1. Introduction
1.1. A Masked Engagement? The Influence of Mask-wearing on Students’ Learning Engagement
The COVID-19 pandemic has been the most severe threat in the last five decades to the worldwide education system [1]. Schools were forced to reschedule their teaching plans from in-person to online teaching at the onset of the pandemic without full preparation. After the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccination, hospitalization and mortality rates declined [2]. Additionally, previous research suggested that schools’ reopening would not increase infection and mortality rates when instructors and students obeyed the mandatory mask-wearing policy [3]. Based on the pandemic’s improvement, many schools resumed their in-person teaching under mask-wearing conditions. However, some scholars were concerned that wearing a mask could cause potential problems. Recent studies found three potential negative effects of mask-wearing that may be directly or indirectly detrimental to education practices.
First, fewer emotional cues after wearing a mask degrade learning quality. Emotional cues include from facial expressions to body movements[4]. Recent experiments found that the speaker wearing a mask not only greatly reduced the accuracy and confidence of reading different facial expressions for listeners, but unconsciously distorted facial expression reading and even caused bias [5-7]. In the educational setting, the emotional and facial expressions of instructors are more expressive and informative, less these nonverbal expressions negatively impact students' emotions and knowledge perception, and connect with lower students’ learning satisfaction [8-10].
In addition, obscured speech intelligibility after wearing a mask result in a worse learning experience. Speech intelligibility was defined as the intended message from speaker to listener [11]. Current research pointed out that mask-wearing obscured a speaker’s speech intelligibility both in a quiet and noisy environment. In a quiet speaking environment, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) > 15 dB, speech intelligibility degraded when the speaker was wearing a mask [12-15]. In the presence of noise, with SNR < 15 dB, the speech intelligibility decreased more than in the quiet scenario [16-18]. In the classroom, mask-wearing similarly impedes the instructor’s voice transmission which is an indispensable element in classroom management and knowledge conceptualization and, consequently, negatively influences students’ learning performance [19-21].
Lastly, increased listening effort after wearing a mask distracts students’ task performance. Listening effort refers to the required cognitive action for comprehending others’ speeches [22]. Given that mask-wearing obscured speech intelligibility, the current study proposed that listening effort also increased especially in a noisy acoustic environment [23]. In classrooms, consequently, the increased listening effort may be detrimental to students’ knowledge of recalling-related tasks, academic performance, and overall learning engagement and motivation [24-26].
1.2. Acoustic Feature of Classroom
Despite being challenged by the three potential problems of mask-wearing, current education still faces another question: an astonishing number of schools ignore or fail to follow the international standard for acoustic features in classrooms that SNR > 15 dB according to the American National Standards Institute [27]. In reality, given the literature above emphasizes the side-effects of mask-wearing in noise and quiet situations, however, there is no direct research that explores whether an instructor wearing a mask influences students’ learning engagement (SLE).
1.3. Definitions of Learning Engagement
Although there are overwhelming amounts of definitions for SLE or namely student engagement, no unified definition in academia was formed. Scholars defined student engagement as the students’ in-class learning experience, participation in both inside and outside schools’ educational practice, or the high-quality outcomes after educational investment. In our study, we focused on the first definition of SLE as the students’ in-class learning experience because we aimed to analyze the SLE and experience in an in-class setting after completing a series of educational activities [28-33].
To categorize these definitions, scholars proposed that SLE could be measured on different interactive aspects: emotional engagement, behavior engagement, cognitive engagement, and academic engagement [34-39]. Emotional engagement (EE) refers to students’ actual affective emotions and learning experiences in the teaching and learning environment, including observable and unobservable emotional feelings, such as enjoyment, happiness, anxiety, boredom, sadness, and mental connection with an instructor as specific and even education as broad. Behavior engagement (BE) describes the necessary behaviors for completing assignments, involvement, and participation in teaching and learning activities concerning completing a task or meeting a requirement. Cognitive engagement (CE) was defined as the students’ psychological state where intensive effort is required for finishing classroom activities and the intention to promote future academic performance. For schooling success, academic work completion is another key element [40-47]. Academic engagement (AE) focuses on students’ in-class attendance, student teaching activities participation, and assignment completion. Research assessing 194 undergraduate and postgraduate students in India was conducted and it was found that students’ learning engagement positively correlated to academic outcome and performance, which corresponded with previous studies [48-53].
1.4. Proposed Study
Though recent research well studied the potential problems of mask-wearing (less emotional cues, obscured speech intelligibility, and more demanding listening effort), no direct research study focuses on the perspective of students: SLE. We researched two questions in terms of SLE. First, was SLE influenced by which of the following three conditions? The conditions are mask-off in a quiet environment (SNR >15 dB), mask-on in a quiet environment (SNR > 15 dB), and mask-on combined with background noise (SNR < 15 dB). Second, which specific SLE (EE, BE, AE, and CE) was influenced most? And was the influence significant enough?
2. Materials and Methods
Stimuli, original questionnaire data (pseudonymized), R script, coding files, complete questionnaire samples, PowerPoint slides, and content checklists are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z4CFB.
2.1. Participants
A total of 218 questionnaires were sent out to native Chinese participants from college WeChat groups in Shenzhen, China (valid questionnaire retrieval rate: 41.3%). This population was chosen because English education is well developed and Shenzhen is one of the standard cities in Covid-19 control. Before our experiment, all participants were notified of their task requirements and gave their consent. Then, all participants were required to take a 13-item Hearing & Demographic Questionnaire (HDQ) collecting necessary basic information: the hearing condition, gender, class level, grade point average (GPA), major, and English proficiency level. See Figure 1 for the flowchart screening questionnaire responses.
Figure 1 illustrates the number of responses before and after data screening as well as the data screening criteria. The left blue boxes refer to different experiment stages. The right white boxes and arrows are used to clarify the exact number screened and the data screening sequence.
After finishing the HDQ and two data screening procedures, our final valid responses were collected: the controlled group as Group 1 (N=30), experimental group A as Group 2 (N=30), and experiment group B as Group 3 (N=30). See Table 1 for detailed demographic information.
2.2. Stimuli (Videos)
2.2.1. Overview
Three English video recordings were filmed at 720p, 60 FPS as the stimuli for this experiment: (1) lecturing without a mask in a quiet acoustic environment (SNR > 15 dB), (2) lecturing with a blue disposable medical mask in a quiet environment (SNR > 15 dB), and (3) lecturing with the same mask in a noisy environment (SNR < 15 dB). All the videos were recorded via Zoom (version 5.11.1) with an 11-inch MacBook Pro laptop (IOS 12.2.1). Video editing was conducted via an Apple pre-installed app, iMovie (version 10.3.3), and auditory-editing software Cubase (version 10.5). The PowerPoint content examination and Student Learning Engagement Questionnaire (SLEQ) content examination were peer-reviewed to ensure the vocabulary in both contents matched our participants’ vocabulary proficiency levels [54]. To specify the stimuli, two major stages were explained including preparing and recording the videos.
2.2.2. Stimuli Preparation Stage
A 21-slide PowerPoint mainly introduces basic concept knowledge about morphology: morphology, morpheme, free morpheme, bound morpheme, derivational morpheme, and inflectional morpheme. See Table 2 for more information about PowerPoint content. Two rationales support this chosen topic: Morphology. First, teaching morphology can facilitate participants' future learning. The association between lecture knowledge and current knowledge repertoire facilitates their future English learning. Second, lecturing morphology increased the face validity of the lecturing content. In other words, teaching real-life related or practical content decreases the risk of potentially dropping engagement due to a low face validity [55-57].
In the PowerPoint, we introduced three simple codes consisting of two numbers and two uncapitalized letters. Then, these codes were inserted into the beginning (4th slide), middle (13rd slide), and last (20th slide) parts of the PowerPoint to guarantee that our participants watched the assigned stimuli and to improve the authenticity of the questionnaire data. Last, we peer-reviewed all the words used in the PowerPoint and reached a 0.882 Po score (proportion of observed agreement) to confirm that the content matches our participants’ vocabulary level in case of low validity data yielded due to lexical problems.
2.2.3. Stimuli Recording Stage
SNR standard was implemented for creating stimuli to ensure our stimuli effectiveness and that our participants are exposed to a relatively stable ratio of background noise and lecturing sound. Three videos as the stimuli are the same male instructor lecturing the same content in English lasting for 7 minutes and 19 seconds at an average speed of 142 words per minute. The first stimulus was recorded in a quiet environment (average SNR > 15 dB) with a lecturer without a mask. The second stimulus was filmed in a quiet environment (average SNR > 15 dB) and the lecturer was wearing a blue disposable medical mask. The third stimulus was created via Cubase to simulate the noisy authentic lecturing-style classroom with an average SNR < 15 dB [58]. See Figure 2 for the stimuli recording environment and mask type. This video length was considered unlikely to trigger participants’ video-watching fatigue, neither encouraging nor discouraging participants[59,60]. In all three stimuli, a script beforehand was written to guide the lecturing content to control the instructor’s lecturing speed. All videos were recorded slide by slide, generating 21 video clips under the mask-off condition for Group 1, and another 21 video clips under the mask-on condition for Group 2. Then, two sets of 21 video clips were edited as two complete stimuli. Last, the stimulus from Group 2 after attenuating all non-signal sounds (background noise) was combined with an artificial soundtrack (college classroom debating background sounds) from iMovie as the third stimulus for Group 3.
Figure 2 records three important details: the recording environment of all stimuli, the wearing mask type, and the randomly selected signal and noise samples. Both plot graphs illustrating stimulus 3 are generated by RStudio. The average signal sound in stimulus 3 is 69.5 dB to simulate the actual lecturing sound level[61]. The average noise sound in stimulus 3 is 63.1 dB. According to SNR, the average SNR in stimulus 3 is < 15 dB which simulates the average classroom SNR [58].
2.3. SLEQ
SLEQ was introduced to measure our participants’ learning engagement after being exposed to the assigned stimuli. Before releasing our SLEQ, we also conducted a peer-review scrutinizing the suitability of the vocabulary in this questionnaire to our participants’ lexical proficiency level. The Po score in this examination reached 1.000, indicating the questionnaire content matches our participants’ vocabulary proficiency level.
Next, thirty-three questions were designed and classified into six categories: consent question, validating question, emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, academic engagement, and cognitive engagement. See Table 3 for more information about SLEQ.
2.4. Data Analysis
2.4.1. Reliability & Validity
To obtain a reliable and valid experiment result, the SLEQ with three groups of data must pass the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α) test, KMO, and Bartlett test. All the tests were processed with SPSS software.
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was implemented to test the reliability of the SLEQ. The test was implemented twice for all three groups for a more reliable questionnaire. For the first test, a total of 18 Likert scale questions (question 6 to 17 and 28 to 33) were assessed according to Cronbach’s coefficient reliability test and returned EE (G1: α = 0.613, G2: α = 0.662, and G3: α = 0.635) which all were considered low-reliability α < 0.700. Next, question 8 was deleted from this questionnaire and excluded for further data analysis because it failed to generate a satisfactory reliability result (α >= 0.800) and was considered overlapped in the content assessed. For the second test, 17 questions excluding question 8 were tested and yielded an acceptable result of α > 0.800 (in EE, BE, CE, and overall score) suggesting that SLEQ is a reliable question. See Table 4 for detailed information about the reliability test of SLEQ.
To test the validity of SLEQ, KMO and Bartlett tested the same 18 questions mentioned in the reliability test. All three groups demonstrated KMO > 0.600 and Bartlett's value significance (p-value < 0.05) which indicated SLEQ passed the validity test. See Table 5 for detailed SLEQ validity test data.
2.4.2. Descriptive Statistics of SLEQ
Given three different stimuli were assigned, a descriptive table was designed to quantify the varied SLEQ scores from three groups. See Table 6 for details. According to Table 6, there was a descending trend in SLEQ’s average (75.867 to 70.933) and medium (79.000 to 69.000) scores. This declining trend suggested that our participants' learning engagement was impacted to some degree. However, the standard deviation in the test results implied that detailed analyses of each engagement category (EE, BE, AE, and CE) were needed to assess the declining SLEQ between groups.
2.5. Result
T-test was utilized to evaluate the SLEQ scores on each engagement (EE, BE, AE, CE) generated by the three groups. First, we contrasted the scores of Group 1 with Group 2. See Table 7. Then, Group 2 was contrasted with Group 3. See Table 8. Last, Group 1 and Group 3 were contrasted.
2.5.1. The Undistracted EE, BE, and CE
In this study, we found that our participants’ EE, BE, and CE were neither discouraged by the mask-wearing of the instructor nor the presence of background noise (SNR < 15 dB). This finding rejects our original hypothesis that students’ engagement was negatively influenced by mask-wearing and the presence of background noise.
According to Table 7, the average SLEQ score of Group 2 was lower in EE (19.97 to 19.73), BE (25.83 to 24.67), and AE (8.17 to 7.33) contrasted with Group 1, while the average CE score increased from 21.90 to 22.07. However, all these variations did not demonstrate result significance suggesting no substantial difference in participants’ EE (p = 0.833), BE (p =0.415), AE (p =0.139), and CE (p = 0.900) after the mask-wearing interference.
In Table 8, Group 2’s average SLEQ score was higher after exposure to stimulus 2 (SNR > 15 dB) in contrast to Group 3’s average score exposed to stimulus 3 (SNR < 15 dB). Group 2’s average score outnumbered Group 3’s in all four engagements: EE (19.73 to 18.17), BE (24.67 to 24.33), AE (7.33 to 6.83), and CE (22.07 to 21.60). Though differences in the four engagements presented, the p-values (EE = 0.161, BE = 0.813, AE = 0.406, and CE = 0.706) failed to demonstrate result significance.
2.5.2. The Impacted AE
Table 9 shows the T-test between Group 1 and Group 3. We noticed Group 3 appeared to be less engaged in this experiment than Group 1. Three types of engagements were influenced without significance: EE (Mean = 19.97 to 18.17, with p = 0.78), BE (Mean = 25.83 to 24.33, with p = 0.210), and CE (Mean = 21.90 to 21.60, with p = 0.814). Nevertheless, the AE reported a lower score (Group 1’s Mean = 8.17 to Group 2’s Mean = 6.83), meanwhile providing a p-value = 0.021 with significance. In other words, this p-value found that participants’ academic engagement was significantly damaged when the instructor wore a mask and taught in a noisy environment (SNR < 15 dB). The impacted AE confirmed prior research findings that students’ AE could be discouraged in a noisy classroom at all ages [68-70].
3. Conclusion
In this study, we collected data from 90 qualified participants in three groups in terms of EE, BE, AE, and CE. Our test results highlight two findings. First, students’ EE, BE, and CE did not strongly correlate with an instructor wearing a mask or in a noisy teaching environment. Second, students’ AE was tested to be significantly vulnerable to a noisy teaching environment, especially after the instructor wore a mask. The findings of this experiment proposed that both instructors and schools should take classroom acoustic standards into consideration because learning in a poor sound environment may directly or indirectly affect students' academic engagement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Though our data demonstrated finding significance, three limitations were bothering this study. First, statistical bias may occur due to online self-report questionnaires. The experiment data may lower the validity in nature which may explain why our standard variations in SLEQ are relatively large. Next, the limited sample size may contribute to false positive or negative results. We only received 90 valid responses mainly from one university in China which may contain potential bias disruptive to the final data analysis. Last, online-based experiments lower the stimuli’s effectiveness. We cannot conduct a field study due to the Covid-19 health policy. Our participants received their assigned stimuli online and took their questionnaires online. It is unlikely to know how much the actual sound (in dB) our participants were exposed to. To best secure the stimuli’s effectiveness, the SNR standard was introduced to guarantee that our participants were exposed to a relatively stable sound and noise ratio.
Covid-19 has cost millions of lives. Now, monkeypox has arrived. What will come next? Scientists do not have an accurate theory predicting what the next pandemic is waiting for humankind, but we all know the intervals between global pandemics are becoming closer. Lessons from Covid-19 that have taught us that we are not fully prepared. The educational system is not fully prepared. Our study sheds light on future studies on: first, what contributed to the dropping academic engagement of students; second, which aspects of learning engagement students dropped most under mask-wearing environments; third, whether learning engagement after mask-wearing is impacted from the perspective of students with disabilities; forth, field study investigates the students’ learning engagement and the instructor’s teaching experience after both parties under mask-wearing condition; last, whether our findings apply to students from other age groups or countries.
References
[1]. Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. PROSPECTS, 49(1-2), 91–96.
[2]. Mohammed, I., Nauman, A., Paul, P., Ganesan, S., Chen, K.-H., Jalil, S. M., Jaouni, S. H., Kawas, H., Khan, W. A., Vattoth, A. L., Al-Hashimi, Y. A., Fares, A., Zeghlache, R., & Zakaria, D. (2022). The efficacy and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in reducing infection, severity, hospitalization, and mortality: A systematic review. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 18(1).
[3]. Felson, J., & Adamczyk, A. (2021). Online or in person? examining college decisions to reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic in fall 2020. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 7, 237802312098820.
[4]. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1967). Head and body cues in the judgment of emotion: A reformulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24(3), 711–724.
[5]. Carbon, C.-C. (2020). Wearing face masks strongly confuses counterparts in reading emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
[6]. Nestor, M. S., Fischer, D., & Arnold, D. (2020). “masking” our emotions: Botulinum toxin, facial expression, and well‐being in the age of Covid‐19. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 19(9), 2154–2160.
[7]. Grenville, E., & Dwyer, D. M. (2022). Face masks have emotion-dependent dissociable effects on accuracy and confidence in identifying facial expressions of emotion. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1).
[8]. Fried, L. (2011). Teaching teachers about emotion regulation in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3).
[9]. Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., Morger, V., & Ranellucci, J. (2014). The importance of teachers' emotions and instructional behavior for their students' emotions – an experience sampling analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 15–26.
[10]. Wang, Y., Liu, Q., Chen, W., Wang, Q., & Stein, D. (2018). Effects of instructor's facial expressions on students' learning with video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1381–1395.
[11]. Coppens-Hofman, M. C., Terband, H., Snik, A. F. M., & Maassen, B. A. M. (2016). Speech characteristics and intelligibility in adults with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. Folia Phoniatrica Et Logopaedica, 68(4), 175–182.
[12]. Corey, R. M., Jones, U., & Singer, A. C. (2020). Acoustic effects of medical, cloth, and transparent face masks on speech signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(4), 2371–2375.
[13]. Bottalico, P., Murgia, S., Puglisi, G. E., Astolfi, A., & Kirk, K. I. (2020). Effect of masks on speech intelligibility in auralized classrooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(5), 2878–2884.
[14]. Magee, M., Lewis, C., Noffs, G., Reece, H., Chan, J. C., Zaga, C. J., Paynter, C., Birchall, O., Rojas Azocar, S., Ediriweera, A., Kenyon, K., Caverlé, M. W., Schultz, B. G., & Vogel, A. P. (2020). Effects of face masks on acoustic analysis and speech perception: Implications for peri-pandemic Protocols. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(6), 3562–3568.
[15]. Truong, T. L., Beck, S. D., & Weber, A. (2021). The impact of face masks on the recall of spoken sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 149(1), 142–144.
[16]. Brown, V. A., Van Engen, K. J., & Peelle, J. E. (2021). Face mask type affects audiovisual speech intelligibility and subjective listening effort in young and older adults. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1).
[17]. Toscano, J. C., & Toscano, C. M. (2021). Effects of face masks on speech recognition in multi-talker babble noise. PLOS ONE, 16(2).
[18]. Yi, H., Pingsterhaus, A., & Song, W. (2021). Effects of wearing face masks while using different speaking styles in noise on speech intelligibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
[19]. Caniato, M., Marzi, A., & Gasparella, A. (2021). How much covid-19 face protections influence speech intelligibility in classrooms? Applied Acoustics, 178, 108051.
[20]. Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational leadership, 61(1), 6-13.
[21]. Ronsse, L. M., & Wang, L. M. (2009). Acoustics of elementary school classrooms: Correlations of varying background noise level and reverberation time to student achievement. In 38th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering 2009, INTER-NOISE 2009 (pp. 1875-1879).
[22]. Peelle, J. E. (2018). Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear and Hearing, 39(2), 204–214.
[23]. Krueger, M., Schulte, M., Zokoll, M. A., Wagener, K. C., Meis, M., Brand, T., & Holube, I. (2017). Relation between listening effort and speech intelligibility in noise. American Journal of Audiology, 26(3S), 378–392.
[24]. Howard, C. S., Munro, K. J., & Plack, C. J. (2010). Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom. International Journal of Audiology, 49(12), 928–932.
[25]. Reinten, J., Braat-Eggen, P. E., Hornikx, M., Kort, H. S. M., & Kohlrausch, A. (2017). The Indoor Sound Environment and Human Task Performance: A literature review on the role of Room acoustics. Building and Environment, 123, 315–332.
[26]. Anderson, K. (2004). The problem of classroom acoustics: The typical classroom soundscape is a barrier to learning. Seminars in Hearing, 25(02), 117–129.
[27]. American National Standards Institute. (2002). Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for schools.
[28]. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320–334.
[29]. Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and Practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.
[30]. Kuh, G. D. (2007). How to help students achieve. Chronicle of higher education, 53(41).
[31]. Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.
[32]. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184.
[33]. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
[34]. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 651–670.
[35]. 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.
[36]. Sharkey, J. D., You, S., & Schnoebelen, K. (2008). Relations among school assets, individual resilience, and student engagement for youth grouped by level of family functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 402–418.
[37]. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes.
[38]. Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328–349.
[39]. Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–332.
[40]. Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
[41]. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children's self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64(3), 830–847.
[42]. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
[43]. Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72.
[44]. Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the Mathematics Classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133–153.
[45]. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4), 465–479.
[46]. Lamborn, S., Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools, 11-39.
[47]. Peters, K. P., Vollmer, T. R., Donaldson, J. M., & Walker, S. F. (2022). Assessment of variables contributing to academic task engagement. Education and Treatment of Children, 45(2), 135–143.
[48]. Karki, P., Chaudhury, S., & Patangia, B. (2020). Academic engagement among college students in Urban Bangalore: Exploring institutional and individual level determinants of academic engagement. i-Manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 14(2), 24.
[49]. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
[50]. Dogan, U. (2017). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 553–561.
[51]. Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A Review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.
[52]. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.
[53]. Lee, J.-S. (2013). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185.
[54]. CET4 & 6 Commssion (2016). Syllabus for National College English Test 4 and 6. Retrieved from
[55]. Chiang, C. S., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 345.
[56]. Song, M., & Chen, L. (2017). A review on English vocabulary acquisition and teaching research in recent 30 years in China. Science Journal of Education, 5(4), 174.
[57]. Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-Based Learning Technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.
[58]. Neuman, A. C., Wroblewski, M., Hajicek, J., & Rubinstein, A. (2010). Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults. Ear & Hearing, 31(3), 336–344.
[59]. Fishman, E. (2016). How long should your next video be. Wistia Blog.
[60]. Lagerstrom, L., Johanes, P., & Ponsukcharoen, U. (2015). The myth of the six-minute rule: Student engagement with online videos. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
[61]. Peng, J. (2010). Chinese speech intelligibility at different speech sound pressure levels and signal-to-noise ratios in simulated classrooms. Applied Acoustics, 71(4), 386–390.
[62]. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192.
[63]. Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 53–60.
[64]. Veiga, F. H., Reeve, J., Wentzel, K., & Robu, V. (2014). Assessing students’ engagement: A review of instruments with psychometric qualities. In I Congresso Internacional Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas da Psicologia e Educação, 38-57.
[65]. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 763–782.
[66]. Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1907–1920.
[67]. Gomes, A. A., Tavares, J., & de Azevedo, M. H. (2011). Sleep and academic performance in undergraduates: A multi-measure, multi-predictor approach. Chronobiology International, 28(9), 786–801.
[68]. Caviola, S., Visentin, C., Borella, E., Mammarella, I., & Prodi, N. (2021). Out of the noise: Effects of sound environment on Maths performance in middle-school students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101552.
[69]. Klatte, M., Lachmann, T., & Meis, M. (2010). Effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception and listening comprehension of children and adults in a classroom-like setting. Noise and Health, 12(49), 270.
[70]. Rudner, M., Lyberg-Åhlander, V., Brännström, J., Nirme, J., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Sahlén, B. (2018). Listening comprehension and listening effort in the Primary School Classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
Cite this article
Wu,Y.;Li,Y. (2023). A Masked Engagement? The Influence of Mask-wearing on Students’ Learning Engagement. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,6,208-221.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies (ICIHCS 2022), Part 5
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).
References
[1]. Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. PROSPECTS, 49(1-2), 91–96.
[2]. Mohammed, I., Nauman, A., Paul, P., Ganesan, S., Chen, K.-H., Jalil, S. M., Jaouni, S. H., Kawas, H., Khan, W. A., Vattoth, A. L., Al-Hashimi, Y. A., Fares, A., Zeghlache, R., & Zakaria, D. (2022). The efficacy and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in reducing infection, severity, hospitalization, and mortality: A systematic review. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 18(1).
[3]. Felson, J., & Adamczyk, A. (2021). Online or in person? examining college decisions to reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic in fall 2020. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 7, 237802312098820.
[4]. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1967). Head and body cues in the judgment of emotion: A reformulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24(3), 711–724.
[5]. Carbon, C.-C. (2020). Wearing face masks strongly confuses counterparts in reading emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
[6]. Nestor, M. S., Fischer, D., & Arnold, D. (2020). “masking” our emotions: Botulinum toxin, facial expression, and well‐being in the age of Covid‐19. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 19(9), 2154–2160.
[7]. Grenville, E., & Dwyer, D. M. (2022). Face masks have emotion-dependent dissociable effects on accuracy and confidence in identifying facial expressions of emotion. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1).
[8]. Fried, L. (2011). Teaching teachers about emotion regulation in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3).
[9]. Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., Morger, V., & Ranellucci, J. (2014). The importance of teachers' emotions and instructional behavior for their students' emotions – an experience sampling analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 15–26.
[10]. Wang, Y., Liu, Q., Chen, W., Wang, Q., & Stein, D. (2018). Effects of instructor's facial expressions on students' learning with video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1381–1395.
[11]. Coppens-Hofman, M. C., Terband, H., Snik, A. F. M., & Maassen, B. A. M. (2016). Speech characteristics and intelligibility in adults with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. Folia Phoniatrica Et Logopaedica, 68(4), 175–182.
[12]. Corey, R. M., Jones, U., & Singer, A. C. (2020). Acoustic effects of medical, cloth, and transparent face masks on speech signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(4), 2371–2375.
[13]. Bottalico, P., Murgia, S., Puglisi, G. E., Astolfi, A., & Kirk, K. I. (2020). Effect of masks on speech intelligibility in auralized classrooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(5), 2878–2884.
[14]. Magee, M., Lewis, C., Noffs, G., Reece, H., Chan, J. C., Zaga, C. J., Paynter, C., Birchall, O., Rojas Azocar, S., Ediriweera, A., Kenyon, K., Caverlé, M. W., Schultz, B. G., & Vogel, A. P. (2020). Effects of face masks on acoustic analysis and speech perception: Implications for peri-pandemic Protocols. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(6), 3562–3568.
[15]. Truong, T. L., Beck, S. D., & Weber, A. (2021). The impact of face masks on the recall of spoken sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 149(1), 142–144.
[16]. Brown, V. A., Van Engen, K. J., & Peelle, J. E. (2021). Face mask type affects audiovisual speech intelligibility and subjective listening effort in young and older adults. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1).
[17]. Toscano, J. C., & Toscano, C. M. (2021). Effects of face masks on speech recognition in multi-talker babble noise. PLOS ONE, 16(2).
[18]. Yi, H., Pingsterhaus, A., & Song, W. (2021). Effects of wearing face masks while using different speaking styles in noise on speech intelligibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
[19]. Caniato, M., Marzi, A., & Gasparella, A. (2021). How much covid-19 face protections influence speech intelligibility in classrooms? Applied Acoustics, 178, 108051.
[20]. Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational leadership, 61(1), 6-13.
[21]. Ronsse, L. M., & Wang, L. M. (2009). Acoustics of elementary school classrooms: Correlations of varying background noise level and reverberation time to student achievement. In 38th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering 2009, INTER-NOISE 2009 (pp. 1875-1879).
[22]. Peelle, J. E. (2018). Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear and Hearing, 39(2), 204–214.
[23]. Krueger, M., Schulte, M., Zokoll, M. A., Wagener, K. C., Meis, M., Brand, T., & Holube, I. (2017). Relation between listening effort and speech intelligibility in noise. American Journal of Audiology, 26(3S), 378–392.
[24]. Howard, C. S., Munro, K. J., & Plack, C. J. (2010). Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom. International Journal of Audiology, 49(12), 928–932.
[25]. Reinten, J., Braat-Eggen, P. E., Hornikx, M., Kort, H. S. M., & Kohlrausch, A. (2017). The Indoor Sound Environment and Human Task Performance: A literature review on the role of Room acoustics. Building and Environment, 123, 315–332.
[26]. Anderson, K. (2004). The problem of classroom acoustics: The typical classroom soundscape is a barrier to learning. Seminars in Hearing, 25(02), 117–129.
[27]. American National Standards Institute. (2002). Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for schools.
[28]. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320–334.
[29]. Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and Practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.
[30]. Kuh, G. D. (2007). How to help students achieve. Chronicle of higher education, 53(41).
[31]. Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.
[32]. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184.
[33]. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
[34]. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 651–670.
[35]. 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.
[36]. Sharkey, J. D., You, S., & Schnoebelen, K. (2008). Relations among school assets, individual resilience, and student engagement for youth grouped by level of family functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 402–418.
[37]. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes.
[38]. Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328–349.
[39]. Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–332.
[40]. Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
[41]. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children's self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64(3), 830–847.
[42]. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
[43]. Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72.
[44]. Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the Mathematics Classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133–153.
[45]. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4), 465–479.
[46]. Lamborn, S., Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools, 11-39.
[47]. Peters, K. P., Vollmer, T. R., Donaldson, J. M., & Walker, S. F. (2022). Assessment of variables contributing to academic task engagement. Education and Treatment of Children, 45(2), 135–143.
[48]. Karki, P., Chaudhury, S., & Patangia, B. (2020). Academic engagement among college students in Urban Bangalore: Exploring institutional and individual level determinants of academic engagement. i-Manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 14(2), 24.
[49]. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
[50]. Dogan, U. (2017). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 553–561.
[51]. Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A Review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.
[52]. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.
[53]. Lee, J.-S. (2013). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185.
[54]. CET4 & 6 Commssion (2016). Syllabus for National College English Test 4 and 6. Retrieved from
[55]. Chiang, C. S., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 345.
[56]. Song, M., & Chen, L. (2017). A review on English vocabulary acquisition and teaching research in recent 30 years in China. Science Journal of Education, 5(4), 174.
[57]. Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-Based Learning Technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.
[58]. Neuman, A. C., Wroblewski, M., Hajicek, J., & Rubinstein, A. (2010). Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults. Ear & Hearing, 31(3), 336–344.
[59]. Fishman, E. (2016). How long should your next video be. Wistia Blog.
[60]. Lagerstrom, L., Johanes, P., & Ponsukcharoen, U. (2015). The myth of the six-minute rule: Student engagement with online videos. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
[61]. Peng, J. (2010). Chinese speech intelligibility at different speech sound pressure levels and signal-to-noise ratios in simulated classrooms. Applied Acoustics, 71(4), 386–390.
[62]. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192.
[63]. Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 53–60.
[64]. Veiga, F. H., Reeve, J., Wentzel, K., & Robu, V. (2014). Assessing students’ engagement: A review of instruments with psychometric qualities. In I Congresso Internacional Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas da Psicologia e Educação, 38-57.
[65]. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 763–782.
[66]. Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1907–1920.
[67]. Gomes, A. A., Tavares, J., & de Azevedo, M. H. (2011). Sleep and academic performance in undergraduates: A multi-measure, multi-predictor approach. Chronobiology International, 28(9), 786–801.
[68]. Caviola, S., Visentin, C., Borella, E., Mammarella, I., & Prodi, N. (2021). Out of the noise: Effects of sound environment on Maths performance in middle-school students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101552.
[69]. Klatte, M., Lachmann, T., & Meis, M. (2010). Effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception and listening comprehension of children and adults in a classroom-like setting. Noise and Health, 12(49), 270.
[70]. Rudner, M., Lyberg-Åhlander, V., Brännström, J., Nirme, J., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Sahlén, B. (2018). Listening comprehension and listening effort in the Primary School Classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.