Theoretical Framework

1. Introduction

This research provides a framework on the factors that affect the academic performance of students in
general. however, we will be focusing mostly on the topic of "Online learning and the aspects affecting
students’ academic performance and its effect on the student's productivity levels"

1.1 Aspects affecting student’s academic performance

The performance of students is critical in producing high-quality graduates who will become great
leaders and manpower for the country, ultimately responsible for the country's economic and social
development. Academic achievement is one of the most important factors considered by employers
when hiring employees, particularly recent graduates. As a result, students should then exert their best
efforts in their studies to obtain good grades while also preparing themselves for future opportunities in
their careers and meeting the employer's demand.

According to Minnesota (2007), "the academic performance of graduate students determines higher
education performance." Durden and Ellis cited Staffolani and Bratti (2002), who stated that "the
measurement of students' previous educational outcomes is one of the most important predictors of
students' future achievement."; This means that the higher the previous appearance, the better the
student's academic performance in future endeavors will be. Graetz (1995) conducted a study on the
socioeconomic status of students' parents and concluded that the socio-economic background has a
significant impact on the academic performance of students. It has been the principal cause of
differences in achievement among students as well as student's academic success.

According to Marquez (2009), a student who is successful in his desired career has good study habits. In
line with this, she stated that students should integrate these practices into all of their classes. She also
advised students not to attempt to study all subjects in a single session.

2. Online Learning

Like all previous ones, this global catastrophe has shown the consequences, even after a pandemic

has dissipated. Many countries have introduced such curfew and lockout protocols from the outset

to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic (Alawamleh, 2020). Therefore, education establishments resorted
to continuing lectures through websites such as Google Meet as a result. In this section, we will be
discussing the following sub-topics to help us gain a better understanding of the subject.

2.1 What are online learning and face-to-face learning?

2002; Conrad, 2002). Both Benson (2002) and Conrad (2002) define online learning as a more modern
form of distance learning that enhances access for learners identified as both nontraditional and
ineffective to educational opportunities.

second, face-to-face learning is one in which instructors and students meet concurrently and in the
same location. Sessions are synchronous in the face-to-face learning process. As no communication
technology is required for a face-to-face session (Caner, 2012).

2.2 The difference between face-to-face learning and online learning. Over the last few years, digital
media have improved the teaching and learning experiences and have become a common practice for
university students and lecturers. The use of e-learning and digital media for teaching and learning has
grown rapidly in just a few years (Paechter and Maier,

2010). In a comparative study, Dabbagh and Ritland (2005) examined the differences between
traditional and online learning environments, arguing that traditional learning environments are bound
by the location and presence of the teacher and the students conducted in real-time, managed by the
instructor, and are linear in teaching methods

2.3 The benefits of online learning. There are a large number of studies that consider statistically
significant positive effects for student learning outcomes in the online format, as opposed to
conventional face-to-face format. Some of the positive learning outcomes include improved learning as
measured by test scores, student engagement with the course material,

enhanced understanding of learning and the online environment, a stronger sense of community among
students, and reduced withdrawal or failure (Nguyen, 2015). Online learning often appeals to a large
number of students, as it offers versatility in

participation, accessibility, and convenience. Furthermore, online learning will continue to be an integral
part of higher education (Croxton, 2014). “Whether or not you’re keen on using technology for learning,
the fact is that it’s here to stay. Technology has become an essential way to handle the education,
training, and retraining needs of an expanding knowledge society” (Berge, 2007).

2.3.1 Convenience. It cites the convenience attribute as the prime value of online learning. Students are
in circumstances where they choose the convenience of online learning over the facetime provided by
the brick and mortar classrooms. The ease of online learning enables direct communication between
instructors and peers in the cyber class (Fedynich, 2013)

nd everyone in the class can participate.

2.3.2 According to Garnham and Kaleta (2002), “Introverts, who are quiet in the face-to-face class, really
participate online.” Kupczynskiet al. (2008) found that student participation increased in the
asynchronous environment, as there is time to “post messages, read and respond to messages, reflect
on responses, revise interpretations, and modify original assumptions and

perceptions...” but in a face-to-face class, this would not be the case (Fedynich, 2013). Although there
are some cases of other introverts not participating.
2.4 The problems of online learning. To date, online learning seems to have lots of benefits for everyone
involved. While online learning is having a positive impact, problems need to be brought to light. Such
drawbacks will prove to be considerable obstacles if fully understood, expected, and planned. One study
carried out by Boling et al. (2012) found that most of their study participants viewed online courses as
individualizing learning and limiting interaction with others. Students described feeling isolated from
their teachers, from the content of the course, and from their classmates. Participants in these courses
explained how their online interactions were text-based lectures and several reading and writing
assignments completed. Many of those tasks limited the ability of the students to develop a higher level
of cognitive abilities and imaginative thinking. For example, one student, John,

stated, “Most of our topics are generically produced as part of the course curriculum, and so it is usually
very simplistic in what is being asked or what is being given information-wise....” Another student,
Pamela, commented that her course consisted of “Just reading and reading and reading until it fell out
my ears, and then you had to repeat it back in a persuasive way” (Boling et al., 2012). Vonderwell (2003)
described problems with students not engaging in conversation with each other and considered the
online atmosphere to be impersonal. One student commented: “It is not like a person-to-person
interaction. It’s more like computer-to-computer interaction” (Kear, 2010).

2.5 Motivation and learning online. Schunk (2008) defined motivation as “The process whereby goal-
directed activity is instigated and sustained.” Motivation can influence what we learn, how we learn, and
when we choose to learn (Hartnett et al., 2011). Research shows that motivated learners are more likely
to participate in challenging activities, participate actively, enjoy and adopt a deep learning approach
and exhibit increased performance, persistence, and creativity (Schunk and Zimmerman, 2012).
Contemporary views link motivation to cognitive and affective processes of individuals, such as
thoughts, beliefs, and objectives, and emphasize

2.6 The effect of student engagement on the online learning environment. Student engagement has been
described as the level of interest demonstrated by students, how they interact with others in the course,
and their motivation to learn about the topics (Briggs, 2015). There are several effective factors related
to student engagement which include attitude, personality, motivation, effort, and self-confidence.
Jaggars and Xu (2016) found that in online courses the level of interaction within the course parameters
was positively associated with the grades of the students. By evaluating the level of student interest and
taking into account these affective factors, instructors will organize lessons and events more effectively
that will enable students to participate more actively in their learning and course work (Jennings and
Angelo, 2006; Mandernach, 2011).

2.7 Summary

The majority of researchers define online learning as gaining access to learning activities through the use
of technology. Many students choose online learning because it allows them to participate at their own
pace, has quick access, and is convenient. Students, on the other hand, reported concerns connected to
interpersonal aspects of online communication in the majority of studies. Students frequently felt
isolated, overshadowed by other members, or hesitant to offer their opinions in public. Poor
engagement and participation, as well as other challenges caused by a lack of immediacy and nonverbal
indications, were also major issues. Several pupils took a look at the medium. As a result of being
"faceless," there may be misunderstandings and a negative tone. There are other factors that influence
students' academic performance and productivity levels; In the study's framework, the independent
variables are the general students themselves. Factors affecting academic success are among the
dependent variables. Personal circumstances, study habits, home-related elements, school-related
features, and teacher-related factors are all considerations.

References

Alawamleh, M. (2020), “COVID-19 and higher education economics”, Journal of Economics and

Economic Education Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 1-2.

Berge, Z.L. (2007), “Barriers and the organization’s capabilities for distance education”, Distance

Learning, Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 1.

Boling, E.C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H. and Stevens, M. (2012), “Cutting the distance in

distance education: perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences”, The

Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 118-126

Briggs, A. (2015), “Ten ways to overcome barriers to student engagement online”, Online Learning

Consortium, available at: http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/news_item/tenways-overcome-barriers-

Conrad, D. (2002), “Deep in the hearts of learners: insights into the nature of online community”, The

Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Croxton, R.A. (2014), “The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online

learning”, Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 314.

Dabbagh, N. and Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005), Online Learning: Concepts, Strategies, and Application,

Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 68-107.

Fedynich, L.V. (2013), “Teaching beyond the classroom walls: the pros and cons of cyber learning”,

Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, Vol. 13, pp. 1-7.

Jaggars, S.S. and Xu, D. (2016), “How do online course design features influence student performance?”,

Computers and Education, Vol. 95, pp. 270-284.

Hartnett, M. (2016), “The importance of motivation in online learning”, Motivation in Online Education,

Springer, Singapore, pp. 5-32.

Jennings, J.M. and Angelo, T.A. (Eds) (2006), Student Engagement: Measuring and Enhancing

Engagement with Learning: Proceedings of a Symposium Held on Monday and Tuesday 27 and

28 March 2006 at the Frederic Wallis House Conference Centre, New Zealand Universities
Academic Audit Unit, Lower Hutt

Kear, K. (2010), Social Presence in Online Learning Communities, Proceedings of the 7th International

Conference on Networked Learning 2010, 3-4 May 2010, Aalborg, Denmark

Mandernach, B.J., Donnelli-Sallee, E. and Dailey-Hebert, A. (2011), “Assessing course student

engagement”, Promoting Student Engagement, Vol. 1, pp. 277-281

Minnesota Measures (2007) Report on higher education performance. Retrieved on May 24, 2008 from
www.opencongress.org/bill/110.s/642/show-139k.

Nguyen, T. (2015), “The effectiveness of online learning: beyond no significant difference and future

horizons”, Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 309-319.

Paechter, M. and Maier, B. (2010), “Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in

e-learning”, The internet and higher education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 292-297.

Psychology Today. Art Markman Ph.D., Published Feb 27, 2012

Schunk, D.H. (2008), Cognition and Instruction, Learning Theories: An Education Perspective,

pp. 278-323

Schunk, D.H. and Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds) (2012), Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory,

Research, and Applications, Routledge, New York.

Vonderwell, S. (2003), “An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives

of students in an online course: a case study”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 1,

pp. 77-90.