Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxx

Houston, we Have a Pandemic: Technical Difficulties, Distractions

and Online Student Engagement
Dimitra Kostaki and Irene Karayianni
Psychology Department, Deree, The American College of Greece
For correspondence, please contact: [email protected]

Dimitra Kostaki: [email protected] Greek-American undergraduate psychology

student, currently in the 3rd year of study at Deree, the American College of Greece
Irene Karayianni: [email protected] Associate Lecturer I at Deree, the American
College of Greece. Currently teaching human learning & memory, and research
methods courses.

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a massive shift to remote education, as
college students rely on technology to attend class and interact with instructors and
peers, while possibly facing technical and situational difficulties at home. Considering
the unprecedented situation, the purpose of the present study was to explore student
engagement in a small private, American college in Greece during the COVID-19
pandemic, where classes were transitioned mid-semester to synchronous online. It
was hypothesized that student engagement would be negatively correlated with both
technical difficulties and home distractions. Moreover, we investigated whether
computer self-efficacy would mediate the former relationship. The survey sample
consisted of 78 undergraduate students, recruited online. Participants completed
scales on online student engagement, technical difficulties, home distractions and
computer self-efficacy, as well as two exploratory open-ended questions on their
attitudes towards online classes. Student engagement was negatively correlated with
both technical difficulties and home distractions, while computer self-efficacy
mediated the relationship between student engagement and technical difficulties.
Students reported that what they enjoyed most in e-classes were the exact aspects
that interfered with their learning and engagement. The most commonly reported
concern in online courses was impaired concentration and technical issues, while
flexibility, time efficiency and home comfort were the aspects that students enjoyed
most. The study aims to shed light on engagement in remote learning, as online
classes may eventually become an integral component of higher education after the
return to a so-called new normality. Suggestions to improve student engagement
based on the findings are provided.

Keywords student engagement, COVID-19, distance education, distraction,

computer self-efficacy

Introduction
The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a global public health
emergency on January 30, 2020 and a pandemic on March 11 of the same year
(Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020). COVID-19, which has caused more than 4.2 million
deaths worldwide (WHO, July 2021), has brought about significant and
unprecedented challenges not only in health, but in numerous sectors of life,
including education. Various forms of social, educational and professional interaction
moved from offline to online. On March 23, 2020 Greece was put under the first
lockdown (Parlapani et al., 2020), and on November 9 under the second (Siettos et
al., 2021). During fall 2020, classes were transitioned, once again, mid-semester
xx & xx

from hybrid (half of the students in-person and half online, interchangeable every
week) or face-to-face (F2F), to fully remote teaching mode, changing the educational
landscape for most of higher education institutions, since the vast majority operate
remotely (Azzi-Huck & Shmis, 2020; Dhawan, 2020; Marinoni et al., 2020; Shahzad
et al., 2020).
The health and psychological pressures caused by the pandemic brought uncertainty
and challenged students’ mental health in terms of heightened stress, anxiety and
depressive thoughts, as shown in studies across the world: China (Cao et al., 2020;
Wang & Zhao, 2020), India (Debbarma & Durai, 2021), the US (Gazmararian et al.,
2021; Son et al., 2020) and Europe (Wirkner et al., 2021). Students’ mental health
and stress are negatively associated with student engagement (Steele & Fullagar,
2009), levels of concentration and productivity (Vinkers et al., 2020) and create
additional cognitive load (Ratcliff et al., 2021; Sweller, 1988) that hinders learning.
However, research on how COVID-19 has impacted the educational system is still
rather scarce (Bao, 2020; Sintema, 2020; Yan, 2020). Forty-one percent of
undergraduates state that their good opinion of their university declined during the
first COVID-19 wave and 63% report that teaching has been impaired since the shift
to remote learning (Simpson-Scarborough, 2020). Adnan and Anwar (2020) studied
undergraduate students, mainly females, that were either attending online courses at
the time or had finished their last semester virtually, and found that students believed
it is not feasible to complete a course effectively when it is online. Similar results
were reported by Garris and Fleck (2020), as courses that were transitioned to online
were evaluated as having decreased enjoyment, interest, and learning value, among
other dimensions of course quality. The emergency transition to online classes may
have a negative impact also in students with learning disabilities (Burghstahler,
2003), as Barnard-Brak and Sulak (2010, p. 82) noted that they “can become
outpaced in the online learning environment without necessary assistive
technologies” (however, see also Banerjee, 2020).
Student Engagement
Student engagement is a complex and broad concept. Kahu (2013) distinguishes
between the behavioral perspective of student engagement, that includes
institutional policies, practices and student behaviors, the psychological perspective
that encompasses behavioral, emotional and cognitive dimensions (e.g., Dogan,
2014; Gunuc & Kuzu, 2015; Hart et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Zhoc et al., 2019),
the socio-cultural and the holistic perspective. Kuh views engagement as “the time
and energy students devote to educationally sound activities inside and outside the
classroom” (2003, p. 25), “… that contribute directly to desired outcomes” (Hu &
Kuh, 2002, p. 555). Handelsman et al. (2005) operationalize the concept through
skills, emotion, participation, and performance, while Schaufeli et al. (2002) through
vigor (mental resilience, effort, persistence), dedication (strong involvement,
significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, challenge) and absorption (high-
concentration flow state).
Student engagement has been mainly investigated in the context of traditional, F2F
classes, and is linked to various positive outcomes, including enhanced academic
performance (Dogan, 2015; Lei et al., 2018) and critical thinking (Carini et al., 2006).
During the past decades, increasingly more classes are conducted online. According
to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2019),
in fall 2018, there were almost 7 million undergraduate students enrolled in distance
education courses in the US. One of the challenges that institutions and instructors
face is finding ways to sustain the same level of engagement when the course is

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 2

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

conducted online. Within remote learning, dimensions of student engagement have

been identified, including active and cooperative learning, level of academic
challenge, educational experiences, and student-faculty interaction (Kuh, 2001).
According to Dixson (2015), online student engagement involves attitudes, effort,
cognitive, emotional, behavioral aspects, and communication with others:
students using time and energy to learn materials and skills, demonstrating that
learning, interacting in a meaningful way with others in the class (enough so that
those people become “real”), and becoming at least somewhat emotionally involved
with their learning (i.e., getting excited about an idea, enjoying the learning and/or
interaction). (p. 4)
The Online Student Engagement (OSE) scale (Dixson, 2010) measures student
behaviors, feelings and connections with material and people (peers and instructor).
Research findings suggest that, in online learning, student engagement is of
fundamental importance for undergraduates’ education and achievement (Dixson,
2015). However, online learning can have a negative impact on student engagement
due to lack of interaction with instructors and other students, technical problems,
students’ poor time management skills and problems with instructional material (Ilgaz
& Gülbahar, 2015). Moreover, it has been argued that online engagement is
correlated with academic emotions and it mediates the relationship between
students’ emotions and their academic achievement (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia,
2012). Online learning might be stressful for undergraduates, particularly for students
with lower academic self-efficacy (Heo & Han, 2018), which refers to beliefs in their
ability to successfully carry out academic tasks, overcome challenges and learn
course material (Bandura, 1997; Schunk & Ertmer, 2020). Student participation and
synchronous engagement in online courses is related to academic performance
(Duncan et al., 2012). Not much is known about online student engagement during a
pandemic, when courses transitioned abruptly, mid-semester, to online mode.
Technical Difficulties
Online learning students largely depend on the use of computer software and
technology to attend classes and maintain their initial levels of engagement (Daniel,
2020). Remote learning raises time and space limitations, but also poses some
difficulties, partly due to connectivity issues, applications lagging and computers
running slowly, which may interfere with the learning process. Sitzmann et al. (2010)
focused on knowledge acquisition during online instruction and tested the effects of
technical difficulties on learning. The study found that, when trainees encountered
technical difficulties, test performance suffered. Research on how COVID-19 has
impacted internet performance found that, because of the pandemic, the Internet
experienced a persistently increased load and that use of video conferencing
applications has massively increased (Bergman & Lyengar, 2020; Koeze & Popper,
2020; Pratama et al., 2020). Chhetri (2020) conducted a mixed methods study within
IT online courses, providing evidence from student’s own perceptions of remote
learning and found that students were challenged by technical difficulties in online
classes. The current paper extends this study by including other study majors.
Demuyakor (2020) studied the levels of satisfaction of international students with
remote learning and observed that undergraduates living in dorms reported slow
connectivity. Moreover, a qualitative study conducted by Banna et al. (2015)
suggested that students who faced technical difficulties such as hardware, software
and connectivity issues reported difficulty to actively engage in remote learning
sessions, thus, suggesting that technical difficulties hindered students’ learning and
participation. Considering the fact that Banna et al. (2015) conducted their study

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 3

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

before an ongoing social, economic and health crisis and fewer universities operated
fully online, the current study aims to further examine how technical difficulties might
be related to online engagement.
Computer Self-Efficacy
Besides technical difficulties, that are external factors interfering with online learning,
students’ perceived computer self-efficacy is also important to investigate in the
current context. Computer self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their capacity
to execute a wide range of computer-related tasks. Pellas (2014) and Chen (2017)
found that computer self-efficacy was positively associated with student’s emotional,
cognitive and overall engagement. Wolverton et al. (2020) found that students’
engagement is determined by their perception of their computer self-efficacy, thus,
students who identify themselves as being able to expertly use digital technologies,
are more likely to be engaged within an online environment. Moreover, Howard et al.
(2016), suggested that students’ low certainty in performing computer-related tasks
is likely to have an effect on engagement.
Home Distractions
Technology is not the only bump on the road of distance learning. Divided attention
disrupts learning, and there are distinct distractions when learning occurs remotely
from home. This non-classroom environment, where students are indoors with
family, flat mates, pets, constant access to cellphones and social media is not ideal
for learning. Blasiman et al. (2018) examined six types of distractions while students
watched a 5-min online lecture, from playing a video games to texting, and found
significant impairment of encoding information and, in turn, performance. In fact,
post-test scores of the study showed a 15% to 30% decrease - a percentage that
could drop a grade as much as one to three letter grades. Student perceptions of
how well they learned information from the lecture matched their actual performance,
except when they underestimated the disruption that a high arousal video brought
about.
Scholars have begun exploring remote learning-related home distractions during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Chhetri (2020) suggested that home distractions impacted
students’ active engagement. Considering that COVID-19 is a recent, crucial topic
and that there is not much empirical literature on it, further research is important to
acquire more knowledge about how home distractions relate to online engagement.
Purpose of the Present Study
In the current study, the research objective was to further investigate experiences of
students whose courses abruptly transitioned from F2F or hybrid to synchronous
online during to the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, during the Fall 2020
semester in a private, American college in Greece. The focus was on student
engagement, technical difficulties, computer self-efficacy and home distractions in
synchronous online instruction.
Hypothesis 1: student engagement would be negatively correlated with technical
difficulties (Banna et al., 2015; Chhetri, 2020).
Hypothesis 2: student engagement would be negatively correlated with home
distractions (Chhetri, 2020).
Research question: Although scholars have examined the direct effects of computer
self-efficacy on student engagement (Chen, 2017; Howard et al., 2016; Pellas, 2014;
Wolverton et al., 2020), to the best of our knowledge, prior research has not explored
whether computer self-efficacy has an effect on the strength of the relationship
between technical difficulties and online student engagement - especially during this
time that working with computers is a global requirement. Due to insufficient ground

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 4

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

to form a hypothesis, we investigated whether computer self-efficacy would mediate

the relationship between student engagement and technical difficulties.
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 78 participants, 53 (67.9%) female and 25 (32.1%) male
undergraduate students of a small private American college in Greece, where, in fall
2020, classes were offered either hybrid or F2F, and very few online, and all were
transitioned mid-semester to online synchronous. The students were recruited online
through convenience and voluntary sampling. Ages ranged from 18 to 48 (M = 21.62,
SD = 4.5), average GPA was 3.39 (SD = 0.40) – one student did not report a GPA
because they were in their first semester. Forty-one majored in psychology (52.6%),
12 (15.4%) in management and business, 8 (10.3%) in marketing and 22% in other
majors. Moreover, 6 (7.7%) were freshmen, 28 (35.9%) sophomores, 34 (43.6%)
juniors and 10 (12.8%) seniors. Students had been enrolled in two to five courses (M
= 3.94, SD = 0.83) and were living with none (alone) to six people at home (M =
2.96, SD = 1.35), 97% lived with at least one more person. Two respondents
reported an extreme number of people living at home and were excluded from this
question analysis. The majority connected to online classes through a computer with
a webcam (57.7%), and seven (8.97%) had been diagnosed with a learning disability
(for details, see Table 1).

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Sample
Sample characteristic n % M SD
Age* 21.62 4.5
Gender*
Females 53 67.9%
Males 25 32.1%
Major*
Psychology 41 52.6%
Management/Business 12 15.4%
Marketing 8 10.3%
Communication 6 7.7%
Informational Technology 4 5.1%
Biomedical Sciences 2 2.6%
Graphic Design 1 1.3%
Math / Physics 1 1.3%
Sociology 1 1.3%
Theatre Arts 1 1.3%
Undecided 1 1.3%
Number of courses enrolled in* 3.94 0.83
2 1 1.3%
3 26 33.3%
4 28 35.9%
5 23 29.5%
No. of people living with 2.96 1.35
participant**
0 2 2.6%
1 12 15.8%
2 9 11.8%

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 5

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

3 27 35.5%
4 19 25.0%
5 4 5.3%
6 3 3.9%
Usual connection to online
class*
Desktop/Laptop with camera 45 57.7%
Desktop/Laptop w/o camera 28 35.9%
Smartphone 3 3.8%
Tablet 2 2.6%
Learning disabilities*
Dyslexia 1 1.3%
ADHD 5 6.4%
Other 1 1.3%
No 71 91%
Note. * N = 78. ** N = 76

Instruments
The demographics section consisted of 9 questions including age, gender,
cumulative index (GPA), major, year of study, number of courses currently enrolled
in, way of connection to online classes, and perceived reliability of students’ internet
connection (see Appendix A). Participants were also asked whether they live alone,
and if not, specify how many people live with them from different categories including
mother, father, brother, sister, grandparent, friend, flat mate, romantic partner and
other (Adams & Wu, 2003). Additionally, even though the topic of the study was not
learning disabilities, we added a question asking whether participants have been
diagnosed with one, for exploratory reasons.
Student engagement was measured using Dixon’s (2015) online student
engagement scale (OSE) consisting of 19 items (see Appendix B). A sample
question is the statement “Having fun in online chats, discussions or via email with
the instructor or other students”. Using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at
all characteristic of me) to 5 (Very characteristic of me), participants rated how well
each statement describes them. Higher scores indicate high student engagement
levels. Analysis of the items in the scale revealed strong reliability (α = .91) and
significant association with global engagement element (r = .67; p < .001).
Technical difficulties were measured with four statements (see Appendix C) that
were generated based on Banna’s et al. (2015) qualitative results. A sample
question of the scale is the statement “My computer crashing”. Using a 7-point scale,
participants were asked to rate how frequently they experience each of the issues.
Response options ranged from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always). Higher scores indicate a
higher level of technical difficulties.
Home distractions were measured with three statements created based on Chhetri’s
(2020) qualitative study (see Appendix D). Using a 7-point scale ranging from 1
(Never) to 7 (Always), participants indicated the frequency with which they had
experienced each of the distractions during an online class, assignments or studying.
A sample question was “My surroundings at home distract me (TV, pets, loud
noises)”. Higher scores indicate more home distractions.
Computer self-efficacy was measured with Dang’s et al. (2016) computer self-
efficacy scale (see Appendix E), consisting of three items. Dang et al. (2016)
condensed the measures of student characteristics and efficacy from Selim (2007)

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 6

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

and Law et al. (2010). The scale included statements such as “In general, I am
comfortable with using computers and software applications”. Using a 7-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), participants were
instructed to respond to each statement. Higher scores indicate increased perception
for participants’ own ability to apply their computer skills to a wider range
of computer-related tasks. Analysis of the items in the scale revealed strong
reliability (α = .912).
Considering the limited knowledge regarding online student engagement during a
pandemic, we decided to include two open-ended questions that would allow
students to describe their own experience with the online learning environment (see
Appendix F). Specifically, participants were asked to write aspects in online classes
that they found (a) challenging and (b) enjoyable.
Procedure
The current study was approved by the Ad-hoc ethics committee1. Data were
collected online through the use of the Google Forms
(https://docs.google.com/forms/u/0/) which remained open to accept participations
for a total of 13 days (November 22nd to December 4th, 2020), after all courses had
shifted to online. The survey was distributed to undergraduate students in numerous
courses and on social media used by students in this college, therefore the response
rate could not be calculated.
The first page of the survey provided the informed consent form that stated the
expected duration, anonymity and participant rights. It was suggested that they
complete the survey in one go, alone, in a silent environment so as to avoid
environmental factors that could possibly disrupt the participant while completing the
study and thus interfere with the results. Once participants gave their consent, they
proceeded to the questionnaire and, upon completion, were debriefed. They did not
receive credit or monetary award.
Results
Means and standard deviations for online student engagement, technical difficulties,
home distractions and computer self-efficacy can be seen in Table 2, and their
correlations in Table 3.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Online Student Engagement, Technical
Difficulties, Home Distractions and Computer Self-Efficacy
Variable M SD
Online student engagement 3.28 0.99
Making sure to study on a regular basis 3.32 1.21
Putting forth effort 3.77 1.04
Staying up on the readings 3.22 1.25
Looking over class notes between getting online to make
sure I 2.83 1.29
understand the material
Being organized 3.56 1.31
Taking good notes over readings, PowerPoints, or video
3.33 1.52
lectures
Listening/reading carefully 3.46 1.18

1examines applications for undergraduate research to ensure that ethical procedures are followed
and quality of research is maintained at desired standards

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 7

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

Finding ways to make the course material relevant to my life 3.21 1.32
Applying course material to my life 3.15 1.25
Finding ways to make the course interesting to me 3.24 1.27
Really desiring to learn the material 3.32 1.30
Having fun in online chats, discussions or via email with the
instructor or 3.03 1.49
other students
Participating actively in small-group discussion forums 2.82 1.51
Helping fellow students 3.74 1.27
Getting a good grade 3.88 1.09
Doing well on the exams/assessments 3.83 1.13
Engaging in conversations online (chat, discussions, email) 3.31 1.47
Posting in the discussion forum / MS Teams chat regularly 2.61 1.39
Getting to know other students in the class 2.72 1.35
Technical difficulties 3.59 1.49
Slow computer 3.54 1.69
Computer crashing 2.60 1.43
Lose internet connection 3.95 1.73
Slow internet 4.28 1.84
Home distractions 4.24 1.69
People living together 3.63 1.94
Cell phone / Social media 4.90 1.86
TV / pets / noise 4.19 1.93
Computer self-efficacy 5.14 1.76
Enjoy using computers 4.96 1.75
Confident – computers 5.16 1.87
Comfortable – computers / software apps 5.30 1.87
Note. N = 78

Table 3
Correlations for Online Student Engagement, Technical Difficulties, Home
Distractions and Computer Self-Efficacy
Variable 1 2 3 4
1. Online student - -.557** -.646** .576**
engagement
2. Technical difficulties - .562** -.557**
3. Home distractions - -.410**
4. Computer self-efficacy -
Note. N = 78. **p < .01

The overall student engagement score ranged from 1.37 to 5.00 (M = 3.28, SD =
0.99). There was a significant difference between females (M = 3.50, SD = 0.74) and
males (M = 2.82, SD = 1.27), [t (31.9) = 2.48, p <.05, two-tailed, Cohen’s d = .722)]
There was no significant difference between different years of study in student
engagement scores, F (3, 74) = 2.30, p > .05.
The relationship between technical difficulties (M = 3.59, SD = 1.49) and online
student engagement (M = 3.28, SD = 0.99) was investigated with the use of the
Pearson correlation coefficient. The analysis supported the first hypothesis and

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 8

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

revealed a significant large negative relationship; r(78) = -.557, p < .001, with higher
technical difficulties associated with lower student engagement scores. This
relationship was contingent on computer self-efficacy. There was a moderate,
negative, partial correlation between technical difficulties and student engagement,
when controlling for computer self-efficacy, r(78) = –.349, p < .05. An inspection of
the zero-order correlation (r = –.557) suggested that computer self-efficacy
weakened the strength of the relationship between these two variables. Computer
self-efficacy (M = 5.14, SD = 1.76) was positively correlated with student
engagement, r(78) = .576, p < .001 and negatively with reported technical difficulties,
r(78) = -.557, p < .001.
The second hypothesis was also supported. There was a significant large negative
relationship between home distractions (M = 4.24, SD = 1.69) and student
engagement (M = 3.28, SD = 0.99); r(78) = -.646, p < .001, with higher home
distractions scores associated with lower student engagement. The number of
people living at home (M = 2.96, SD = 1.35) was not correlated to student
engagement, r(76) = -.167, p > .05, nor to the statement Family members or other
people living with me (roommate, friend, romantic partner) distract me from classes /
assignments / studying / exams, (M = 3.68, SD = 1.93), r(76) = -.015, p > .05,
indicating that the disruptions occurred irrespective of the number of people students
lived with. Indeed, standard multiple regression was carried out to assess the ability
of the three types of distractions to predict online student engagement. The results
indicated that the model explained 43.4% of the variance and was a significant
predictor of online student engagement, F(3, 74) = 18.88, p < .001, f2 = 0.77.
Cellphone use (social media, applications) (B = -.385, p<.001) was the distraction
that contributed significantly to the model.
A sensitivity analysis conducted using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) indicated that
given a total sample size of 78, the required effect sizes to detect a power of 0.80 at
a = .05 are: r = .311 for Pearson correlations; Cohen’s d = 0.688 for independent
samples t-test for gender; f2 = 0.08 for multiple regression with three predictors. All
analyses exceeded the minimum effect sizes required.
In terms of the perceived challenges in online classes, 74 participants (94.9%)
reported facing at least one (M = 1.18). Open ended questions were collected, coded
and grouped into thematic categories (see Table 4). The most commonly mentioned
challenge, reported by 34 students (43.6%) was difficulty to focus mainly due to
home distractions such as cell phones and social media, thus supporting the
quantitative results, but also long exposure to a computer screen. Out of the seven
students diagnosed with a learning disability, three reported difficulty to concentrate.
There was no difference in student engagement between those who reported
decreased focus (n = 34) and those who did not (n = 44) [t (76) = -0.56, p <.05, two-
tailed)]. Moreover, 16 participants (20.5%) found technical difficulties to be an issue,
especially their internet connection, and to a lesser extent hardware or the
teleconference platform, as they hindered their focus and could not follow the class
flow seamlessly. Fifteen (19.2%) reported impoverished socialization and interaction
with instructors and classmates. Four students (5.1%) mentioned that they do not
find anything challenging, and two (2.6%), one of whom diagnosed with ADHD, that
everything is challenging.

Table 4
Online Course Challenges, Frequency Distributions, Percentages and Example
Quotes

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 9

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
 xx & xx

Dimension n % Example quote

Reported at least one challenge 74 94.9%
Attention / focus / distractions 34 43.6%
total
Attention / focus (general) 22 28.2% “Being concentrated all […] the time”
(Female, Shipping Management)
Home distractions, cell phone 13 16.7% “Avoiding distractions such as cell
phones” (Female, Sociology)
Too many hours on screen 3 3.8% “I struggle to pay attention because
my eyes get so tired from staring at
my laptop screen for many hours.”
(Female, Psychology)
Low concentration when few 1 1.3% “Paying attention when there are not
visuals are used many visuals in in the lecture”
(Female, Psychology)
Internet connection / technical 16 20.5%
difficulties total
Internet connection 15 19.2% “Internet connection is sometimes
slow, and we cannot hear the
teacher” (Female, Psychology)
Technical difficulties 3 3.8% “[communication platform] throwing
me out” (Male, Marketing)
Interaction / socializing / 15 19.2% “The lack of feeling connected with
personal contact professor and/or classmates” (Male,
International Relations and
European Affairs)
“[cannot] ask the small questions
one usually asks at the end of the
class in private” (Female,
Psychology)
Keeping up with material 6 7.7% “following the course material and
thoroughly understanding” (Female,
Psychology)
In-class participation 6 7.7% “It’s difficult to participate” (Female,
Psychology)
Low motivation 4 5.1% “I find myself having a lack of
motivation when the course is
online” (Female, Psychology)
Online exams 1 1.3% “the online exams” (Female,
Psychology)
Everything 2 2.6%
Nothing 4 5.1%
Note. N = 78 (each participant who reported at least one challenge provided 1.18
responses on average)

When participants were asked to name the aspects they enjoy in online courses, 76
(97.4%) mentioned at least one (M = 1.05). Time efficiency was reported by 31
students (39.7%), mainly related to absence of commuting to the college (n = 22,
28.2%) and having more free time in-between classes. Convenience was reported

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 10

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
 xx & xx

by 29 (37.2%) students, mainly attending class from the comfort of their home (for
more details, see Table 5). There was no difference in student engagement between
those who reported time efficiency and those who did not [t (76) = 2.2, p <.05, two-
tailed)], nor between students mentioning home comfort and those who did not [t
(76) = -0.49, p <.05, two-tailed)]. Several students enjoyed the fact that they could
engage in non-academic activities during class when the webcam and microphone
were off; their average GPA was 2.98 (SD = 0.56), compared to 3.43 (SD = 0.36) of
those who did not mention such “multitasking”. Finally, some mentioned that it is very
convenient when lectures are recorded, all of whom scored above average in home
distractions.

Table 5
Online Course Enjoyment, Frequency Distributions, Percentages and Example
Quotes
Dimension n % Example quote
Reported at least one aspect they 76 97.4%
enjoy
Time efficiency /convenience total 31 39.7%
No commuting 22 28.2% “Not having to go to [college] I
live far, and it takes a lot of
time for me” (Male,
Psychology)
More free time / rest 10 12.8% “Getting more hours of sleep”
(Male, Marketing)
More time to study 2 2.6% “Not wasting time […] and
having more time to study.”
(Female, Psychology)
Home comfort 29 37.2% “Wearing pj's and having a
blanket around me” (Female,
Marketing)
Engage in non-academic activities 8 10.3% “I am relatively free to do what
during class I want during a lecture.” (Male,
Psychology)
Not distracted / stressed by others in 4 5.1% “I feel more confident when I
the classroom have to talk, because I am not
surrounded by other people,
something that makes me
anxious sometimes” (Female,
Psychology)
Recorded lectures 3 3.8% “It can be recorded (with the
permission of the professor
and the other students) and be
watched later” (Female,
Math/Physics)
Online communication with instructor 1 1.3% “The contact with fellow
and students students and professors”
(Female, Psychology)
Audio-visual material 1 1.3% “Audio-visual material that is
used synchronously with the
lecture” (Male, Psychology)

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 11

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

Note. N = 78 (each participant who reported at least one challenge provided 1.05
responses on average)

Discussion
The current study aimed to extend literature regarding online student engagement in
the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring technical difficulties, home
distractions and computer self-efficacy. The first hypothesis that student engagement
would be negatively correlated with technical difficulties was supported and
complemented by the open-ended question analysis. These findings are in line with
Banna el al. (2015) and Sitzmann et al. (2010) who found that such difficulties,
including unreliable connectivity, were associated with lower student engagement, as
they interfere with learning and participation. The problem is intensified during the
pandemic, as there is a global over-reliance on remote collaboration applications
(Bergman & Lyengar, 2020; Koeze & Popper, 2020). Chhetri (2020) also found that
students mention technical difficulties as a challenge in online classes. There is a
need for a contingency plan to mitigate unexpected technical issues of online
education platforms (Bao, 2020), so that students can reap the benefits of
technology in a way that leads them to engage with content, peers and instructors
(Klasen et al., 2020).
The relationship between student engagement and technical difficulties was
mediated by computer self-efficacy. Thus, students who were not confident in their
computer skills and encountered technical difficulties had lower engagement scores
than those with higher computer self-efficacy facing a similar situation. Similar to
Pellas (2014) and Chen (2017), we found that computer self-efficacy was associated
with student engagement in online synchronous learning. Results also support
Wolverton et al. (2020) and Howard et al. (2016) findings, as it was demonstrated
that students who identify themselves as being able to expertly use digital
technologies are more likely to be engaged within an online environment. It is
recommended that students receive support to familiarize themselves with
computers and e-learning systems, become more confident with computers and
overcome technical difficulties more easily (Alqahtani & Rajkhan, 2020; Banna et al.,
2015; Chhetri, 2020). Future studies can examine computer self-efficacy and online
student engagement pre- and post- technical support training. We also found that
students who had higher scores of computer self-efficacy reported less frequent
technical difficulties. It may be the case that due to confidence in their computer
skills, they perceived or recalled less such difficulties.
The second hypothesis was also supported. Students who faced more frequent
home distractions, especially from cell phones or social media, had lower student
engagement scores. The number of cohabitants was not related to the amount of
distraction experienced because of them. Experimental evidence (Blasiman et al.,
2018) has indicated impaired learning when attention is divided, and Chhetri (2020)
found that distractions are one of the challenges mentioned by online learners during
COVID-19. The findings are complemented by the open-ended questions, where
students mentioned difficulty to concentrate due to cellphones, social media and all-
day screen time, irrespective of a learning disability diagnosis.
When asked what they enjoy most in distance learning, in line with Chhetri (2020),
students reported flexibility and that they have more time to relax or study due to lack
of commuting. Convenience and home comfort were also a very important element
they enjoyed, and it is interesting to note that this was the very aspect that interfered
with their concentration and engagement; it seems that remote learning from home is

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 12

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

a double-sided coin. Future studies could investigate which student, instructor and
course characteristics might determine which side the coin will land on.
Impoverished interaction with instructors and peers, a key component of promoting
learning (Bernard et al. 2009; Conrad & Donaldson, 2004) and student engagement
(Dixson, 2015; Kuh, 2001), was another problematic aspect reported by students,
similarly to Chhetri (2020). Indeed, a sense of community is an important factor
impacting student engagement (Farrell & Brunton, 2020). Dixson (2010) reported a
strong correlation between student engagement and student- and instructor-student
communication. There is a negative impact on online student engagement due to
lack of such interaction (Ilgaz & Gülbahar, 2015), while active learning enhances
engagement (Venton & Pompano, 2021). It is evident that incorporating activities to
enhance live interaction in online classes can subdue feelings of isolation and lack of
closeness with peers and instructors.
Aligned with Chhetri (2020), some of our participants mentioned that they prefer it
when lectures are recorded, so that they can go over them again. McBrien et al.
(2009) suggested that lectures can be recorded so that instructors can assess
participation and interaction. This would also help students who face technical
difficulties or distractions and hence cannot connect or properly focus during the
synchronous lecture, not fall back on material. However, GDPR issues must be
considered and consent must be granted from the educational institution, instructor
and students.
As little research exists on online student engagement during the COVID-19
pandemic, especially in relation to home distractions and technology issues, this
study attempted to enrich literature on possible difficulties students face in remote
learning. Given the uncertainty regarding how long the lockdown will continue for,
this study could be of value to help improve possible shortcomings in online classes.
It would be interesting to extend the current findings in vocational distance
education.
This study is not without limitations. Causality among variables cannot be assumed.
Furthermore, the sample consisted of undergraduate students only from one college
in Greece, and more than half were females or psychology majors. In addition,
participants were not asked whether at the beginning of the semester they had opted
for F2F, hybrid or online courses, so it remains unknown how many shifted mid-
semester to online. It is possible that students with higher computer self-efficacy had
selected an online course to begin with. However, in the specific college, very few
courses were delivered online from the onset of the semester. Future studies can
examine the relationship among different delivery modes with student engagement,
technical difficulties, home distractions and computer self-efficacy.
Conclusion and Suggestions
Following the mid-semester online transition due to COVID-19, this study
investigated online learning related behaviors. Evidently, this change in environment,
from a traditional, F2F or hybrid classroom to a home setting, comes with unique
challenges to students. It was demonstrated that student engagement is associated
with technical difficulties, home distractions, and computer self-efficacy. All things
considered, this study can provide some insights to understand possible problems
students might encounter remotely and to make adjustments to ensure that those
students are provided with the necessary assistance moving forward. Under the
circumstances of COVID-19, there is uncertainty regarding how long universities will
continue to operate fully online. Possibly after the pandemic, online classes will

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 13

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

eventually become an integral component of more higher education institutions, in

which case our results point to the following suggestions:
• Institution
o Offer technical training and support to students who need it, to
familiarize themselves / become more confident with computers and e-
learning systems, and overcome technical difficulties more easily, so
that they can reap the benefits of technology in a way that leads them
to engage with content, peers and instructors.
• Students
o Students should refrain from using cellphones and social media during
class and study time, as our results confirmed common knowledge:
cellphone use (social media, applications) was the best predictor of
online student engagement, among home distractions.
o Students should take regular breaks from long exposure to the
computer screen, as it impairs their ability to focus.
• Instructors
o Incorporate activities to enhance live interaction in online classes can
subdue feelings of isolation and lack of closeness with peers and
instructors.
o Record lectures so that students can go over them again, especially
those who face technical difficulties or distractions and hence cannot
connect or properly focus during the synchronous lecture (GDPR
issues must be considered).

References
Adams, R. & Wu, M. (eds.) (2003). Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA): PISA 2000 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264199521-en.
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic:
Students' perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology,
2(1), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309
Alqahtani, A., Y. & Rajkhan, A., A. (2020). E-Learning critical success factors during
the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of E-Learning managerial
perspectives. Education Sciences, 10(9), 216.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090216
Azzi-Huck, K. & Shmis, T. (2020, March 18). Managing the impact of COVID-19 on
education systems around the world: How countries are preparing, coping,
and planning for recovery. https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/managing-
impact-covid-19-education-systems-around-world-how-countries-are-
preparing
Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publisher.
Banna, J. C., Stewart, M., Lin, G., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters:
Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition
course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249–261.

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 14

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of
Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
Barnard-Brak, L., & Sulak, T. (2010). Online versus face-to-face accommodations
among college students with disabilities. The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance
Education, 24(2), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923641003604251
Bergman, A., Lyengar, J. (2020, April 8). How COVID-19 is affecting internet
performance. https://www.fastly.com/blog/how-covid-19-is-affecting-internet-
performance
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
Blasiman, R. N., Larabee, D., & Fabry, D. (2018). Distracted students: A comparison
of multiple types of distractions on learning in online lectures. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 222–230.
https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000122
Burghstahler, S. (2003). Web-based distance learning and the second digital divide.
In M. Hricko (Eds.), Design and Implementation of Web-Enabled Teaching
Tools (pp. 83-97). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-107-
0.ch005
Cao, W., Fang, Z., Hou, G., Han, M., Xu, X., Dong, J., & Zheng, J. (2020). The
psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China.
Psychiatry Research, 287, 112934.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student
learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
Chen, I. S. (2017). Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and the mediating
role of learning engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 362–370
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.059
Chhetri, C. (2020, October). "I Lost Track of Things" Student Experiences of Remote
Learning in the Covid-19 Pandemic. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Conference on Information Technology Education (pp. 314-319).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3368308.3415413
Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and
resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, California: John Wiley &
Sons.
Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO declares covid-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio-
Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 91(1), 157–160.
https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397
Dang, Y., Zhang, Y., Ravindran, S., & Osmonbekov, T. (2016). Examining student
satisfaction and gender differences in technology-supported, blended
Learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 27(2), 119-130.
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
Debbarma, I., & Durai, T. (2021). Educational disruption: Impact of COVID-19 on
students from the Northeast states of India. Children and youth services
review, 120, 105769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105769

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 15

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

Demuyakor, J. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19) and online learning in higher

institutions of education: A survey of the perceptions of Ghanaian international
students in China. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies,
10(3). https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/8286
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-
22. https://doi:10.1177/0047239520934018
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What
do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 10(2), 1 – 13
Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The
Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4)
http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
Dogan, U. (2014). Validity and reliability of student engagement scale. Bartin
Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 390-403. Doi:
10.14686/BUEFAD.201428190
Dogan, U. (2015). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic
motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist, 20(3),
553-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891759
Duncan, K., Kenworthy, A., & McNamara, R. (2012). The effect of synchronous and
asynchronous participation on students’ performance in online accounting
courses. Accounting Education, 21(4), 431-449.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2012.673387
Farrell, O., & Brunton, J. (2020). A balancing act: a window into online student
engagement experiences. Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 17, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00199-x
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Garris, C. P., & Fleck, B. (2020). Student evaluations of transitioned-online courses
during the covid-19 pandemic. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000229
Gazmararian, J., Weingart, R., Campbell, K., Cronin, T., & Ashta, J. (2021). Impact
of COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of students from 2 semi-rural
high schools in Georgia. Journal of School Health, 91(5), 356-369.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13007
Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2015). Student engagement scale: development, reliability
and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587–610.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.938019
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), 184–191. https://doi-org.acg.idm.oclc.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
Hart, S. R., Stewart, K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2011). The Student Engagement in
Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Form-New
(TERF-N): Examining the preliminary evidence. Contemporary School
Psychology, 15, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340964
Heo, J., Han, S. (2018). Effects of motivation, academic stress and age in predicting
self-directed learning readiness (SDLR): Focused on online college

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 16

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

students. Educ Inf Technol 23, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-

9585-2
Howard, S. K., Ma, J., Yang, J. (2016). Student rules: Exploring patterns of students’
computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning.
Elsevier, 101, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.008
Hu, S & Kuh, G. D. (2002) Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities:
The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher
Education, 43(5), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020114231387
Ilgaz, H., & Gülbahar, Y. (2015). A snapshot of online learners: E-readiness, e-
satisfaction and expectations. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 16(2), 171–187.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2117
Kahu, E. R. (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in
Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Klasen, J.M., Meienberg, A., & Bogie, B.J.M. (2020). Medical student engagement
during COVID‐19: Lessons learned and areas for improvement. Medical
Education, 55, 115– 118. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14405
Koeze, E., Popper, N. (2020, April 7). The virus changed the way we internet.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/07/technology/coronavirus-
internet-use.html
Kuh, G. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning. Change: The
magazine of higher learning, 33(3), 10-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601795
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, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
Law, K. M. Y., Lee, V. C. S., & Yu, Y. T. (2010). Learning motivation in E-Learning
facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education, 55(1),
218-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.007
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and
academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 46(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
Marinoni, G., Van’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on higher
education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report.
McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a
synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online
learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
Parlapani, E., Holeva, V., Voitsidis, P., Blekas, A., Gliatas, I., Porfyri, G. N., Golemis,
A., Papadopoulou, K., Dimitriadou, A., Chatzigeorgiou, A. F., Bairachtari, V.,
Patsiala, S., Skoupra, M., Papigkioti, K., Kafetzopoulou, C., & Diakogiannis, I.
(2020). Psychological and behavioral responses to the COVID-19 pandemic
in Greece. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00821
Pekrun R., Linnenbrink-Garcia L. (2012). Academic emotions and student
engagement. In Christenson S., Reschly A., Wylie C. (eds) Handbook of
Research on Student Engagement (pp. pp 259-282). Springer, Boston, MA
. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 17

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-

regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning
programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in
Human Behavior, 35, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.043
Pratama, H., Azman, M. N. A., Kassymova, G. K., & Duisenbayeva, S. S. (2020).
The Trend in using online meeting applications for learning during the period
of pandemic COVID-19: A literature review. Journal of Innovation in
Educational and Cultural Research, 1(2), 58-68.
https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v1i2.15
Ratcliff, J. J., Minster, K. I., & Monheim, C. (2021). Engaging students in an online
format during the COVID-19 pandemic: A jury voir dire activity. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000246
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national
study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481. https://doi-
org.acg.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003
Schunk D.H, & Ertmer P.A. (2000) Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-
efficacy enhancing interventions. Handbook of Self-Regulation, 631-649.
Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50048-2
Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for E-Learning acceptance:
Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396-413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004
Shahzad, A., Hassan, R., Aremu, A. Y., Hussain, A., & Lodhi, R. N. (2020). Effects of
COVID-19 in E-learning on higher education institution students: the group
comparison between male and female. Quality & Quantity, 1-
22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01028-z
Siettos, C., Anastassopoulou, C., Tsiamis, C., Vrioni, G., & Tsakris, A. (2021). A
bulletin from Greece: A health system under the pressure of the second covid-
19 wave. Pathogens and Global Health, 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2021.1881372
Simpson-Scarborough (2020, April). Higher Ed and COVID-19 national student
survey. https://info.simpsonscarborough.com/april-replication-national-
student-survey-download.
Sintema, E. J. (2020). Effect of COVID-19 on the performance of grade 12 students:
Implications for STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 16(7), em1851.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/7893
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Bell, B. S., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). The effects of technical
difficulties on learning and attrition during online training. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 281–292. https://doi-
org.acg.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/a0019968
Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of
COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview
survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e21279.
https://doi.org/10.2196/21279
Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student
engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 5-27.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.5-27

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 18

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.

Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019).
Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
Venton, B.J., & Pompano, R.R. (2021). Strategies for enhancing remote student
engagement through active learning. Anal Bioanal Chem 413, 1507–1512
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03159-0
Vinkers, C. H., Amelsvoort, T. V., Bisson, J. I., Branchi, I., Cryan, J. F., Domschke,
K., Howers, O. D., Manchi, M., Pinto, L., de Quervain, D., Schmidt, M. V., Nic,
J. A., & Wee, N. J. (2020). Stress resilience during the coronavirus pandemic.
European Neuropsychopharmacology,1 2–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.05.003
Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to
twelfth grade classrooms: The Classroom Engagement Inventory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050
Wang, C., & Zhao, H. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on anxiety in Chinese
university students. Front. Psychol. 11:1168.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01168
Wirkner, J., Christiansen, H., Knaevelsrud, C., Lüken, U., Wurm, S., Schneider, S., &
Brakemeier, E.-L. (2021). Mental health in times of the COVID-19 pandemic:
Current knowledge and implications from a European perspective. European
Psychologist, 26(4), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000465
(Supplemental)
World Health Organization (2021, February 18). WHO coronavirus disease (COVID-
19) dashboard. World Health Organization. https://covid19.who.int/
Wolverton, C., Guidry Hollier, B., & Lanier, P. (2020). The Impact of computer self-
efficacy on student engagement and group satisfaction in online business
courses. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 18(2), 175-188.
https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.2.006
Yan Z. (2020). Unprecedented pandemic, unprecedented shift, and unprecedented
opportunity. Hum Behav & Emerg Tech, 2(2), 110-112.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.192
Zhoc, K. C. H., Webster, B. J., King, R. B., Li, J. C. H., & Chung, T. S. H. (2019).
Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): development and
psychometric evidence. Research in Higher Education, 60(2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9510-6

Appendix A
Demographic Questionnaire
Instructions: At this part, you are asked to provide some general information about
yourself. Please answer all the questions either by filling in the spaces or ticking the
boxes which apply to you.
1. Age: ______
2. Gender:
a. Female
b. Male
c. Prefer not to say
d. Other

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 19

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

3. Cumulative Index (CI) or overall Grade Point Average (GPA): ______

4. Major
a. Psychology
b. Marketing
c. Communication
d. Int. Tourism & Hospitality Management
e. Informational Technology
f. Undecided
g. Other ______
5. Year of Study
a. Freshman (0-29 credits, first year of study)
b. Sophomore (30-59 credits, second year of study)
c. Junior (60-89 credits, third year of study)
d. Senior (90+ credits, fourth year of study)
6. How many courses are you currently enrolled in?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
7. How many people from each category live with you at home? (one response
per line)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Mother / stepmother / foster mother
Father / stepfather / foster father
Brother(s) (including stepbrother)
Sister(s) / (including stepsister)
Grandparent(s)
Friend(s) / flat mate(s)
Romantic partner
Other

8. How do you usually connect in your online courses?

a. Desktop/laptop computer with webcam
b. Desktop/laptop computer without webcam
c. Tablet
d. Smartphone
9. You have been diagnosed with a learning disability:
a. Dyslexia
b. ADHD
c. Other
d. No

Appendix B
Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE) (Dixson, 2015)
Instructions: Within a course, how well do the following behaviors, thoughts, and
feelings describe you? Please answer using the following 5-point scale. Keep in
mind that there are no right or wrong answers, just personal views and experiences.
1 Not at all characteristic of me; Not really characteristic of me; 3 Moderately
characteristic of me; 4 Characteristic of me; 5 Very characteristics of me.

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 20

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

1. Making sure to study on a regular basis

2. Putting forth effort
3. Staying up on the readings
4. Looking over class notes between getting online to make sure I
understand the material
5. Being organized
6. Taking good notes over readings, PowerPoints, or video lectures
7. Listening/reading carefully
8. Finding ways to make the course material relevant to my life
9. Applying course material to my life
10. Finding ways to make the course interesting to me
11. Really desiring to learn the material
12. Having fun in online chats, discussions or via email with the instructor or
other students
13. Participating actively in small-group discussion forums
14. Helping fellow students
15. Getting a good grade
16. Doing well on the exams/assessments
17. Engaging in conversations online (chat, discussions, email)
18. Posting in the discussion forum/ MS Teams chat regularly
19. Getting to know other students in the class

Appendix C
Technical Difficulties Questionnaire (created based on Banna et al. 2015)
Instructions: During an online class, how often do you experience the following
issues? Please respond using the following 7-point Likert scale. Keep in mind that
there are no right or wrong answers, just personal views and experiences. 1: Never;
2: Very Rarely; 3: Rarely; 4: Occasionally; 5: Frequently; 6: Very Frequently; 7
Always.
1. My computer running slowly
2. My computer crashing
3. Losing internet connection
4. Slow internet connection

Appendix D
Distractions at Home Questionnaire (based on Chhetri, 2020)
Instructions: Within an online course, how often do you experience the following
issues? Please respond using the following 7-point Likert scale. Keep in mind that
there are no right or wrong answers, just personal views and experiences. 1: Never;
2: Very Rarely; 3: Rarely; 4: Occasionally; 5: Frequently; 6: Very Frequently; 7:
Always.
1. Family members or other people living with me (roommate, friend,
romantic partner) distract me from classes / assignments /studying /exams
2. My phone (social media, applications) distracts me from classes /
assignments / studying
3. My surroundings at home distract me (TV, pets, loud noises)

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 21

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx
xx & xx

Appendix E
Computer Self-Efficacy Scale (Dang et al., 2016)
Instructions: Using the scale below, please respond to each statement by indicating
to what extend you agree or disagree. Keep in mind that there are no right or wrong
answers, just personal views and experiences. 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3:
Somewhat disagree; 4: Neutral; 5: Somewhat Agree; 6: Agree; 7: Strongly Agree.
1. I enjoy using computers
2. I am confident about using computers
3. In general, I am comfortable with using computers and software applications

Appendix F
Open Ended Questions
Instructions: In your own experience, please answer the following questions. Keep in
mind that there are no right or wrong answers, just personal views and perceptions.
1. Name something that you find challenging in online courses.
2. Name something that you enjoy in online courses.

Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 22

Vol X, Issue X, Month xxxx