers contribute to students‟ engagement, further inquiry 

into how teachers understand engagement affects student engagement is needed.  

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

6. Conclusion 

The upheaval brought to the education system by the COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for 

educators to think outside of the box to provide high-quality instruction and meet state standards while 

struggling to maintain student engagement. The findings of this qualitative research inquiry revealed that 

teachers‟ daily struggles with behavioral student engagement include having students turn and keep their 

cameras on, having students unmute their microphones to respond when intentionally called on, and 

completing assignments and tasks. Teachers that use interactive learning platforms such as Pear Deck 

and NearPod reported having greater student engagement during instruction. Also, utilizing technology 

tools that encourage game competitions such as Quizziz and Kahoot motivated students and contributed 

to cognitive and emotional engagement. The majority of interaction between students and teachers 

during virtual learning is through the chat feature of Google Meet by where students post responses to 

teacher questions and ask questions.  

Engagement is a triangular construct that encompasses the affective, cognitive, and behavioral domains. 

Depending on individual abilities and general interest in the class (Borup, Graham, West, Archambault & 

Spring, 2020), students will exhibit behaviors at various engagement levels, but it requires teacher 

ingenuity, passion, and perseverance to ignite that passion for learning. Fredericks, Blumenfeld, and 

Paris (2004) argue that “engagement, once established, builds on itself, thereby contributing to increased 

improvements in more distal outcomes of interest” (p. 61). Thus, the implication is that teachers must 

continuously gauge students‟ level of engagement, adapt instructional strategies, get to know their 

students, and have a strong presence in the virtual learning environment to ensure continuous student 

engagement. 

 

References 

Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement 

strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041  

Borup, J., Graham, C. R., West, R. E., Archambault, L., & Spring, K. J. (2020). Academic communities 

of engagement: An expansive lens for examining support structures in blended and online learning. 

Education Tech Research Development, 68, 807-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09744-x 

Buric, I., & Frenzel, A. C. (2020). Teacher emotional labour, instructional strategies, and students‟ 

academic engagement: A multilevel analysis. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1-18. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1740194 

Czerkawski, B., & Lyman, E. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student 

engagement in online learning environments. Tech Trends, 60(6), 532-539. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z 

Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussion. 

Computers & Education, 115, 126-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016  

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09744-x
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1740194
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Dixon, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find 

engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.  

Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, H. A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, 

state of evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059  

Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, C. (2020). Are we ready for the post-Covid 19 educational practice? An 

investigation into what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in 

Education and Science, 4(4), 293-309. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.110   

Raes, A., Vannesete, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Depaepe, F. F. (2020). 

Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students‟ engagement 

and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education, 143, 1-16. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682  

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy: Lancaster 

University. Retrieved from 

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/StudentEngagementLiteratureReview_1.pdf  

Van Uden, J., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2013). I think I can engage my students. Teachers‟ perceptions 

of student engagement and their beliefs about being a teacher. Teacher and Teacher Education, 32, 

43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.004 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.110
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.004

