Traditional versus virtual learning : How engaged are the students in learning English literature ?

This study is aimed to investigate students‟ levels of engagement in learning English literature for traditional learning and virtual learning environment. There are four dimensions of engagement that were studied, which are the cognitive, behavioural, emotional and agentic engagement. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement by Reeve (2012) was used for the foundation of this study. A questionnaire of School Engagement Measure was used to collect data from 80 respondents. The data were analysed using descriptive analysis utilizing the SPSS software. The results of this study show that the engagement level of the virtual learning environment is higher than the engagement level of the traditional learning. Based on the results, further research is recommended to focus on the effectiveness of virtual learning environment in the classroom for the teaching and learning process.


INTRODUCTION
The traditional classroom does not allow students to maximise their discussion as their information is limited to the text and resources in the classroom only (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009).They have no access to any other information outside the classroom.According to Shimamoto (2012), most of class time for traditional classes is spent with teachers" lecture where he or she will explain concepts of the knowledge while students will listen and take notes.Then, they will use the notes for reference at home while working on homework or task given and assigned to them thus, creating learners who are passive and they will have to work harder or maybe even struggle if they want to complete a task without any assistance.Corresponding with Egbert, Herman, and Lee (2015) suggested that everyone, including students who are studying education need to distinguish teaching as something that is beneficial for everyone, which creates stimulation and interest while making the best of classroom time.Meanwhile, according to Colis and Moonen (2001), the shift from the traditional learning towards the VLE is giving the students and teachers a more supple learning environment, especially for the time used, the way of instruction delivery, the information of the subject and others.
In Malaysia, it could be seen that the policy makers have done the initiative with the courseware, software, and recently the 1BestariNet project with inculcating the Frog virtual learning environment (FROG-VLE) in schools (Ministry of Education, 2012).1BestariNet is a venture directed by the Ministry of Education (MOE), to deliver admittance to virtual learning platform known as the FROG-VLE and a fast connectivity by June 2014 to all its 10,000 schools in Malaysia.The execution is supposed to run over 15 years with a hope to change education in the country with the usage of technology-based learning in Malaysian schools.(Cheok & Wong, 2014).According to Martins and Kellermanns (2004), a VLE is a platform that is web-based which permits students to retrieve different learning tools anytime and anywhere.They can access program information, course contents, get help from teachers, use discussion boards, share documents and learning resources too.The VLE is widely used in education, where according to Trowler (2010), it has become an important part of tertiary education and most of the institutions has been integrating this platform into their programs and teaching pedagogies.
There are differences between learning and the VLE according to its physical conditions, resources, and techniques used by teachers in giving instructions, provide information, assessments and giving tasks.Even the materials of both modes are different from each other.The differences could be concluded in Table 1.
Table 1.The differences between traditional learning and VLE Traditional Learning VLE Instruction is teacher centred.
Instruction is student centred.Instruction is largely provided in a whole-group setting.
Different grouping formats (e.g., whole-group, small-group, pairs) are used for instruction.When teachers assign students to work in groups, the groups are usually static, based on achievement levels (e.g., low, middle, and high achievers).
Teachers employ flexible grouping practices based on the students" learning needs and interests.
Teachers target instruction at the level of the middle achievers.
Teachers assign challenging and engaging tasks to everyone in the class.The instruction provides one way (e.g., via lecture).
Instruction is provided in multiple ways (e.g., via lecture, modelling, hands-on, visual representations) Instructional tasks are aligned with grade-level standards.
While aligning with grade-level standards, instructional tasks are designed to address students" needs and differences.The teacher relies on a single textbook to present information.
The teacher uses a variety of materials (e.g., textbooks from multiple grade levels, computer software) to present information.The teacher assigns the same assignment to all students.
The teacher offers several assignment choices.The teacher assesses the students" knowledge of a unit usually with a written test.
Although the teacher may give a written test at the end of the unit, he also provides the students with several options (e.g., written reports, model, video) to demonstrate their knowledge.Teachers use summative assessment to assess the students" knowledge.
In addition to summative assessment, the teachers use formative assessment to guide instruction."Fair" means that every student works on the same tasks.
"Fair" means that each student works a task, which may be the same or different than their peers", to meet his or her needs."Success" means making a good grade or mastering the material."Success" refers to an individual student"s academic growth.Taylor and Parsons (2011) said that student engagement is originally and widely known to increase their accomplishment, getting positive attitude and behaviours, and getting the sense of belonging of students.The study of engagement levels in schools is basically to understand the phenomenon in schools which are the problems of school dropouts and school completion, how students would enjoy learning and challenges in learning as well as learning about positive desired academic, social and emotional learning outcomes (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006;Betts, Appleton, Reschly, Christenson, & Huebner, 2010).In Malaysia, the schools and the teachers are not required to measure the students" engagement level using any kind of instruments yet.Mostly, learning outcomes are in the forms of exam results, reports at the end of the schools" session and many other assessments that do not give information on students" level of engagement.The evolution and transformation of teaching methodologies itself has been an unknown entity for the school.Taylor and Parsons (2011) argued that a study on students" engagement is needed because students have changed from one era to another, especially in the usage of technology as they are the digital natives who were born in the years of rich technology.They tend to have different needs and goals, which also leads to different approach and preferences in learning styles than the students from the previous.There is also a possibility of the fact that their brains are biologically different as they are more exposed and have more interactions with computers as their most dominant source of stimulation.(Speaker, 2004).

Students' engagement in traditional learning and VLE learning
In this study, traditional learning is the usual chalk and talk lesson using textbooks, exercise books and workbooks in the class, without any collaboration, group work, or any other conventional learning strategy.Meanwhile, VLE is a system for delivering learning materials to students via the web.These systems include assessment, student tracking, and collaboration and communication tools.In this study, VLE refers to the platforms used for learning in the classroom to assist learning known as FROG-VLE.FROG-VLE in Malaysia is the one initiated by the 1Bestarinet project under the Ministry of Education and YTL Network (FrogAsia) as the service provider.

English literature (EL) in Malaysia: An overview
In 2000, the literature was introduced in the English syllabus and the literature component in English is a Copyright © 2018, IJAL, EISSN 2502-6747 part of the syllabus for the English in schools.(Ghazali, Setia, Muthusamy, & Jusoff, 2009).The National Education Blueprint (2013Blueprint ( -2025) ) emphasizes that the literature as a resource of a total shift because literature could be seen as an instrument to encourage the success of the English subject and it is included in the national level examination (Harjander, 2014).The implementation of this policy has varied effects, both positive and negative.
One of the main challenges in learning EL are caused by the text itself, such as the language of the text, especially when there is a mismatch between the texts selected and students" language ability (Ghazali et.al., 2009).Struggling readers share the same problems which are weak comprehension, lack of interest and confidence (Arvidson & Blanco, 2004).Some studies have reported that students were seen to be passive and were unable to respond critically and literature lessons were often too teacher-centred and thus, labelling teachers to be dull and less creative.(Kaur, 2003;Ghazali, 2016;Suriya Kumar, 2004).Hwang and Embi (2007) proposed that if literature lessons are only fact-answer sessions where students are not guided and given opportunities to work with their friends and express their views and response that contributes to their language development and the appreciation of literature, then it is feared that the underlying aims and objectives of the literature component in English are doomed to fail.Kaur (2003) found that 48% of the teachers surveyed said that they lack knowledge about literature teaching methodology while only 51% indicated they had enough knowledge of literature.

Aim of the study
English is a subject taught and learned in most of the primary and secondary schools in the world.Particularly, English is one of the core subjects in schools in Malaysia.The literature in English is one of the sub-sections in the Malaysian English Syllabus.In this study, the literature in English would comprise the learning of two poems, two short stories and a drama component in the form 4 English syllabus.The main element of this study is the students" engagement in the English literature classes.If student"s engagement increase, the researched data can be used a decision making exertions in schools (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).
Identifying the levels of engagement in both aspects gives teachers" answers on the measurements of the four dimensions of engagement (behavioural, cognitive, emotional and agentic engagement).In terms of the traditional learning that is used widely in Malaysia, it is rationale to identify students" engagement because students are different between eras.To see the level of engagement in this type of learning environment would fulfil the curious minds of teachers and practitioners on how traditional learning could engage the modern students.As for the VLEs, it somehow also gives ideas to the public on the mediation of technology, whether levels of engagement are enhanced or not.Acknowledging Zepke and Leach, (2010), the question whether there are differences between VLE or traditional learning on students" engagements is still vague and not highlighted because engagement is a very tricky thing to measure and it depends on content and context.Therefore, student engagement is a far reaching construct that can be variously defined.Thus, the main objective in this study is to compare the students' engagement activities in traditional learning and the VLE for the English literature subject.This study is based on two research questions: 1. What are the level of students' engagement activities (behavioural, cognitive, emotional and agentic) in traditional learning and the VLE for the English literature subject? 2. Which students' engagement activity is dominant in the traditional learning and the VLE for the English literature subject?

METHODS
The research design was a descriptive study where the researcher used quantitative method in order to find the findings.The survey questionnaire on engagement was used in this study.The study was done in two phases where the survey will be given to students of both classes.The setting was in a secondary school in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia where students aged 13-17 study in a government school.It is an urban school equipped with digital learning facilities and internet connection with the 1Bestarinet project ongoing in the school.40% of the students in this school use the FROG-VLE in the classroom in various subjects including English literature.80 students participated in the survey questionnaire.These students were chosen from one school.40 students were from the traditional classroom where students do not use FROG-VLE in their English literature lesson and the other 40 students were from VLE classroom that uses the chromebooks to access the FROG-VLE site provided by the teacher.Secondary school students was chosen because they are aware of gadgets, computers technology and mature enough to handle VLE as their knowledge of the environment is wide enough for the study.The samples are selected purposely because all students have the same level of academic achievement, according to the streaming and the exam results of their mid-year examination.
The rationale for studying engagement in the EL subject is because many students in Malaysia learn EL to pass the examination and for the requirements of the school.In the end, they learn the literature classroom for the sake of answering question without having the engagement towards the subject.Also, EL was chosen in the study because it represents the overall learning outcome as mentioned in the Malaysian school syllabus for English which are learning from interpersonal use, learning for informational use and learning for aesthetic use.When students study English literature, all these outcomes will contribute to the learning process of the Copyright © 2018, IJAL, EISSN 2502-6747 English language itself.This is promoting the holistic aspect of learning the English language skills.
The students" questionnaire comprised of two main sections which are the demographic and engagement.The questionnaire was based on the School Engagement Measure (SEM) developed by Blumenfeld et al. (2005).The questionnaire focused on behavioural, emotional, cognitive engagement and agentic engagement based on the instructional strategy of the classroom.The instrument consists of 20 questions with five likert scale was also chosen because it is targeted to diverse kinds of schools.The scale measures high school students" self-reported effort or investment in particular classes, as reflected on their time spent on homework assignments and their attendance, concentration, and attention in class (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).The result of Cronbach"s alpha was .82;hence, these results showed that all items of questionnaires were considered as reliable and could be potentially used in other study (Mohd, 2005).Table 2 shows the reliability statistics-Cronbach alpha of the questionnaire.The data was put in SPSS version 21 and both populations of samples were identified by the descriptive analysis (percentage, mean and standard deviation).Ttest was carried out as t-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other.This analysis was appropriate whenever a comparison is made on the means of two groups.
In this study, the engagement is perceived by the self-determination theory.Self-determination theory proposes that when individuals are autonomously motivated in their actions, as opposed to being controlled to act, they will experience more interest, excitement, and confidence that will be manifested as enhanced performance and persistence (Ryan & Deci, 2000).According to Reeve (2012), self-determination theory addresses how students" inner resources interact with classroom conditions to result in varying levels of students" engagement.This framework shows that the researchers want to identify the two modes of instructional strategy on their level of engagement.The modes will be identified in terms of the four dimensions of engagement which are behavioural, cognitive, emotional and agentic engagement.The reason that all four dimensions of engagement will be studied is because each dimension plays a vital part in students" engagement and they complete the measurement of student engagement.Leaving any of the dimensions out would create an incomplete study as the dimensions represent different elements of the students.Also, the previous studies have complete measurements and instruments to study all the dimensions.
In the conceptual framework, no comparisons were made between the two modes of learning.This is because the study only will identify the level of engagement of the two modes of learning.Even though all the four dimensions of engagement are interrelated with each other (see figure 1), in this study, the four dimensions will not be studied in relation to each other.They will be studied individually and this study tends to find each dimension"s level on its own.Nevertheless, as stated above, all the four dimensions are important in determining the level of engagement of the modes of learning.
Meanwhile, traditional learning and VLE were chosen because they represent the modes that teachers in the schools are using.Traditional learning has been going on for centuries, while VLE has been introduced to the system in 2013.These two modes of learning represent the majority of what is happening in the Malaysian classroom at par.In this research, the agentic engagement will focus on how students give proactive, intentional, and constructive contribution into the flow of the learning activity (e.g., offering input, making suggestions) and how students are enriching the learning activity, rather than passively receiving it as a given.The behavioural engagement will be focused on on-task attention and concentration, effort, and persistence.The cognitive engagement refers to the use of sophisticated, deep, and personalized learning strategies (e.g., elaboration), seeking conceptual understanding rather than surface knowledge and use of self-regulatory strategies and the emotional engagement looks at the presence of task-facilitating emotions (e.g., interest, curiosity, and enthusiasm) and absence of taskwithdrawing emotions (e.g., distress, anger, frustration, anxiety, and fear).Therefore, the conceptual framework of this study could be concluded in Figure 1.
The levels of engagement activities in the traditional learning and the VLE frog for the English literature subject were analysed using the SPSS version 24.The results are tabulated according to the mean, standard deviation and the percentage.They are also given a paired t-test between the two groups of respondents.All the variables are given a value of 1) never (.00), 2) on occasion (1.00), 3) some of the time (2.00), 4) most of the time (3.00) and 5) all of the time (4.00).

Research question 1: What are the level of students' engagement activities (behavioural, cognitive, emotional and agentic) in traditional learning and the VLE for the EL subject? The cognitive engagement findings
The cognitive engagement consists of 5 items which are 1) ask questions to make sure I understand, 2) study EL at home when I don"t have a test, 3) watch TV shows related to lessons in class, 4) check my EL schoolwork for mistakes 5) read an extra book to learn more about EL lesson.Table 3 and Table 4 show the percentage, mean and standard deviation of these items which values from .00-4.00.

The behavioural engagement findings
The behavioural engagement consists of 4 items which are 1) pay attention in EL class, 2) act as if I am working in EL class, 3) follow the rules in EL class and 4) get in trouble during EL class.Table 5 and Table 6 show the mean and standard deviation of these items which values from .00-4.00.
Based on Table 5 and 6, the percentage and mean of the FROG-VLE class proved to be higher than the traditional class.The standard deviation of the FROG-VLE class is also lower than the traditional class.This shows that again, the FROG-VLE environment may affect the behavioural engagement of the students, as the pay attention, follow the rules and do not get in trouble in the class.This also mirrors a person"s predisposition or attitude reflecting his tendency to

The emotional engagement findings
The emotional engagement consists of 6 items which are 1) feel happy in EL classes 2) feel bored in EL classes, 3) feel excited by the work in EL classes, 4) like being in EL classes, 5) Interested in the work in EL classes and 6) EL class is a fun place to be.Table 7 and Table 8 show the mean and standard deviation of these items values from .00-4.00.Based on Table 7 and 8, the emotional engagement between the two classes also fluctuates and from the findings, the FROG-VLE again proved to have higher percentage and mean of emotional engagement and the SD for FROG-VLE is lower than the traditional classroom.Although the difference was only 0.29 (mean) and 0.8 (SD), there is still a difference in the results.This shows that the FROG-VLE once again, has a higher engagement level in terms of the emotional dissection.

The agentic engagement findings
The agentic engagement consists of 5 items which are 1) contribute to the discussions in EL classes, 2) like to have meaningful discussion in my EL classes, 3) I would respond to teacher" questions, 4) EL classes have made me more confident to speak out, and 5) encourage friends to contribute in discussions during EL classes.
Table 9 and Table 10 show the mean and standard deviation of these items which values from .00-4.00.The final division studied which is the agentic engagement also shows the finding of the same as all the other three divisions of engagement where the percentage and mean of the FROG-VLE class was proven to be higher than the traditional class and the SD is lower than the traditional class.The agentic engagement of both classes differs as the student in the FROG-VLE class has proven to be more interactive and responding towards discussion on the EL lessons.This may be caused by the FROG-VLE interface that allows students to interact with each other and not just orally.They have many applications that could help them do so and their ability to browse for information allows them to be able to argue that information in class on the spot.and FROG-VLE classroom conditions.After the data was analysed, the results are tabulated in 11 and Table 12.

Research
Based on Table 11 and Table 12, it could be seen that there was a significant difference in the scores for FROG-VLE class (M=53.90,SD=6.71) and traditional class (M=46.48,SD=10.30)conditions; t (39)=4.398,p = .000.These results suggest that FROG-VLE involvement really does have an impact on student" engagement.Specifically, the results suggest that when students use FROG-VLE in their EL lessons, they are more engaged towards the lesson.
Overall, from the findings above, it can be concluded that the usage of the FROG-VLE has proven that the engagement level is higher than the traditional class.This is already proven by Ramsey (2003), who supports claims that the VLE can contribute to improved engagements between tutors and learners.Bryson and Hand (2007) concluded that students are more likely to engage if they are supported by teachers who establish inviting learning environments, demand high standards, challenge, and make them freely available to discuss academic progress.The VLE learning environment has these elements as it highly promotes teachers who have different learning environments rather than just sticking to traditional methods and textbooks in the classroom.Teachers and educators could not expect the students to just sit and listen to hours of lectures in the traditional classroom.Brown (2000) stated that kids today will not just sit down in the class listening to lectures and lessons, instead they multitask, "multiprocess" and do things simultaneously in their brain like listening to music while surfing the web or reading information.This study is not proving that the FROG-VLE is better at enhancing students" engagement in lessons, but it is recommended as one of the platform to engage students, if used wisely and correctly.
Student engagement has been found to be the key to preventing dropout (Alexander, Entwisle & Horsey, 1997).The dropout rate in schools has not been highlighted in this study, but it overlaps the idea of not wanting to be engaged in the school, and students prefer not going to school.There is nothing that would benefit them if they go to school, so studying and being aware of the students" engagement could benefit the educational outcome of the students and also the institution (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008).By valuing educational outcome, students could see that education is a lifelong learning process and continue to excel to higher levels of institutions and further their studies better.As such, this study showed all four dimensions of engagement existed in both the traditional classroom and the FROG-VLE classroom.The question on which method is better than the other is not important, but it is vital to understand on how some features in the method could lead to engagement in the classroom.At the end of the day, students will choose to be engaged with what they prefer most, be it traditional or the FROG-VLE classroom, as it solely depends on the practitioner to justify the lesson.
The findings of this research could reveal the impact of the methods of traditional and VLE classrooms.Looking back at the purpose of the technology mediated learning and not forgetting the traditional learning, teachers are obviously given choices in their pedagogy and methodology of teaching (Ace, 2007).This is the reveal of how some features in the method could lead to engagement in the classroom.Teachers could experiment, initiate, revert, convert or adapt the FROG-VLE or the traditional classroom with their pedagogical knowledge for engagement establishment.Besides getting more insight from students, teachers can plan further their lesson plans and try things or activities that could work for the engagement (Noraini, Hani & Che, 2013).Also, it could provide comments and honest opinion from students so that the English teachers could do something for engagement in the English literature class rather than just dull text reading and silent thinking.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The finding of this research has shown the existence and consistence of the four dimensions of engagement in the classroom.In the meantime, the usage of the FROG-VLE has proven that the engagement level is higher than the traditional class.Looking back at the dimensions based on self-determination theory, all these four dimensions do exist in the both the classes.For the cognitive engagement, according to Reeve (2012), this dimension has to focus on the use of sophisticated, deep and personalized learning.This could be seen when respondent answered the questionnaire on "making sure Copyright © 2018, IJAL, EISSN 2502-6747 they understand", "study EL at home when I don"t have a test", "watch TV shows related to EL classes" and "read an extra book to learn more about EL lesson".This research also covered on the "seek conceptual understanding rather than surface knowledge" as the students are asked about "studying at home when they do not have the test.The use of self-regulatory strategies was covered by the item by asking questions to make sure they understand.
For the emotional engagement, according to this theory, there should be a presence of task facilitating emotion like interest, curiosity and enthusiasm.This was covered when students answered about their "excitement with the work in EL classes" and "interested in the work in EL classes.Also, what the findings contributed is the part if the emotional engagement where "absence of task-withdrawing emotions" through the items of "like being in EL classes", "EL class is a fun place to be", "feel happy in EL classes" and "feel bored in EL classes".Finally, from the dimension of agentic engagement, the findings should cover the "proactive, intentional and constructive contribution into the flow of the learning activity".This dimension was explained by the items respondents answered like "contribute to the discussion in EL classes", "like to have meaningful discussion in my EL classes" and "I would respond to teacher"s questions".Agentic engagement also promotes students to enrich learning activity, rather than passively receiving it as a given.The findings on "encourage friends to contribute in discussions during EL lessons" has contributed towards the understanding of the statement as students want their peers to be active in class too.
From the four dimensions of engagement as proposed by Reeve (2012), this research has contributed that all this dimension existed in the classroom, be it the traditional classroom or the Frog VLE classroom.The difference is only the level of engagement given by the respondents in this research.There is no doubt that the Frog VLE has enhanced the four dimensions of the engagement as mentioned and it is to be accepted as a way to enhance learning engagement in students.
One of the challenges with research on student engagement is the large variation in the measurement of the construct, which has made it challenging to compare findings across studies (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).However, the result of the paired t-test also shows that there is a significant level of difference between the modes of classes as the results suggest that Frog VLE involvement really does have an impact on student" engagement where t (39)=4.398,p = .000.This finding supports the notion of the usage of the VLE platforms as a mean to make students more engaged in the classroom.The paired t-test result for FROG-VLE class (M=53.90,SD=6.71) and traditional class (M=46.48,SD=10.30) also shows that this significance difference is an obvious prove of the impact of VLE towards the engagement of the particular class.
It can be concluded that the FROG-VLE classroom does promote engagement in the EL classroom, higher than the traditional class.Particularly, the most dominant engagement activity would be the "follow the rules in EL class" under the behavioural engagement where in Frog VLE class it scored the highest mean of 3.53 and the lowest standard deviation of .64.Also, collectively, the FROG-VLE class scored the highest mean and standard deviation in terms of behavioural engagement.However, it is not wrong to say that engagement do exist in the traditional class too.It is only that the levels are lower according to this study.This is already proven by Ramsey (2003), who supports claims that the VLE can contribute to improved relationships between tutors and learners, recognizing that, although it is not the only, or even the best, vehicle for improving interaction, it does have "a role in facilitating new participative, mutual and more conversational student/tutor relations and more supportive and engaged student/student relations.
The reveal of this study will hopefully give insights to teachers, policy makers, practitioners and education entrepreneurs in developing and practising methods for better students" engagement and perceptions in the future.For educators and teachers, it has revealed on how many students achieve the engagement level when they are in either the traditional class or the FROG-VLE class.In this study, it could be seen that the FROG-VLE class has higher levels of engagement and this has proven some theory that information communication and technology (ICT) rich classrooms does give and impact towards the students" engagement.Now teachers must realise that to increase students" engagement, they need to incorporate some ICT elements in their classroom.This should be an initiative by the teachers themselves because they the lesson plan that they carry out every day.
This study could be modified further by making it a more experimental study, by providing the respondents with pre and post-test.This will make the study more precise, rather than studying the perceptions of the respondents.A pre and post-test will determine the results better as it is more objective and working towards the real outcome of the respondents.If an experimental study is to be designed for this study, it requires respondent to use both classes that have the same level and syllabus, but different approaches whether it is the non VLE and the VLE classes.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Conceptual Framework of the four dimensions of engagement in the traditional learning and VLE Table 3. Percentage of cognitive engagement from both classes No Items Indicator Traditional (%) VLE (%) 1 Ask questions to make sure I understand Never 0.0 2.5 On occasion 15.0 12.5 Some of the time 40.0 30.0Most of the time 25.0 42.5 All of the time 20.0 12.5 2. Study EL at home even when I don't have a test Never 12.5 10.0 On occasion 40.0 27.5 Some of the time 30.0 42.5 Most of the time 12.5 12.5 All of the time 5.0 7.5 3. Watch TV shows related to lessons in class Never 20.0 12.5 On occasion 22.5 37.5 Some of the time 32.5 42.5 Most of the time 20.0 5.0 All of the time 5.0 2.5 4. Check my EL schoolwork for mistakes Never 10.0 5.0 On occasion 27.5 25.0 Some of the time 50.0 55.0 Most of the time 10.0 10.0All of the time 2.5 5.0 5. Read extra book to learn more about EL lesson Never 10.0 12.5 On occasion 35.0 30.0Some of the time 35.0 22.5 Most of the time 17.5 32.5 All of the time 2.5 2.5 question 2 : Which students' engagement activity is dominant in the traditional learning and the VLE for the English literature subject?A paired-samples T-test was conducted to compare the engagement score in EL lessons for traditional classroom Copyright © 2018, IJAL, EISSN 2502-6747

Table 2 .
Reliability Statistics-Cronbach Alpha of questionnaire

Table 4 .
Mean and standard deviation of the cognitive engagement in both classes

Table 5 .
Percentage of the behavioural engagement in both classes.

Table 6 .
Mean and standard deviation of the behavioural engagement in both classes

Table 7 .
Percentage of the emotional engagement in both classes.

Table 8 .
Mean and standard deviation of the emotional engagement in both classes

Table 9 .
Percentage of agentic engagement in both classes

Table 10 .
Mean and standard deviation of the agentic engagement in both classes.

Table 11 .
Paired sample statistic of traditional and VLE Frog classes

Table 12 .
Paired sample test of traditional and VLE Frog classes