Exploring Interactive Pedagogy to Enhance Students’ Engagement in ECE in Southwest China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/shserj.2025.37Keywords:
Learner-Content Interaction, Learner-Instructor Interaction, Learner-Learner Interaction, Students’ Emotional, Behavioural and Cognitive Engagement, Early Childhood EducationAbstract
Purpose: This study is to verify the significance between learner-content interaction, learner-instructor interaction, learner-learner interaction and students’ emotional, behavioural, and cognitive engagement in class. Research design, data and methodology: Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) rating and a pilot test (n=30) were used for validity and reliability. 280 responses from ECE in an application-oriented private university in southwest China were analyzed by the multiple linear regression (MLR) to verify the significant relationship between variables and 6 teachers and 12 students were interviewed for offering suggestions to intervention process. Following this, a group of 40 students underwent a 12-week Intervention Design and Implementation (IDI). Afterwards, the results were compared using paired samples t-test before and after the intervention and the same 6 students were interviewed for feedback. Results: The results of MLR revealed that there were significant influences between learner-content interaction, learner-learner interaction and students’ emotional, behavioural and cognitive engagement, but not learner-instructor interaction. In addition, paired samples t-test results indicated significant changes in learner-content interaction, learner-learner interaction, and students' emotional, behavioural and cognitive engagement before and after the intervention. Conclusions: Although benefits and challenges coexist, interactive pedagogy is worth promoting as it enhances students’ learning effectiveness, emotional experiences, and overall development.
References
Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255-264.
Alaidi, A., Yahya, O., & Alrikabi, H. (2020). Using modern education technique in Wasit university. International Association of Online Engineering, 14(6), 82-94.
Allen, M. W. (2016). Michael Allen's guide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun, and effective learning programs for any company. John Wiley & Sons.
Anjarwati, R., & Sa’adah, L. (2021). Student learning engagement in the online class. English Journal of Merdeka: Culture, Language, and Teaching of English, 6(2), 104-114.
Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention Theory & Method: A Behavioural Science View. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Astin, A. W. (1999). “Involvement in Learning” Revisited: Lessons We Have Learned. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 587-98.
Banna, J., Lin, M.-F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249-261.
Beck, V. S. (2010). Comparing online and face-to-face teaching and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 21(3), 95-108.
Benic, M. Z., & Jambresic, I. (2020). Is There a Need for Handicraft in Preschool? Attitudes of Preschool Teachers and Parents on Including Handicraft Activities in the Regular Preschool Program. INTED2020 Proceedings, 1511-1519).
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. Cambridge University Press.
Böheim, R., Schnitzler, K., Gröschner, A., Weil, M., Knogler, M., Schindler, A. K., & Seidel, T. (2021). Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, 100450.
Brandt, W. C. (2020). Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Self-Directed Learning. National Centre for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
Catalano, G. D., & Catalano, K. (1999). Transformation: From teacher‐centred to student‐centred engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1), 59-64.
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioural and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77(1), 60-81.
Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.
Elizondo-Garcia, J., & Gallardo, K. (2020). Peer Feedback in Learner Learner Interaction Practices. Mixed Methods Study on an xMOOC. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(2), 122-135.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Fung, D., & Liang, T. (2023). The effectiveness of collaborative mind mapping in Hong Kong primary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(3), 899-922.
Gnusowski, M., & Schoefer, K. (2022). Student-to-Student Interactions in Marketing Education: A Critical Incident Technique-Based Inquiry Into Drivers of Students’(Dis) Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 44(1), 25-40.
Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Effects of a professional development program on behavioural engagement of students in middle and high school. Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 143-163.
Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Strycker, L. A., & Dennis, C. (2021). Measuring Explicit Instruction Using Classroom Observations of Student–Teacher Interactions (COSTI). Perspectives on Behaviour Science, 44(2), 267-283.
Han, K. (2021). Fostering students' autonomy and engagement in EFL classroom through proximal classroom factors: autonomy-supportive behaviours and student-teacher relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 767079.
Hartikainen, J., Poikkeus, A. M., Haapala, E. A., Sääkslahti, A., & Finni, T. (2021). Associations of Classroom Design and Classroom-Based Physical Activity with Behavioural and Emotional Engagement among Primary School Students. Sustainability, 13(14), 8116.
Huang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioural and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1106-1126.
Ifinedo, P., & Usoro, A. (2016). Students' intentions to continue using blogs to learn: A sociocognitive-perspective. Computing and Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 1-11.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kumar, P., Saxena, C., & Baber, H. (2021). Learner-content interaction in e-learning-the moderating role of perceived harm of COVID-19 in assessing the satisfaction of learners. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 1-15.
Lai, H. M., Hsieh, P. J., Uden, L., & Yang, C. H. (2021). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing university students’ behavioural engagement in flipped classrooms. Computers & Education, 175, 104318.
Lamb, S., Huo, S., Walstab, A., Wade, A., Maire, Q., Doecke, E., Jackson, J., & Endekov, Z. (2020). Educational opportunity in Australia 2020: Who succeeds and who misses out. Centre for International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University, for the Mitchell Institute: Melbourne.
Leite, L. O., Go, W., & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2022). Exploring the learning process of experienced teachers focused on building positive interactions with pupils. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(1), 28-42.
Luo, N., Li, H., Zhao, L., Wu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2022). Promoting student engagement in online learning through harmonious classroom environment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(5), 541-551.
Lutz, M. E., & Culver, S. (2010). The national survey of student engagement: A university‐level analysis. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(1), 35-44.
Manzoor, A., Aziz, H., Jahanzaib, M., Wasim, A., & Hussain, S. (2017). Transformational model for engineering education from content-based to outcome-based education. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 27(4), 266-286.
Martin, D. P., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2015). Do student self-efficacy and teacher-student interaction quality contribute to emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math?. Journal of school psychology, 53(5), 359-373.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.
Miao, J., Chang, J., & Ma, L. (2022). Teacher–Student Interaction, Student–Student Interaction and Social Presence: Their Impacts on Learning Engagement in Online Learning Environments. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 183(6), 514-526.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic China. (2011, July 29). Outline of the National Medium- and Long-Term Education Reform and Development Plan (2010-2010). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A01/s7048/201007/t20100729_171904.html
Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Computers & Education, 123(4), 41-52.
Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2021). Introduction to linear regression analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Muir, T., Wang, I., Trimble, A., Mainsbridge, C., & Douglas, T. (2022). Using interactive online pedagogical approaches to promote student engagement. Education Sciences, 12(6), 415.
Munna, A. S., & Kalam, M. A. (2021). Impact of Active Learning Strategy on the Student Engagement. GNOSI: an interdisciplinary journal of human theory and praxis, 4(2), 96-114.
Nabievna, A. O. (2023). Role Play as a Way of Displaying the World in Preschool Age. Central Asian Journal of Social Sciences and History, 4(2), 42-48.
Naibert, N., Vaughan, E. B., Brevick, K., & Barbera, J. (2022). Exploring Student Perceptions of Behavioural, Cognitive, and Emotional Engagement at the Activity Level in General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(3), 1358-1367.
Niemi, K. (2021). ‘The best guess for the future?’ Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Education Inquiry, 12(3), 282-300.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., Panigrahi, P. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022). Role of internet self-efficacy and interactions on blended learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 62(6), 1239-1252.
Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate team- work? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37-45.
Piamsai, C. (2020). The effect of scaffolding on non-proficient EFL learners’ performance in an academic writing class. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(2), 288-305.
Pilotti, M., Anderson, S., Hardy, P., Murphy, P., & Vincent, P. (2017). Factors related to cognitive, emotional, and behavioural engagement in the online asynchronous classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 145-153.
Powers, K., Shin, S. H., Hagans, K. S., & Cordova, M. (2015). The impact of a teacher professional development program on student engagement. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 3(4), 231-240.
Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude, digital literacy and self-efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behaviour. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91-97.
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. Springer.
Reschly, A. L., Pohl, A. J., & Christenson, S. L. (Eds.). (2020). Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioural, cognitive, and affective interventions at school. Springer.
Ross, A., & Willson, V. L. (2017). Paired samples T-test. Brill.
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1976). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13(2), 161-175.
Sagayadevan, V., & Jeyaraj, S. (2012). The role of Emotional Engagement in Lecturer-Student interaction and the Impact on Academic Outcomes of Student Achievement and Learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 1-30.
Sanders, M. J. (2013). Classroom design and student engagement. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 57(1), 496-500.
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120.
Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2022). Effects of using mobile instant messaging on student behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement: a quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 1-22.
Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57-79.
Tsai, C. L., Ku, H. Y., & Campbell, A. (2021). Impacts of course activities on student perceptions of engagement and learning online. Distance Education, 42(1), 106-125.
Tsai, K. C. (2017). Teacher-Student Relationships, Satisfaction, and Achievement among Art and Design College Students in Macau. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(6), 12-16.
Tuovinen, J. E. (2000). Multimedia distance education interactions. Educational Media International, 37(1), 16-24.
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an online class. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18(2), 151-163.
Wang, Y., Cao, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Z., Li, N., & Ai, L. (2022). Interaction and learning engagement in online learning: The mediating roles of online learning self-efficacy and academic emotions. Learning and Individual Differences, 94, 102128.
Xerri, M. J., Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (2018). Student engagement in academic activities: a social support perspective. Higher education, 75(4), 589-605.
Xinjian, Z., Fang, T., Liyan, L., & Yirun, C. (2018). How to Cultivate Application-Oriented Undergraduates – The Growth Path of an Outstanding Graduate on E-Commerce Major. Education Quarterly Reviews, 1(2), 153-167.
Yang, P. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2014). Factors influencing classroom behavioural engagement during the first year at school. Applied Developmental Science, 18(4), 189-200.
Yogev, E., Gal, K., Karger, D., Facciotti, M. T., & Igo, M. (2018). Classifying and visualizing students' cognitive engagement in course readings. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, 52, 1-10.
Zhang, Z. (2015). Undergraduate student engagement in China and the UK [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Manchester.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lu Zhang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The submitting author warrants that the submission is original and that she/he is the author of the submission together with the named co-authors; to the extend the submission incorporates text passages, figures, data, or other material from the work of others, the submitting author has obtained any necessary permission.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY What does this mean?). This is to get more legal certainty about what readers can do with published articles, and thus a wider dissemination and archiving, which in turn makes publishing with this journal more valuable for you, the authors.