How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Students’ Online Social Presence?

References

• Airnow (2020) Daily active users (DAU) of the Zoom app on Android and iOS devices in the United Kingdom (UK) from January to November 2020. Statista. Accessed March 13, 2020, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1118860/zoom-daily-active-users-uk/.Google Scholar
• Al-dheleai YM, Tasir Z (2020) Online social presence “OSP” patterns correlation with students’ academic performance among master of education program students. Internat. J. Instruction 13(2):493–506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aladsani HK (2021) A narrative approach to university instructors’ stories about promoting student engagement during COVID-19 emergency remote teaching in Saudi Arabia. J. Res. Tech. Ed. 54(S1):S165–S181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ali I, Narayan AK, Sharma U (2020) Adapting to COVID-19 disruptions: Student engagement in online learning of accounting. Accounting Res. J. 34(3):261–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Axelson RD, Flick A (2010) Defining student engagement. Change Magazine Higher Learn. 43(1):38–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron P, Corbin L (2012) Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Ed. Res. Development 31(6):759–772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barrett P (2007) Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality Individual Differences 42(5):815–824.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biocca F, Harms C, Burgoon JK (2003) Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 12(5):456–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christie H, Tett L, Cree VE, Hounsell J, McCune V (2008) ‘A real rollercoaster of confidence and emotions’: Learning to be a university student. Stud. Higher Ed. 33(5):567–581.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chyr WL, Shen PD, Chiang YC, Lin JB, Tsai CW (2017) Exploring the effects of online academic help-seeking and flipped learning on improving students’ learning. Educational Tech. Soc. 20(3):11–23.Google Scholar
• Coates H (2006) Student Engagement in Campus-Based and Online Education: University Connections (Routledge, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coates H (2007) A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment Evaluation Higher Ed. 32(2):121–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coertjens L, Donche V, De Maeyer S, van Daal T, Van Petegem P (2017) The growth trend in learning strategies during the transition from secondary to higher education in Flanders. Higher Ed. 73(3):499–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cui G (2013) Evaluating online social presence: An overview of social presence assessment. J. Ed. Tech. Development Exchange 6(1):13–30.Google Scholar
• Cui G, Lockee B, Meng C (2013) Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Ed. Inform. Tech. 18(4):661–685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dixson MD (2015) Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learn. 19(4):n4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dong L, Cheng L, Dong S, Wu G (2019) The effects of an online learning management system on students’ academic socialization: A qualitative study on a Chinese graduate course. Meunier F, Van de Vyver J, Bradley L, Thouësny S, eds. CALL and Complexity—Short Papers from EUROCALL 2019 (Research-publishing.net, Voillans, France), 118–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dumford AD, Miller AL (2018) Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. J. Comput. Higher Ed. 30(3):452–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans C, Muijs D, Tomlinson M (2015) Engaged Student Learning: High Impact Strategies to Enhance Student Achievement (Higher Education Academy, York, UK).Google Scholar
• Ferrer J, Ringer A, Saville K, Parris MA, Kashi K (2020) Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: The importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Ed. 83:317–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finn JD, Zimmer KS (2012) Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C, eds. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (Springer, New York), 97–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fosslien L, Duffy MW (2020) How to combat zoom fatigue. Harvard Bus. Rev. (April 29), https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom-fatigue.Google Scholar
• Garnier-Villarreal M, Jorgensen TD (2020) Adapting fit indices for Bayesian structural equation modeling: Comparison with maximum likelihood. Psych. Methods 25(1):46–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaskin J (2021) James Gaskin’s Master Validity plugin. AMOS plugin software for Validity calculation. YouTube video. Accessed April 12, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqySgMU_qMQ.Google Scholar
• Groccia JE (2018) What is student engagement? New Directions Teaching Learn. 2018(154):11–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo P, Saab N, Wu L, Admiraal W (2021) The community of inquiry perspective on students’ social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance in online project-based learning. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 37:1479–1493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed. (Pearson, London).Google Scholar
• Handelsman MM, Briggs WL, Sullivan N, Towler A (2005) A measure of college student course engagement. J. Ed. Res. 98(3):184–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henrie CR, Halverson LR, Graham CR (2015) Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Comput. Ed. 90:36–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofer SI, Nistor N, Scheibenzuber C (2021) Online teaching and learning in higher education: Lessons learned in crisis situations. Comput. Human Behav. 121:106789.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hostetter C (2013) Community matters: Social presence and learning outcomes. J. Scholarship Teaching Learn. 13(1):77–86.Google Scholar
• Joksimović S, Gasević D, Kovanović V, Riecke BE, Hatala M (2015) Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 31:638–654.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahu ER (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. Higher Ed. 38(5):758–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenny DA (2020) Measuring model fit. Accessed November 24, 2022, http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm.Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, McCoach DB (2009) Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Model. Multidisciplinary J. 10(3):333–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Korhonen V, Inkinen M, Mattsson M, Toom A (2017) Student engagement and the transition from the first to second year in higher education. Kyndt E, Donche V, Trigwell K, Lindblom-Ylänne S, eds. Higher Education Transitions (Routledge, London), 113–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Korhonen V, Mattsson M, Inkinen M, Toom A (2019) Understanding the multidimensional nature of student engagement during the first year of higher education. Frontiers Psych. 10:1056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krause KL, Coates H (2008) Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment Evaluation Higher Ed. 33(5):493–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuh GD (2009a) The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions Institutional Res. 141:5–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuh GD, Cruce TM, Shoup R, Kinzie J, Gonyea RM (2008) Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. J. Higher Ed. 79(5):540–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu SY, Gomez J, Yen C-J (2009) Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Ed. Foundations Leadership Faculty Publications 10:165–182.Google Scholar
• Lohr A, Stadler M, Schultz-Pernice F, Chernikova O, Sailer M, Fischer F, Sailer M (2021) On powerpointers, clickerers, and digital pros: Investigating the initiation of digital learning activities by teachers in higher education. Comput. Human Behav. 119:106715.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Macfarlane B, Tomlinson M (2017) Critiques of student engagement. Higher Ed. Policy 30(1):5–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maskell EC, Collins L (2017) Measuring student engagement in UK higher education: Do surveys deliver? J. Appl. Res. Higher Ed. 9(2):226–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molinillo S, Aguilar-Illescas R, Anaya-Sánchez R, Vallespín-Arán M (2018) Exploring the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Comput. Ed. 123:41–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morrison TG, Morrison MA, McCutcheon JM (2017) Best practice recommendations for using structural equation modelling in psychological research. Psychology 8(9):1326–1341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Müller MA, Goh C, Lim LZ, Gao X (2021) COVID-19 emergency e-learning and beyond: Experiences and perspectives of university educators. Ed. Sci. 11(1):19.Google Scholar
• Oluwajana D, Adeshola I, Clement S (2023) Does the use of a web-based collaborative platform reduce cognitive load and influence project-based student engagement? Current Psych. 42:8265–8278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics (2020) Coronavirus and the impact on students in higher education in England: September to December 2020. Report, UK Office for National Statistics, London.Google Scholar
• Paulsen J, McCormick AC (2020) Reassessing disparities in online learner student engagement in higher education. Ed. Res. 49(1):20–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Redmond P, Heffernan A, Abawi LA, Brown A, Henderson R (2018) An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learn. 22(1):183–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rhee HS, Kim C, Ryu YU (2009) Self-efficacy in information security: Its influence on end users’ information security practice behavior. Comput. Security 28(8):816–826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salam M, Farooq MS (2020) Does sociability quality of web-based collaborative learning information system influence students’ satisfaction and system usage? Internat. J. Ed. Tech. Higher Ed. 17:1–39.Google Scholar
• Sharma B, Nand R, Naseem M, Reddy EV (2020) Effectiveness of online presence in a blended higher learning environment in the Pacific. Stud. Higher Ed. 45(8):1547–1565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson NL, Miller NC, Franz DP (2013) Comparing online and face-to-face learning experiences for nontraditional students: A case study of three online teacher education candidates. Quart. Rev. Distance Ed. 14(4):233–251.Google Scholar
• Trowler V (2010) Student engagement literature review. Higher Ed. Acad. 11:1–15.Google Scholar
• Tu CH (2000) On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. J. Network Comput. Appl. 23(1):27–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tu CH, McIsaac M (2002) The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. Amer. J. Distance Ed. 16(3):131–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Verkuilen J (2011) Book review: A comparative review of four structural equation modeling books. J. Ed. Behav. Statist. 36(6):832–834.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weidlich J, Bastiaens TJ (2017) Explaining social presence and the quality of online learning with the SIPS model. Comput. Human Behav. 72:479–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J, Turner W (2016) Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback. Innovations Ed. Teaching Internat. 53(4):400–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaşlıoğlu M, Yaşlıoğlu DT (2020) How and when to use which fit indices? A practical and critical review of the methodology. Istanbul Management J. 88:1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhock KCH, Webster BJ, King RB, Li JCH, Chunk TSH (2019) Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): Development and psychometric evidence. Res. Higher Ed. 60:219–244.Crossref, Google Scholar