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

Vol. 41 No. 2 (2026)
Research Articles

Enacted Relational Competency in Online Higher Education: Student and Lecturer Perspectives

HTML PDF
  • Mandy Jane Heine,
  • Linda van Ryneveld
Mandy Jane Heine
University of Pretoria
Bio
Linda van Ryneveld
University of Pretoria
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i2.1424

Published 2026-11-06

How to Cite

Heine, M. J., & van Ryneveld, L. (2026). Enacted Relational Competency in Online Higher Education: Student and Lecturer Perspectives. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 41(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i2.1424
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This paper explores how relational competency is enacted in fully online higher education through student and lecturer perspectives. Set within a South African private higher education context, the study uses a sequential mixed-methods design to examine how connection is experienced and sustained across asynchronous and synchronous online spaces. Findings suggest that relational competency is shaped by values, relational intention, and everyday practices such as clarity, consistency, and responsiveness. The paper presents the enacted relational competency model as a reflective and descriptive way of understanding how relationships are intentionally built and sustained within predominantly asynchronous online learning environments.
Keywords: relational competency; online higher education; open and distance learning; educator–student relationships; asynchronous learning; South Africa

HTML PDF

References

  1. Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and how of it. Indian Journal of Medical Specialties, 4(2), 330–333.
  2. Aires, L., Maia, S. M., & Carneiro, A. C. (2022). Distance educational relationship and senses of belonging: The voices of students. Digital Education Review, 42, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2022.42.101-117
  3. Aspelin, J. (2014). Beyond individualised teaching: A relational construction of pedagogical attitude. Education Inquiry, 5(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v5.23926
  4. Aspelin, J. (2017). We can recite it in chorus now!: An interactionist approach to the teacher–student relationship and teachers’ relational competence. Classroom Discourse, 8(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2016.1271991
  5. Aspelin, J. (2020). Teaching as a way of bonding: A contribution to the relational theory of teaching. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(6), 588–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1798758
  6. Aspelin, J. (2022). Microscopic relational analysis: A method for researching the teacher–student relationship. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 46(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2042244
  7. Aspelin, J., & Eklöf, A. (2023). In the blink of an eye: Understanding teachers’ relational competence from a micro-sociological perspective. Classroom Discourse, 14(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2022.2072354
  8. Aspelin, J., & Jönsson, A. (2019). Relational competence in teacher education: Concept analysis and report from a pilot study. Teacher Development, 23(2), 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2019.1570323
  9. Aspelin, J., Östlund, D., & Jönsson, A. (2020). “It means everything”: Special educators’ perceptions of relationships and relational competence. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(5), 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1783801
  10. Aspelin, J., & Segerby, C. (2024). University teacher’s relational competence in online teaching: A microscopic relational analysis. Seminar.net, 20(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.5711
  11. Bingham, C., & Sidorkin, A. (2004). No education without relation. Peter Lang.
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept in thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
  14. Burtis, M., & Quinn, J. (2022). An introduction to designing for care and toward a critical instructional design. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/an-introduction-to-designing-for-care-and-toward-a-critical-instructional-design/
  15. Cholewinski, M. (2009). An introduction to constructivism and authentic activity. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5, 283–316.
  16. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203469576
  17. Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  18. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). 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
  19. Gourlay, L. (2021). There is no ‘virtual learning’: The materiality of digital education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.649
  20. Gourlay, L., Campbell, K., Clark, L., Crisan, C., Katsapi, E., Riding, K., & Warwick, I. (2021). Engagement discourses, relationality and the student voice: Connectedness, questioning and inclusion in post-Covid digital practices. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2021(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.655
  21. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
  22. Hagenauer, G., Mühlbacher, F., & Ivanova, M. (2023). “It’s where learning and teaching begins – is this relationship” —Insights on the teacher–student relationship at university from the teachers’ perspective. Higher Education, 85(4), 819–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00867-z
  23. Hlatshwayo, M. N., & Shawa, L. B. (2020). Towards a critical re-conceptualisation of the purpose of higher education: The role of Ubuntu-Currere in re-imagining teaching and learning in South African higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1677504
  24. Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research. Sage.
  25. Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
  26. Jansen, J. (2024, November 21). A loveless education deters pupils from learning. Jonathan Jansen.
  27. Juul, J., & Jensen, H. (2010). Od poslušnosti do odgovornosti [From obedience to responsibility]. Didactica Slovenica, 25(3–4), 94–110.
  28. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  29. Madhav, N., & Baron, P. (2022). Curriculum transformation at a private higher educational institution: An exploratory study on decolonisation. SOTL in the South, 6(3), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.36615/SOTLS.V6I3.267
  30. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
  31. Matadi, M. T., & Uleanya, C. (2022). Impact(s) of quality assurance requirements for private higher education institutions in South Africa. The Journal of Quality in Education, 12(20), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v12i20.323
  32. McChesney, K., & Aldridge, J. M. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist stance throughout mixed methods research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1590811
  33. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
  34. Moore, M. G. (2018). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 32–46). Routledge.
  35. Mpungose, C. B. (2020). Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African university in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7, Article 113. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00603-x
  36. Ngubane, N., & Makua, M. (2021). Intersection of Ubuntu and social justice. Transformation in Higher Education, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/the.v6i0.113
  37. Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
  38. Segerby, C. (2022). Exploring how a university mathematics teacher’s digital relational competence can be manifested: A micro-analytical study. Education Sciences, 12(4), 257. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040257
  39. Segerby, C., & Aspelin, J. (2023). How is teachers’ relational competence manifested in online higher education contexts? International Educational Research, 6(2), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.30560/ier.v6n2p35
  40. Sevnarayan, K. (2022). “Your voice counts”: Understanding how online student evaluations encourage lecturers’ pedagogies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 4(2), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202218458
  41. Shannon, C., & Clarke, D. (2022). How teacher presence engages and supports online female postgraduate students at an Australian regional university. ASCILITE Publications. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2022.98
  42. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
  43. Sundani, N., & Mamkhere, J. (2021). The relationship between students and lecturers: A case of selected private higher education institutions. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1873200.
  44. van den Berg, G. (2023). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching and learning in online distance education. In F. R. Aluko & D. Coetzee (Eds.), Does distance education in the developing context need more research? Building practice into theory (Vol. 1, pp. 41–79). ESI Press.
  45. van Dorresteijn, C., Fajardo-Tovar, D., Pareja Roblin, N., Cornelissen, F., Meij, M., Voogt, J., & Volman, M. (2025). What factors contribute to effective online higher education? A meta-review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30(1), 171–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09750-5
  46. Vidmar, M., & Kerman, K. (2016). The development of teacher's relational competence scale: Structural validity and reliability. Solsko Polje, 27, 63–78.
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 233–344). Plenum Press.
  49. Walsh, C., Bragg, L. A., Heyeres, M., Yap, A., & Ratcliff, M. (2024). A systematic literature review of online academic student support in higher education. Online Learning, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i2.3954
  50. Wiklund-Engblom, A. (2018). Digital relational competence: Sensitivity and responsivity to needs of distance and co-located students. Seminar.net, 14(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2979
  51. Yende, S. J. (2023). Emerging trends in South African higher education: A critical analysis of distance learning modalities in music. Progressio, 44, 1–20.
  52. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.