International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance

Vol. 41 No. 2 (2026)
Research Articles

Online Classes and Student Engagement: Lowering Social Distance Barriers to Improve Self-Efficacy and Motivation to Learn

HTML PDF
Karla Borja
The University of Tampa
Bio
Christopher Roby
University of Tampa
Bio
Shaista Nisar
University of Tampa
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i2.1423

Published 2026-11-06

How to Cite

Borja, K., Roby, C., & Nisar, S. (2026). Online Classes and Student Engagement: Lowering Social Distance Barriers to Improve Self-Efficacy and Motivation to Learn. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 41(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i2.1423
Copyright Notice

Abstract

Students enrolled in asynchronous online college courses often report satisfaction with the flexibility and self-paced nature of their learning. However, many online learners also express concerns about limited opportunities to interact with peers and faculty, which can reduce their confidence in understanding the material and diminish their motivation to learn. In response to these challenges, a group of faculty members in a U.S. university designed and implemented a set of activities aimed at enhancing student engagement with the course content and their peers. The same faculty also taught identical courses without these engagement activities, creating a comparative control group. Students in both groups completed a validated self-efficacy survey to assess their learning experiences. Our results revealed significant differences between groups. Students who participated in the engagement activities showed improved understanding of the material, higher motivation, and greater academic effort than those in the control group.

Keywords: online learning, engagement activities, self-efficacy, Ologit model

HTML PDF

References

  1. Adesola, S. A., & Li, Y. (2018). The relationship between self-regulation, self-efficacy, test anxiety and motivation. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(10), 759–763. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.10.1135
  2. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
  3. Baber, H. (2022). Social interaction and effectiveness of the online learning: A moderating role of maintaining social distance during the pandemic COVID-19. Asian Education and Development Studies, 11(1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-09-2020-0209
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
  7. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  8. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
  9. Bonanomi, A., Olivari, M. G., Mascheroni, E., Gatti, E., & Confalonieri, E. (2018). Using a multidimensional Rasch analysis to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) among high school students. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 25(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM25.1.5
  10. Borja, K., & Dieringer, S. (2023). Telling my story: Applying storytelling to complex economic data. Eastern Economic Journal, 49(3), 328–348. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-023-00242-5
  11. Borja, K., & Rodriguez, S. (2025). Storytelling techniques enhance confidence and team collaboration in online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2025.2577515
  12. Brainard, R. E., Shaffer, A. L., Watson, L. J., Terson de Paleville, D. G. L., & Falcone, J. C. (2024). Play your way to an “A”: Helping students engage during the social isolation of remote learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 48(4), 720–725. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00052.2024
  13. Cheung, S. Y., & Ng, K. Y. (2021). Application of the educational game to enhance student learning. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 623793. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.623793
  14. Conley, C. S., Shapiro, J. B., Kirsch, A. C., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of indicated mental health prevention programs for at-risk higher education students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000190
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.
  16. Deep, P. D., Chen, Y., Ghosh, N., & Rahaman, M. S. (2025). The influence of student–instructor communication methods on student engagement and motivation in higher education online courses during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 15(1), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010033
  17. DiGiacomo, D. K., Shaffer, E. J., & Greenhalgh, S. P. (2023). Relational landscapes: How environmental features shape undergraduate students’ sense of belonging in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 59, Article 100918.
  18. Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
  19. Finkelstein, I., & Soffer-Vital, S. (2025). AI as a game changer in inclusive higher education: Bridging educational gaps through formative assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation. Advance online publication.
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  21. Garris, C., & Fleck, B. (2022). Student evaluations of transitioned-online courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 8(2), 119–139. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/stl0000229
  22. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
  23. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  24. Gayton, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653
  25. Gebauer, M. M., McElvany, N., Bos, W., Köller, O., & Schöber, C. (2020). Determinants of academic self-efficacy in different socialization contexts: Investigating the relationship between students’ academic self-efficacy and its sources in different contexts. Social Psychology of Education, 23(2), 339–358. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s11218-019-09535-0
  26. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, March/April.
  27. Holland, A. A. (2019). Effective principles of informal online learning design: A theory-building metasynthesis of qualitative research. Computers & Education, 128, 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.026
  28. Kelly, K., & Clinton-Lisell, V. (2025). Social annotation in asynchronous online courses: Effects on student engagement and sense of belonging. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 37(1).
  29. Kubikova, K., Bohacova, A., Slowik, J., & Pavelkova, I. (2024). Student adaptation to distance learning: An analysis of the effectiveness, benefits and risks of distance education from the perspective of university students. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, Article 100875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100875
  30. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
  31. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
  32. Le, K. (2022). Pre-recorded lectures, live online lectures, and student academic achievement. Sustainability, 14(5), Article 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052910
  33. Lee, D. J., Vite, A., Patall, E. A., & Zambrano, J. (2025). Daily autonomy, relatedness, and classroom engagement among Latino and White high school science students. Current Psychology, 44(12), 12328–12340. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12144-025-08005-5
  34. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
  35. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
  36. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
  37. National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation (Table 311.15). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_311.15.asp
  38. Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (2012). Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies, and motivation. In Student motivation, cognition, and learning (pp. 113–134). Routledge.
  39. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
  40. Racat, M., & Lichy, J. (2022). Negative effects of distance learning accentuated by COVID-19 outbreak: A perspective of learners and teachers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(6), 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2075807
  41. Reed, P., Fowkes, T., & Khela, M. (2023). Reduction in social media usage produces improvements in physical health and wellbeing: An RCT. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 8(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-023-00304-7
  42. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  43. Simonson, M., Zvacek, S. M., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (7th ed.). Information Age Publishing.
  44. Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
  45. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1997.11779003
  46. Tosuncuoglu, I. (2019). The interconnection of motivation and self-regulated learning among university level EFL students. English Language Teaching 12(4), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p105
  47. Üner, A., Mouratidis, A., & Kalender, İ. (2020). Study efforts, learning strategies and test anxiety when striving for language competence: The role of utility value, self-efficacy, and reasons for learning English. Educational Psychology, 40(6), 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1736989
  48. Vermeulen, E. J., & Volman, M. L. L. (2024). Promoting student engagement in online education: Online learning experiences of Dutch university students. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29, 941–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09704-3
  49. Woreta, G. T., Zewude, G. T., & Józsa, K. (2025). The mediating role of self-efficacy and outcome expectations in the relationship between peer context and academic engagement: A social cognitive theory perspective. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), Article 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050681
  50. Zhao, S., & Cao, C. (2023). Exploring relationship among self-regulated learning, self-efficacy and engagement in blended collaborative context. SAGE Open, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231157240