The Influence of Student–Instructor Communication Methods on Student Engagement and Motivation in Higher Education Online Courses During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Link Between Effective Communication and Student Engagement/Motivation
1.2. Other Factors Affecting Student Engagement and Motivation
2. Methodology
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.3. Review Process
3. Results
Screening Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Effective Communication Methods in Higher Education Online Courses
4.2. Key Factors and Platforms Influencing Student Engagement in Higher Education
4.3. Effective Communication and Student Engagement
4.4. Key Factors Influencing Student Motivation in Higher Education
4.5. The Impact of Design Elements in Online Courses on Student Engagement and Motivation
4.6. Strategies for Improving Online Learning in Higher Education
4.7. Recommendations for Future Research
4.8. Limitations of the Current Review
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Akargöl, İ., Karadağ, İ., & Gürcan, Ö. F. (2024). Selecting the optimal e-learning platform for universities: A pythagorean fuzzy AHP/TOPSIS evaluation. The European Journal of Research and Development, 4, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, M., Al-Mamun, M., Pramanik, M. N. H., Jahan, I., Khan, M. R., Dishi, T. T., Akter, S. H., Jothi, Y. M., Shanta, T. A., & Hossain, M. J. (2022). Paradigm shifting of education system during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study on education components. Heliyon, 8, e11927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alzahrani, M., Alharbi, M., & Alodwani, A. (2019). The effect of social-emotional competence on children academic achievement and behavioral development. International Education Studies, 12, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azmi, F. M., Khan, H. N., & Azmi, A. M. (2022). The impact of virtual learning on students’ educational behavior and pervasiveness of depression among university students due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Health, 18, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA—A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & del Rosario, L. S. (2021). Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7321–7338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belt, E. S., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2023). Synchronous video-based communication and online learning: An exploration of instructors’ perceptions and experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 4941–4964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bergdahl, N. (2022). Engagement and disengagement in online learning. Computers & Education, 188, 104561. [Google Scholar]
- Broadbent, J., & Lodge, J. (2021). Use of live chat in higher education to support self-regulated help seeking behaviours: A comparison of online and blended learner perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmi, G. (2024). E-Learning using zoom: A study of students’ attitude and learning effectiveness in higher education. Heliyon, 10, e30229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cents-Boonstra, M., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Denessen, E., Aelterman, N., & Haerens, L. (2021). Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: An observation study of teacher and student behaviours. Research Papers in Education, 36, 754–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C. -F., & Hall, N. C. (2022). Differentiating teachers’ social goals: Implications for teacher–student relationships and perceived classroom engagement. AERA Open, 8, 23328584211064916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chankseliani, M., Qoraboyev, I., & Gimranova, D. (2021). Higher education contributing to local, national, and global development: New empirical and conceptual insights. Higher Education, 81, 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, S. Y., & Ng, K. Y. (2021). Application of the educational game to enhance student learning. Frontiers in Education, 6, 623793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dayal, S. (2023). Online education and its effect on teachers during COVID-19—A case study from India. PLoS ONE, 18, e0282287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deep, P. D., Ghosh, N., Gaither, C., & Koptelov, A. V. (2024). Gamification techniques and the impact on motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes in ESL students. RAIS Journal for Social Sciences, 8, 32–42. [Google Scholar]
- del Rio, C., & Malani, P. N. (2020). COVID-19—New insights on a rapidly changing epidemic. JAMA, 323, 1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabriz, S., Mendzheritskaya, J., & Stehle, S. (2021). Impact of synchronous and asynchronous settings of online teaching and learning in higher education on students’ learning experience during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 733554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatima, S., Shafi Malik, M., Jabeen, F., & Nabeel, S. A. (2024). Social science review archives communication barriers between teachers-students during teaching learning process at secondary school level. Social Science Review Archives, 2, 1435–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gopika, J. S., & Rekha, R. V. (2023). Awareness and use of digital learning before and during COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Reform, 105, 67879231173389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A., & Pathania, P. (2021). To study the impact of google classroom as a platform of learning and collaboration at the teacher education level. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 843–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Händel, M., Stephan, M., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Kopp, B., Bedenlier, S., & Ziegler, A. (2022). Digital readiness and its effects on higher education students’ socio-emotional perceptions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollander, J. E., & Carr, B. G. (2020). Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382, 1679–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollister, B., Nair, P., Hill-Lindsay, S., & Chukoskie, L. (2022). Engagement in online learning: Student attitudes and behavior during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 7, 851019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inoue, M., & Pengnate, W. (2018, May 17–18). Belief in foreign language learning and satisfaction with using Google classroom to submit online homework of undergraduate students. 2018 5th International Conference on Business and Industrial Research (ICBIR) (pp. 618–621), Bangkok, Thailand. [Google Scholar]
- Kanuka, H. (2022). Trends in higher education. Trends in Higher Education, 1, 56–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, K. (2022). Pre-recorded lectures, live online lectures, and student academic achievement. Sustainability, 14, 2910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemay, D. J., Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2021). Transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, H. (2020). Best practices for implementing remote learning during a pandemic. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 93, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray-Garcia, J., Ngo, V., & Garcia, E. F. (2023). COVID-19’s still-urgent lessons of structural inequality and child health in the United States. Journal of the National Medical Association, 115, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nimavat, N., Singh, S., Fichadiya, N., Sharma, P., Patel, N., Kumar, M., Chauhan, G., & Pandit, N. (2021). Online medical education in India—Different challenges and probable solutions in the age of COVID-19. Online medical education in India–different challenges and probable solutions in the age of COVID-19. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 12, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuryana, Z., Xu, W., Kurniawan, L., Sutanti, N., Makruf, S. A., & Nurcahyati, I. (2023). Student stress and mental health during online learning: Potential for post-COVID-19 school curriculum development. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology, 14, 100184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- O’Doherty, D., Dromey, M., Lougheed, J., Hannigan, A., Last, J., & McGrath, D. (2018). Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education—An integrative review. BMC Medical Education, 18, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osman, S. Z. M. (2022). Combining synchronous and asynchronous learning: Student satisfaction with online learning using learning management systems. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 9, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019). A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016. Frontiers in Computer Science, 1, 472525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Photopoulos, P., Tsonos, C., Stavrakas, I., & Triantis, D. (2022). Remote and in-person learning: Utility versus social experience. SN Computer Science, 4, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plakhotnik, M. S., Volkova, N. V., Jiang, C., Yahiaoui, D., Pheiffer, G., McKay, K., Newman, S., & Reißig-Thust, S. (2021). The perceived impact of COVID-19 on student well-being and the mediating role of the university support: Evidence from France, Germany, Russia, and the UK. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 642689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratten, V. (2023). The post COVID-19 pandemic era: Changes in teaching and learning methods for management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudick, C. K., & Golsan, K. B. (2014). Revisiting the relational communication perspective: Drawing upon relational dialectics theory to map an expanded research agenda for communication and instruction scholarship. Western Journal of Communication, 78, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rusakova, O., Tamozhska, I., Tsoi, T., Vyshotravka, L., Shvay, R., & Kapelista, I. (2023). The changes in teacher-student interaction and communication in higher education institutions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 12, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salas-Pilco, S. Z., Yang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53, 593–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanmugam, M., Mohd Zaid, N., Mohamed, H., Abdullah, Z., Aris, B., & Md Suhadi, S. (2015). Gamification as an educational technology tool in engaging and motivating students; An analyses review. Advanced Science Letters, 21, 3337–3341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A. (2022). Conceptual framework on smart learning environment—An Indian perspective. Revista de Educación y Derecho. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skochelak, S. E., & Stack, S. J. (2017). Creating the medical schools of the future. Academic Medicine, 92, 16–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sobaih, A. E. E., Palla, I. A., & Baquee, A. (2022). Social media use in e-learning amid COVID 19 pandemic: Indian students’ perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 5380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., & Hempel, S. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagino, W., Maksum, H., Purwanto, W., Simatupang, W., Lapisa, R., & Indrawan, E. (2024). Enhancing learning outcomes and student engagement: Integrating e-learning innovations into problem-based higher education. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 18, 106–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, Y., Hu, Y., Wu, C., Yang, L., & Lei, M. (2022). Challenges of online learning amid the COVID-19: College students’ perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1037311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, F. (2022). Fostering students’ well-being: The mediating role of teacher interpersonal behavior and student-teacher relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 796728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Keywords | Boolean Operators |
---|---|
COVID-19 and education | “COVID-19” AND “Education” OR “Pandemic” AND “Education” |
Online educational methods | “Online education methods” OR “Effective online teaching methods” |
Effective communication | “Effective instructor-student communication” OR “Effective student-instructor communication” |
Student engagement | “Student engagement” AND “Online classrooms” |
Student motivation | “Student motivation” AND “Online classrooms” |
Asynchronous teaching | “Asynchronous teaching methods” AND “Online education” |
Synchronous teaching | “Synchronous teaching methods” AND “Online education” |
Language learning | “Language learning” AND “Online education” |
Educational technology | “Educational technology” OR “EdTech” AND “Online education” |
Criteria | Inclusion | Exclusion |
---|---|---|
Publication date | Articles published within the last ten years, to ensure the research reflects contemporary practices and is relevant to the evolving nature of online education methods. | Articles older than ten years, as they may lack relevance to current trends and innovations in online education, especially with the rapid changes brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. |
Topic focus | Articles focusing on online education methods in higher education that emphasize pedagogical techniques and strategies used in university-level online teaching. | Articles irrelevant to online educational methods in higher education, such as studies on traditional classroom techniques or other unrelated contexts. |
Specific content | Articles that examine the effectiveness of online teaching methods in higher education, with a particular focus on studies comparing practices before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, are included. This includes analyses of how institutions adapted teaching methods, the impact of online pedagogy on learning outcomes, and lessons learned for future application. Studies emphasizing innovations or challenges in synchronous (real-time) or asynchronous (self-paced) teaching methods are also included. | Articles that focus on teaching methods outside of synchronous or asynchronous instruction, such as traditional face-to-face strategies that do not incorporate online components, are excluded. Additionally, studies that lack a comparative perspective (e.g., pre-pandemic vs. post-pandemic) or do not evaluate the effectiveness of teaching methods in higher education are excluded. |
Effective communication | Articles that highlight effective communication practices in online platforms or face-to-face classrooms within higher education settings are included. These include strategies for fostering interaction, improving clarity of instruction, promoting active participation, and enhancing instructor–student and peer-to-peer engagement. Studies addressing specific tools or techniques (e.g., video conferencing platforms or discussion forums) that improve communication in online or hybrid learning environments are also included. | Articles that focus on teaching methods other than synchronous or asynchronous instruction, such as offline teaching strategies or discussions unrelated to digital communication platforms in higher education contexts, are excluded. Studies that focus exclusively on communication outside the context of learning environments (e.g., administrative communication or marketing communication) are also excluded. |
Student engagement | Articles that are relevant to stimulating student engagement and motivation in higher education, particularly studies measuring participation, interaction, and academic performance. | Articles that do not address student engagement or motivation, such as those focused on faculty perspectives or technical infrastructure without connection to student outcomes. |
Educational Level | Articles that pertain to university-level education, as this context provides insights into the unique challenges and opportunities of online learning at higher education institutions. | Articles that do not pertain to university-level education, such as primary, secondary, or vocational education studies, operate under significantly different educational dynamics. |
Language and format | Articles published in English and available in full-text format, ensuring accessibility for analysis and review while minimizing the risk of misinterpretation or incomplete information. | Articles not published in English or not available in the full-text format, as they may hinder thorough analysis and verification of content. |
No. | In-Text Citation | Country of Study | Population | Aim of the Study | Method Type | Key Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | Belt and Lowenthal (2023) | Latin American countries | University students | Explore instructor’s experiences with synchronous video in online courses. | Review paper | Synchronous video aids community building, but its effectiveness depends on situational factors. It is not always necessary for community development. |
S2 | Le (2022) | Vietnam | University students | Compare the impacts of live online (synchronous) and pre-recorded (asynchronous) lectures on student achievement. | Randomized experiment | Pre-recorded lectures reduce achievement in lower-ability students by 1.6%. No effect on higher-ability students. |
S3 | Fabriz et al. (2021) | Germany | University students | Explore the impact of synchronous vs. asynchronous online teaching on student experiences during COVID-19. | Mixed methods | Synchronous learning supports student needs and satisfaction more than asynchronous. |
S4 | Händel et al. (2022) | Germany | Higher education students | Examine how digital readiness affects students’ emotions during online learning amid COVID-19. | Quantitative | Students with higher digital readiness reported less stress and loneliness and more joy, highlighting the need for technical support in online education. |
S5 | Broadbent and Lodge (2021) | Australia | University students | Explore the use of live chat technology for online academic help-seeking. | Mixed methods | Live chat was well received, particularly by online learners who found it more supportive and were more satisfied with the tool than blended learners. |
S6 | Northey et al. (2015) | Indonesia | University students | Explore the integration of problem-based learning (PBL) with e-learning. | Quantitative | E-learning with PBL improved learning outcomes and critical thinking, with 70% reaching Bloom’s cognitive Level C4 and above. |
S7 | Osman (2022) | Malaysia | Students from a higher education institution | Measure student satisfaction with blended online learning (synchronous + asynchronous). | Quantitative | Blended learning increased student satisfaction and improved knowledge, skills, interaction, and engagement. |
S8 | Wagino et al. (2024) | Thailand | Undergraduate students | Study beliefs in language learning and satisfaction with Google Classroom for homework submission. | Quantitative | High belief in language learning and high satisfaction with using Google Classroom. |
S9 | Akargöl et al. (2024) | University students and faculty members | Evaluate and select the best e-learning platform for universities using a multi-criteria decision-making approach. | Quantitative. | Google Meet ranked highest for ease of use. Microsoft Teams excelled in collaboration and Office integration. | |
S10 | Gupta and Pathania (2021) | India | Instructor education students | Assess the impact of Google Classroom as a platform for learning and collaboration at the instructor education level. | Mixed method | Students found Google Classroom easy to use, allowing for better communication, self-paced learning, and collaboration. It also enables instructors to provide more individual attention, creating an engaging and effective learning environment. |
S11 | Inoue and Pengnate (2018) | Global | Medical educators and students | Review barriers and solutions in implementing online learning in medical education. | Review paper | Key barriers are time constraints, technical skills, infrastructure, and lack of support. Solutions include improved skills, incentives, institutional support, and positive attitudes. |
S12 | Hollander and Carr (2020) | USA | Healthcare systems and patients | Discuss the use of telemedicine for COVID-19 care. | Mixed methods | Telemedicine is effective for triage, remote care, and reducing exposure but faces testing, payment, and regulation barriers. |
S13 | Carmi (2024) | Israel. | Undergraduate students | Study students’ attitudes and the effectiveness of e-learning using Zoom. | Quantitative | Zoom is a popular platform for online teaching due to real-time lesson delivery; however, technical issues like poor connectivity can disrupt learning and lower student motivation. |
S14 | del Rio and Malani (2020) | Global | Clinicians and public health authorities | Provide information on COVID-19’s clinical features, spread, and management. | Qualitative | COVID-19 has high infectivity; management focuses on public health measures and supportive care. |
S15 | Salas-Pilco et al. (2022) | Latin America | University students | Explore and synthesize the characteristics of student engagement in online learning within Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. | Review paper | Student engagement in online learning includes behavioral, cognitive, and emotional aspects. Improvements suggested are better professional training, enhanced internet access, quality online learning, and emotional support. |
S16 | Barrot et al. (2021) | Philippines | College students | Explore online learning challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. | Mixed methods | The most significant challenge is the home environment; the less significant is tech skills. COVID-19 impacted learning and mental health. Coping mechanisms include resource use, help-seeking, and time management. |
S17 | Chankseliani et al. (2021) | Georgia and Kazakhstan. | University faculty members | Explore how universities contribute to addressing local, national, and global development challenges. | Qualitative | Coordination with local governments and businesses is crucial for infrastructure development. Limited academic freedom and autonomy restrict universities’ potential. |
S18 | Cents-Boonstra et al. (2021) | USA | Medical schools and educators | Propose a new model for medical education to meet future healthcare needs. | Qualitative | The American Medical Association (AMA) supports curriculum changes for future healthcare needs. |
S19 | Skochelak and Stack (2017) | Latin America | Higher education students | Systematically review student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America. | Review paper | Highlighted key engagement aspects and suggested improvements in training, connectivity, quality, and emotional support. |
S20 | Nuryana et al. (2023) | Global | Academic publications | Analyze student stress and mental health during online learning. | Quantitative | COVID-19 increased student stress; curriculum changes should be recommended to address mental health. |
S21 | Deep et al. (2024) | Global | Academic publications | Examine the impact of gamification on student motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes. | Review paper | Gamification enhances engagement, motivation, and retention while promoting collaboration. However, challenges like resource limitations and teacher training need to be addressed. |
S22 | O’Doherty et al. (2018) | Global | Academic publications | Explore barriers and solutions for online learning in medical education. | Review paper | Barriers include time, skills, infrastructure, support, and attitudes; solutions involve training, support, incentives, and collaboration. |
Thematic Area | Sub-Themes or Categories | Hierarchy Explanation |
---|---|---|
Effectiveness of synchronous vs. asynchronous communication | Synchronous communication: real-time live sessions via platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet. | Provides immediate feedback, enhances participation, and fosters a sense of community through live interaction, Q&A, and collaborative work. |
Asynchronous communication: pre-recorded lectures, email exchanges, forums, and self-paced modules. | Offers flexibility and allows learners to revisit materials, but it may require additional strategies like structured feedback and periodic check-ins for engagement. | |
Blended learning: combining synchronous and asynchronous methods. | Integrates the benefits of both methods, supporting diverse learner needs and improving overall outcomes. | |
Key factors influencing engagement | Behavioral engagement: active participation in discussions, group work, and polls. | Encourages interaction and accountability, contributing to stronger course participation and performance. |
Cognitive engagement: critical thinking, reflective practices, and motivation for learning. | Enables students to understand complex concepts and engage deeply with course material through structured activities. | |
Emotional engagement: positive attitudes, stress reduction, and feedback-driven motivation. | Builds satisfaction and a sense of belonging, reducing feelings of isolation in online environments. | |
Effective communication and student engagement | Feedback mechanisms: timely and constructive feedback (both synchronous and asynchronous). | Foster active participation, helps students stay aligned with objectives, and supports academic progress. |
Weekly summaries and checkpoints: clarification sessions and content reviews. | Ensure students stay on track and instructors identify struggling learners early in the course. | |
Digital tools: Google Classroom, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams. | Enable real-time communication, collaboration, and resource sharing to sustain engagement. | |
Key factors influencing student motivation | Intrinsic motivation: personal drive for learning and academic goals. | Encourages deep, sustained engagement with the content. |
Extrinsic motivation: grades, rewards, and peer acknowledgment. | Reinforces participation and performance. | |
Psychological support: stress reduction and counseling services. | Ensures emotional well-being and alleviates obstacles to academic performance. | |
Technology access: availability of high-speed internet, devices, and digital literacy. | Reduces barriers to learning and supports inclusive education, particularly for underserved students. | |
Impact of course design on engagement and motivation | User-friendly platforms: Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom. | Reduce cognitive load and allows students to focus on learning rather than navigation challenges. |
Multimedia integration: videos, animations, and infographics. | Makes content dynamic, interactive, and more engaging for students. | |
Accessibility features: closed captions, adjustable fonts, and screen readers. | Ensure inclusivity for students with diverse learning needs. | |
Gamification elements: tools like Kahoot! and Quizizz (badges, points, challenges). | Enhance enjoyment, immediate feedback, and a sense of accomplishment, boosting motivation. | |
Progress tracking: progress bars, trackers, and personalized feedback. | Provides visibility into achievements, supporting goal setting and motivation. | |
Strategies for improving online learning | Professional development for instructors: ICT training and online pedagogy workshops. | Equips instructors with the skills needed for effective teaching, communication, and course design. |
Equitable technology access: resource distribution for underserved students. | Ensures all learners can participate fully, reducing digital divides. | |
Structured course design: consistent instruction, assessments, and feedback. | Enhances clarity and reduces student confusion, improving engagement and motivation. | |
Student support systems: mental health services, peer forums, and counseling. | Address emotional well-being and creates a supportive community for learners. | |
Policy development: regulations for online behavior, digital literacy, and plagiarism management. | Ensures quality and consistency in online education delivery, fostering a positive and effective learning environment. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Deep, P.D.; Chen, Y.; Ghosh, N.; Rahaman, M.S. The Influence of Student–Instructor Communication Methods on Student Engagement and Motivation in Higher Education Online Courses During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010033
Deep PD, Chen Y, Ghosh N, Rahaman MS. 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. 2025; 15(1):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010033
Chicago/Turabian StyleDeep, Promethi Das, Yixin Chen, Nitu Ghosh, and Md. Shiblur Rahaman. 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, no. 1: 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010033
APA StyleDeep, 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), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010033