The COVID-19 pandemic and student engagement in online learning: The moderating effect of technology self-efficacy
Yaw Owusu-Agyeman 1 * , Juliana Serwaa Andoh 2, Ernestina Lanidune 3
More Detail
1 University of the Free State, South Africa
2 Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana
3 Cape Coast Technical University, Ghana
* Corresponding Author


This study examines the moderating effect of technology self-efficacy on the relationship between online learning and student engagement in a higher education setting. A survey was used to gather data from participants (n=425) who were sampled from a population of registered students in a Technical University in Ghana. The data gathered were examined using hierarchical regression analysis. Results revealed that, technology self-efficacy strengthens 1) the positive relationship between online learning environment and student engagement; and 2) the positive relationship between instructional resources and student engagement. Secondly, the results revealed that the type of device used by students in the online learning environment has a positive and significant effect on student engagement. Conversely, findings of the current study show that while gender has a negative but significant effect on student engagement, age and academic discipline have insignificant effect on student engagement in the online learning setting. These findings among others lead the authors to propose ways that future studies could examine how technology self-efficacy, learning devices, instructional resources, institutional support systems and the online learning environment could be developed to enhance effective student engagement.



  • Adarkwah, M. A. (2021). “I’m not against online teaching, but what about us?”: ICT in Ghana post Covid-19. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1665–1685.
  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
  • Alfelaij, B. (2016). Why integrating technology has been unsuccessful in Kuwait? An exploratory study. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(3-4), 126-139.
  • Alhabeeb, A., & Rowley, J. (2018). E-learning critical success factors: Comparing perspectives from academic staff and students. Computers & Education, 127, 1-12.
  • Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5261-5280.
  • Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(2), 270-289.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
  • Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1-6.
  • Camas, L., Valero, A., & Vendrell, M. (2021). The teacher-student relationship in the use of social network sites for educational purposes: a systematic review. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 137-156.
  • Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133-153.
  • Chen, P. -S.D., Lambert, A.D., & Guidry, K.R. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computer & Education, 54, 1222–1232.
  • Christmann, E. P. (2017). A comparison of the achievement of statistics students enrolled in online and face-to-face settings. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(6), 323-330.
  • Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211.
  • Costley, J., & Lange, C. (2018). The moderating effects of group work on the relationship between motivation and cognitive load. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 68-90.
  • Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1-19.
  • Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22.
  • Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 120, 213-226.
  • Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 304-317.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Graham, D. (2018). PESTEL factors for e-learning revisited: The 4Es of tutoring for value added learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(1), 17-35.
  • Gupta, M., & Pandey, J. (2018). Impact of student engagement on affective learning: Evidence from a large Indian university. Current Psychology, 37(1), 414-421.
  • Hair J.F.Jr., Hult, G.T.M, Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
  • Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53.
  • Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2016). Student rules: Exploring patterns of students’ computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning. Computers & Education, 101, 29-42.
  • Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080-1090.
  • Ituma, A. (2011). An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 57-68.
  • Jesson, R., McNaughton, S., Rosedale, N., Zhu, T., & Cockle, V. (2018). A mixed-methods study to identify effective practices in the teaching of writing in a digital learning environment in low income schools. Computers & Education, 119, 14-30.
  • Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773.
  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-20.
  • Laird, T. N., & Kuh, G. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211-233.
  • Larbi-Apau, J. (2020, October 1). Doing the right thing, and doing the thing right.
  • Larbi-Apau, J. Sampong, K., & Kwofie, B. (2020, May 7). Barriers to online learning adoption in higher education.
  • Larbi-Siaw, O., & Owusu-Agyeman, Y. (2017). Miscellany of students’ satisfaction in an asynchronous learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(4), 456-475.
  • Lawson, M. A., & Masyn, K. E. (2015). Analyzing profiles, predictors, and consequences of student engagement dispositions. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 63-86.
  • Lin, W. S., & Wang, C. H. (2012). Antecedences to continued intentions of adopting e-learning system in blended learning instruction: A contingency framework based on models of information system success and task-technology fit. Computers & Education, 58(1), 88-99.
  • López-Pérez, M.V., Pérez-López, M.C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56, 818-826.
  • Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 35, 21-33.
  • Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440.
  • Mintz, S. (2021, March 22). Why Most Ed Tech Fails.
  • Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129-135.
  • Mutisya, D. N., & Makokha, G. L. (2016). Challenges affecting adoption of e-learning in public universities in Kenya. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(3-4), 140-157.
  • National Accreditation Board [NAB]– Ghana (2019). Accredited tertiary institutions in Ghana. Available at: Accessed on 20/03/2019
  • Northey, G., Govind, R., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., Dolan, R., & van Esch, P. (2018). The effect of “here and now” learning on student engagement and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 321-333.
  • O’Connor, K. (2020). Constructivism, curriculum and the knowledge question: tensions and challenges for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1-11. [Advance online publication].
  • Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111-126.
  • Orey, D. C., & Rosa, M. (2018). Developing a mathematical modelling course in a virtual learning environment. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 50(1), 173-185.
  • Owusu-Agyeman, Y., & Larbi-Siaw, O. (2017). Reframing the principle of specialization in legitimation code theory: A blended learning perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2583-2603.
  • Pearson, J. M., Bahmanziari, T., Crosby, L., & Conrad, E. (2003). An empirical investigation into the relationship between organizational culture and computer efficacy as moderated by age and gender. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43(2), 58-70.
  • 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.
  • Philip, T., & Garcia, A. (2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: new technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 300-319.
  • Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185-195.
  • Premlatha, K. R., & Geetha, T. V. (2015). Learning content design and learner adaptation for adaptive e-learning environment: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 44(4), 443-465.
  • Prokes, C., & Housel, J. (2021). Community College Student Perceptions of Remote Learning Shifts Due to COVID-19. TechTrends, 1-13. [Advance online publication]
  • Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235-246.
  • Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612.
  • Reyna, J., Hanham, J., & Meier, P. (2018). The Internet explosion, digital media principles and implications to communicate effectively in the digital space. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(1), 36-52.
  • Shin, N., & Chan, J. K. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 275-288.
  • Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). Springer, Boston, MA.
  • Soetanto, D., & MacDonald, M. (2017). Group work and the change of obstacles over time: The influence of learning style and group composition. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 99-113.
  • Srisupawong, Y., Koul, R., Neanchaleay, J., Murphy, E., & Francois, E. J. (2018). The relationship between sources of self-efficacy in classroom environments and the strength of computer self-efficacy beliefs. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 681-703.
  • Wang, S., Zhang, K., Du, M., & Wang, Z. (2018). Development and measurement validity of an instrument for the impact of technology-mediated learning on learning processes. Computers & Education, 121, 131-142.
  • Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
  • Zhoc, K. C., Webster, B. J., King, R. B., Li, J. C., & Chung, T. S. (2019). Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): Development and psychometric evidence. Research in Higher Education, 60(2), 219-244.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.