Description of Medical Students’ Behavioral, Cognitive, and Psychological Engagement with Faculty Online Teaching Styles

Figures & data

Figure 1 Online Student engagement scale.

Note: Adapted from Lee J, Song HD, Hong AJ. Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability. 2019;11. Creative Commons.^15.

Abbreviations: CPE, Cognitive Problem Solving; PC, Peer Collaboration; PM, Psychological Motivation; CS, Community Support; II, interaction with instructor; LM, Learning Management.

Figure 2 Teaching style inventory in Higher Education.

Note: Adapted from Abello, Alonso-Tapia, Panadero. Development and validation of the teaching styles inventory for higher education (TSIHE). Anales de Psicologia. 2020;36:143–154.¹⁴.

Abbreviations: TSI, Teacher Student Interaction; DMN, Decision-Making Negotiation; TS, Teaching Structuring; B.C, Behavioral Control.

Table 1 Demographic Data of Study Population

Study group	UNIVERSITY 1		UNIVERSITY 2
MBBS year batch	Number of students	Percentage Responded (n)	Number of students	Percentage Responded (n)
Year 1	108	51.8 (56)	102	40.2 (41)
Year 2	100	47 (47)	99	38.3 (38)
Year 3	95	36.84 (35)	81	49.38 (40)
Year 4	90	46.6 (42)	86	52.32 (45)
Year 5	84	47.6 (40)	82	47.6 (39)
Total	477	46.12 (220)	450	45.11 (203)
Gender
Female		72.7 (160)		70 (142)
Male		27.3 (60)		30 (61)
Nationality
MENAR		31.36 (69)		28.07 (57)
ASIAN		46.82 (103)		53.69 (109)
WESTREN		11.36 (25)		6.4 (13)
Not mentioned		10.45 (23)		11.82 (24)

Notes: Demographic and response rates of study population from both the universities.

Abbreviation: MENAR, Middle East and North African Region.

Table 2 Online Teaching Styles of Faculty as Perceived by Students

TEACHING STYLES PERCEPTION
Faculty online Instruction styles	UNIVERSITY 1 % (n)	UNIVERSITY 2 % (n)	p-value
Teacher Student Interaction
Emotionally Attached	63.7 (140)	67.5 (137)	0.12
Emotionally Detached	36.3 (80)	32.5 (66)
Decision Making Negotiation
Compromised	66.8 (147)	73.4 (149)	0.06
Authoritarian	33.2 (73)	26.6 (54)
Teaching Structure
Flexible	69.6 (153)	77.3 (157)	0.15
Rigid	30.5 (67)	22.7 (46)
Behavior Control
Lenient	70.5 (155)	76.8 (156)	0.12
Strict	29.5 (65)	23.2 (47)

Notes: Comparison of faculty online teaching styles as perceived by the students from both the universities is comparable with no statistical significance.

Table 3 Students’ Engagement During Online Teaching

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Engagement domain	UNIVERSITY 1 % (n)	UNIVERSITY 2 % (n)	P value
Cognitive engagement
Engaged	45.5 (100)	61 (124)	0.001
Disengaged	54.5 (120)	39 (79)
Behavioral engagement
Engaged	40.5 (89)	51.7 (105)	0.014
Disengaged	59.5 (131)	48.3 (98)
Psychological engagement
Engaged	21.8 (48)	31.5 (64)	0.002
Disengaged	78.2 (172)	68.5 (139)
Overall engagement	35.8% (79)	48% (97)	0.09

Notes: Both university students had a statistically significant difference in cognitive, behavioral, and psychological engagement, though overall engagement difference among both university students was insignificant.

Table 4 Difference in Students’ Engagement for Online Teaching Across the Educational Level

	UNI 1	UNI 2		UNI 1	UNI 2		UNI 1	UNI 2
Year of study	Cognitive engagement %		p-value	Behavioral engagement %		p-value	Psychological engagement %		P-value
Year 1	59	58.5	0.15	44.6	39	0.22	21.4	17	0.06
Year 2	46.8	42		44.7	34		25.5	29
Year 3	40	62.5		31.4	57.5		11.4	57.5
Year 4	54.8	57.8		59.5	60		38.1	57.8
Year 5	20	61.5		15	74.4		10	66.6

Notes: No statistically significant difference was observed in the three domains of student engagement across the level of study. Both universities showed an observable low engagement among the transition year students (3^rd year in University 1 and 2^nd year in university 2).

Table 5 Relationship Between Four Teaching Styles and Online Student Cognitive Engagement

Student Engagement vs Teaching Styles	Cognitively Engaged F (n)		Cognitively Disengaged F (n)		Lambda Coefficient λ
	University 1	University 2	University 1	University 2	University 1	University 2
Teacher student interaction
Emotionally attached	77	110	63	27	0.235(M)	0.165(M)
Emotionally detached	23	27	57	39
Decision Making Negotiation
Compromised	79	107	68	42	0.363(S)	0.241 (M)
Authoritarian	21	17	52	37
Teaching Structure
Flexible	88	92	65	63	0.061 (W)	0.266(M)
Rigid	12	13	55	33
Behavioral Control
Lenient	86	115	69	41	0.171 (M)	0.278(M)
Strict	14	13	51	34

Notes: Moderate to strong correlation between both university students’ cognitive engagement and all the domains of their faculty online teaching styles.

Abbreviations: S, strong; M, moderate; W, weak.

Table 6 Relationship Between Four Teaching Styles and Online Student Behavioral Engagement

Student Engagement vs Teaching Styles	Behaviorally Engaged F (n)		Behaviorally Disengaged F (n)		Lambda Coefficient λ
	University 1	University 2	University 1	University 2	University 1	University 2
Teacher student interaction
Emotionally attached	77	87	63	50	0.310(S)	0.193 (M)
Emotionally detached	12	18	68	48
Decision Making Negotiation
Compromised	76	92	71	57	0.934 (S)	0.193(M)
Authoritarian	13	13	60	41
Teaching Structure
Flexible	79	93	61	64	0.808 (S)	0.216 (M)
Rigid	10	12	70	34
Behavioral Control
Lenient	76	96	79	60	0.00 (N)	0.295 (M)
Strict	13	60	52	96

Notes: There was a strong correlation between both university 1 students’ behavioral engagement and first three domains of their faculty online teaching styles, whereas in university 2 students, there was a moderate correlation between behavioral engagement and all four domains of their faculty online teaching styles.

Abbreviations: S, strong, M, moderate N, No correlation.

Table 7 Relationship Between Four Teaching Styles and Online Student Psychological Engagement

Student Engagement vs Teaching Styles	Psychologically Engaged F (n)		Psychologically Disengaged F (n)		Lambda Coefficient λ
	University 1	University 2	University 1	University 2	University 1	University 2
Teacher student interaction
Emotionally attached	41	57	99	80	0.000(N)	0.000(N)
Emotionally detached	7	7	73	59
Decision Making Negotiation
Compromised	44	59	103	90	0.000(N)	0.000(N)
Authoritarian	4	5	69	49
Teaching Structure
Flexible	44	60	96	97	0.000(N)	0.000(N)
Rigid	4	4	76	42
Behavioral Control
Lenient	41	4	114	43	0.000(N)	0.000(N)
Strict	7	9	58	38

Notes: There was no correlation between psychological engagement of both university students and all the domains of their faculty online teaching styles.

Abbreviation: N, No correlation.

Lee J, Song HD, Hong AJ. Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability. 2019;24:11.

 Google Scholar

Abello A-T, Alonso Tapia J, Panadero Calderón E; Panadero. Development and validation of the teaching styles inventory for higher education (TSIHE). Anales de Psicologia. 2020;36(1):143–154. doi:10.6018/analesps.370661

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar