Conference Agenda
| Session | ||
22 SES 02 A: Succeeding in higher education
Paper Session | ||
| Presentations | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper First-year Transitions and Belonging in Distance Education: A Sociomaterial and Temporal Analysis IU Internationale Hochschule, Germany Presenting Author:A strong sense of belonging is a core mechanism of student engagement and persistence in higher education (Strayhorn, 2012; Tinto, 2020; Kahu & Nelson, 2018). In distance education (DE), where everyday interaction is digitally mediated and spontaneous peer contact is scarce, how students develop belonging during their first-year remains underexplored (Hast, Habermann, & Trautwein, under review). This paper examines how first-year DE students interpret institutional, pedagogical and relational signals at study entry; how belonging is enacted, constrained or contested within sociomaterial learning environments; and how these processes unfold over time. Conceptually, we adopt a practice-based, sociomaterial and temporal lens that treats belonging as enacted through everyday interactions with platforms, course structures and institutional communication rather than as a stable trait. Drawing on transition-as-becoming (Gale & Parker, 2014) and Schlossberg’s transition model (2011), we frame belonging as an unfolding accomplishment sensitive to the timing, visibility and tone of institutional practices. Empirically, we report qualitative focus-group data from two German distance-learning programmes (one public, one private). We conducted 13 online focus groups via Zoom: nine “immersive” groups with first-year students and four “retrospective” groups with later-semester students reflecting on their first-year (N = 41; age 19–55; the majority employed and/or with caregiving responsibilities). A semi-structured guide covered motivations, early experiences, study–work–life integration, digital study practices, academic and social integration and supports and barriers. Transcripts were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Ethical approval, informed consent and data-protection procedures were observed. Findings identify four interrelated patterns. First, organisational anchoring with social thinness: early belonging is enacted through successfully navigating platforms, procedures and timely institutional responses. Students often feel “connected to the university” without yet “feeling part of a student community”. Second, structural openness and absent shared boundaries: asynchronous, dispersed study rhythms and geographical dispersion complicate cohort perception and collective identification. Participants described flexibility as enabling access, but also as producing social indeterminacy early on. Third, from need to felt experience: in the first-year, belonging is articulated as an anticipated resource students desire but cannot readily realise. Over time it becomes a felt, motivating experience through accumulated interactions, often catalysed by informal peer spaces (Teams/WhatsApp) and visible pedagogical presence. Fourth, retrospective reconfiguration: students frequently recognise early non‑belonging only in hindsight, once later points of comparison exist, with belonging described as temporally delayed and narratively reconstructed. We conclude that belonging in DE is a fragile, sociomaterially mediated and temporally dynamic accomplishment. Early‑phase practice should prioritise institutional visibility and clarity (coherent onboarding; prompt, human‑toned communication), low‑threshold relational touchpoints and optional synchronisation (welcome messages, brief live check‑ins, time‑bounded discussions), plus coordinated standards across courses to avoid fragmented experiences Institutions should encourage teachers to signal presence in asynchronous settings and recognise indirect signs of isolation. For widening participation, belonging operates as a mediating mechanism between access and persistence; without intentional early‑phase design, DE’s structural openness risks reproducing inequalities. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We adopted an interpretivist, practice-oriented design to elicit co-constructed accounts of how a sense of belonging is articulated, challenged and reinterpreted over time within sociomaterial settings. Online focus groups were used to generate interactional insight. The study was conducted at two German distance-learning programmes (one public, one private), enabling comparison across organisational contexts. Purposive sampling targeted DE students and sought to capture temporality by convening two types of groups: “immersive” groups with first-year students and “retrospective” groups with later-semester students reflecting on their first-year (Hast & Habermann, accepted for publication). Recruitment ran from October 2024 to June 2025 via learning management system announcements, Teams channels and course spaces. The final sample comprised 41 students across 13 focus-groups (nine immersive, four retrospective). To support equitable turn-taking in the online format, groups were intentionally small (two to four participants); the number of groups was increased to maintain information power. Participants were heterogeneous: ages ranged from 19 to 55, around 70% worked at least 11 hours per week and about 37% reported caregiving responsibilities, reflecting typical DE diversity. Focus-groups were held in Zoom and were video-recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. A semi-structured topic guide covered motivations, early higher-education experiences, study–work–life integration, digital study practices, academic and social integration, perceived barriers and supports, and suggestions for improvement. Immersive groups focused on current experiences, whereas retrospective groups mapped how belonging developed across the first-year. Topics were informed by a prior scoping review on transition into distance education (Schweighart et al., 2024). The analysis followed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We coded all transcripts inductively and iteratively, developing themes that captured patterns in how belonging was enacted, constrained and temporally reconfigured. Credibility and transparency were supported through team-based analysis, reflexive memoing and an audit trail, and disconfirming evidence was used to refine theme boundaries. Ethical approval was granted by the institutional committee; informed consent was obtained from all participants and data were handled securely in line with German data-security standards. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Belonging in distance education during the first-year is not an automatic corollary of enrolment. It is a fragile, uneven and temporally delayed accomplishment that is initially anchored in organisational engagement rather than social embeddedness. DE’s structural openness—dispersed times, spaces and rhythms—enables access yet constrains early collective identification, rendering belonging thin and contingent. Over time, belonging can shift from an anticipated need to a felt, motivating experience through accumulated interactions, often enabled by informal peer channels and visible pedagogical presence. Crucially, students frequently recognise early non‑belonging only retrospectively, highlighting limits of early satisfaction metrics as indicators of successful transition. Implications follow at three levels. Course and programme design should foreground early institutional visibility and clarity (coherent onboarding; prompt, human-toned communication) and embed low-threshold relational touchpoints with optional synchronisation (welcome videos, brief live check-ins, time bounded discussions, cohort milestones). Staff development should treat belonging as pedagogical work, including signalling presence in asynchronous environments, normalising help-seeking and recognising indirect signs of isolation. At policy level, widening participation must go beyond flexible access to include intentional early-phase practices that reduce reliance on self-initiation. Otherwise, structural openness risks reproducing inequalities among students with fewer academic or digital resources. Treating belonging as a sociomaterial and temporal practice offers actionable pathways for institutions to nurture student potential and wellbeing in digitally mediated contexts. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2014). Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734–753. Gourlay, L., & Oliver, M. (2018). Student engagement in the digital university: Sociomaterial assemblages. Routledge. Hast, M., & Habermann, S. (accepted for publication). TiDE und die (Ge)Zeiten: Warum sowohl immersive als auch retrospektive Ansichten für die Hochschulforschung wichtig sind. In S. Schaper, J. Lange, & S. Hofhues (Eds.), (Fern-)Studierende – Lebenswelten und Übergänge. Beltz. Hast, M., Habermann, S., & Trautwein, C. (under review). Negotiating belonging in distance education: A qualitative study of students’ transition experiences. Manuscript submitted for publication to the Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197 Schweighart, R., Hast, M., Pampel, A. M., Rebien, J. A., & Trautwein, C. (2024). Transition into distance education: A scoping review. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1130. Schlossberg, N. K. (2011). The challenge of change: The transition model and its applications. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(4), 159–162. Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging. Routledge. Tinto, V. (2020). Learning better together. In A. Jones, A. Olds, & J. G. Lisciandro (Eds.), Transitioning students into higher education: Philosophy, pedagogy and practice (pp. 13–24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429279355 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper The Joint Development of Peer Networks, Sense of Belonging, and Academic Self-efficacy among International Students in Higher Education 1: Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands, The; 2: University of Groningen, Netherlands, The Presenting Author:Peer relationships facilitate student learning and sense of belonging in higher education (HE) (Mishra, 2020). This is particularly true for first year international students, who not only need to adapt to a new academic, but also a new cultural context during their transition to HE. Small group education facilitates peer relationship development, but psychosocial factors may influence the extent to which students actually make use of such opportunities. For instance, students’ perceptions of their own academic capabilities (self-efficacy) and sense of belonging are likely to shape their engagement with peers, influencing both who they choose to build ties with, and how these ties evolve over time. Conversely, social interactions may, in turn, strengthen or weaken students’ self-efficacy and belongingness. To understand these dynamic and reciprocal processes, a longitudinal social network perspective is needed, capturing how (psycho)social and academic factors co-develop within international student populations (Brouwer & Froehlich, 2023). Therefore, this study examines the role of academic self-efficacy and sense of belonging in international students’ selection process of friends and collaboration partners as well as the influence of these partners on students’ self-efficacy and sense of belonging. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We conducted a longitudinal complete social network study among 289 first-year students enrolled in a bachelor’s program at a university in the Netherlands. Data were collected during students’ first academic semester, a key transitional period, across three survey waves administered in September, November, and January. This design allowed us to examine changes in students’ social networks and individual outcomes over time. At each wave, students nominated peers within their cohort with whom they collaborated academically (e.g., studying together or working on assignments) and peers they considered friends. These nominations were used to construct longitudinal networks of academic collaboration and friendship. In addition, students completed survey measures assessing their sense of belonging in the program and their academic self-efficacy. Both constructs were treated as time-varying individual attributes. Administrative data were obtained from the university’s student information system and linked to the survey data using unique identifiers. These data included measures of academic achievement, such as grades and credits earned, as well as background characteristics (e.g., demographic and educational information). The data were analyzed using stochastic actor-oriented models (SAOMs), which are specifically designed to analyze the co-evolution of social networks and individual attributes in longitudinal data (Snijders, 2011). SAOMs model network change as a series of micro-steps driven by actors’ preferences, enabling the examination of selection and influence processes. This approach allowed us to investigate how collaboration and friendship networks developed during the first semester and how these networks were associated with changes in students’ sense of belonging, academic self-efficacy, and academic outcomes. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Descriptive results firstly show that tutorial groups are an important context for initial relationship development. SAOMs revealed that networks are influenced by cross-network dynamics and psychosocial factors. Existing help-seeking ties significantly predicted formation of collaboration ties (Est. = 0.70, p <.001), and existing collaboration and friendship ties increased the likelihood of new friendship nominations (Est. = 1.02, p <.01; Est. = 1.42, p <.001). Sense of belonging showed positive effects on collaboration tie formation (Est. = 0.24, p <.01), meaning that students who feel connected to their academic environment are more inclined to collaborate. Self-efficacy had contrasting effects: higher ego efficacy reduced the probability of establishing collaboration ties (Est. = -0.32, p <.001). Alter efficacy had small negative effects, implying a lower tendency among student to nominate peers with high academic self-efficacy as preferred collaboration partners (Est. = -0.17, p <.05) or as friends (Est. = -0.18, p <.05). Findings enhance understanding of international students’ peer networks formation within small group learning environments and the role of psychosocial factors in this process. Small groups appear to enhance tie formation, but self-efficacy and sense of belonging affect whether students actually make use of relationship possibilities in small groups, suggesting a need for interventions targeted at improvement of such psychosocial outcomes. Further analysis of the data will provide insight into the effect of peer networks on self-efficacy and sense of belonging. References Brouwer, J., & Froehlich, D. E. (2023). The dynamics of social networks: Towards a better understanding of selection and influence mechanisms in social capital building. In Re-theorising Learning and Research Methods in Learning Research. Routledge. Mishra, S. (2020). Social networks, social capital, social support and academic success in higher education: A systematic review with a special focus on ‘underrepresented’ students. Educational Research Review, 29, 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100307 Snijders, T. A. B. (2011). Statistical Models for Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102709 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Patterns of Student Engagement Across Turkish Universities Established After 2000s: A Multiple Case Study 1: Gaziantep University, Turkey (Türkiye); 2: Middle East Technical University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:The world has shifted towards a knowledge and digital-oriented way of living in recent years. Along with this shift, the role of the university in the development of an individual and the social world is undergoing a significant transformation (OECD, 2024). The university has to be a dynamic ecosystem in order to bring cognitive, social, and emotional developments in the students (Marginson, 2022). In the course of this change, the idea of student engagement has turned out to be an important factor in the student growth. Engagement is a multifaceted construct that goes far beyond the basic measures of attendance or completion, according to the higher education literature. In fact, Kuh (2009) has defined engagement as the “students’ investment of time and effort in educationally purposeful activities, as well as the institutions’ provision of the conditions that enable such investment.” In this light, Astin's (1984) Student Involvement Theory has emphasized the role of students' physical and psychological energies, while Tinto's (1993) Integration Model has emphasized the role of academic and social integration in the prevention of dropout. In turn, Fredricks and colleagues' (2004) definition of engagement has emphasized its cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects. On the other hand, the recent literature has emphasized the holistic and ecological nature of engagement as a construct that is the result of the interplay between socio-cultural context, institutions, and students' experience (Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Lawson & Lawson, 2013). The theoretical basis of student engagement has become critical in Turkish higher education due to the policy of massification. As a result of this policy, the number of universities and student quotas have rapidly increased. However, this quantitative growth has brought with it concerns about quality. The rapidly increasing number of students, the diversification of student profiles, and the pains of institutional identity formation processes in the newly-established universities are deeply affecting students' university experiences. The present research is grounded on the premise that student engagement is not the result of academic achievements alone. Rather, student engagement is influenced by a wide range of factors, from the national level to the more detailed level of the student experience itself. The present research aims to demonstrate the manifestation of these factors as concrete factors of challenges or opportunities for student engagement in higher education institutions. Student engagement is normally examined through the lens of Western-centricism and quantitative measurement tools. However, the unique socio-cultural characteristics of the Turkish context, along with the realities of recently founded higher education institutions, necessitate an examination of the subject matter through contextual and qualitative tools of research. Whether students experience the university mainly as a credentialing site or as a space for self-development shapes their engagement. At the same time, how students are engaged in their universities is a critical indicator of higher education’s future, particularly in developing countries like Türkiye. Within this framework, this research aims to bring the concept of a quality student experience to the fore, which has been overshadowed by quantitative growth in the Turkish higher education system. It also examines the current conditions of newly-established universities from the perspective of students. The main research question of the study is defined as follows: “In what ways do students engage in university life at Turkish universities established after the 2000s?”. Focused on this question, the study aims to provide a comprehensive framework by thoroughly examining the interaction between academic, social, and psychological dimensions of student engagement. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research design This study was conducted as a holistic multiple case study under the qualitative research. The use of a holistic multiple case study allowed for the examination of different student experiences at different universities, using within-case and cross-case analysis (Yin, 2014). This is because, as a study, it sought to offer a wider view than what could be achieved using a single case study. Each university was considered as a unique case in its own context. Then, the similarities and differences across cases were interpreted holistically. Research context and participants The research context was shaped by public universities established after 2000s. They were located in provinces representing different geographical regions and varying levels of socio-economic development, based on the State Planning Organization (2017). The selected universities were Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University (RTEU), Adıyaman University (ADYU), Uşak University (UU), and Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University (AYBU). Their different regional dynamics and city–campus relationships provided a basis for reflecting the diversity of environmental factors that shaped student engagement. The study group consisted of 136 undergraduate students from the four universities. Maximum variation sampling was used to identify participants and to capture experiences across faculties and departments, including engineering, health sciences, education, arts and sciences, and economics and administrative sciences, etc. In total, 38 undergraduate students from RTEU, 36 from ADYU, 34 from UU, and 28 from AYBU were interviewed. Data collection and analysis The data was collected through a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers in addition to documents and visuals of the pages of the students on the official websites of the university. The researcher visited each campus of the university to conduct face-to-face interviews. The interview questions focused on the academic, social, and psychological engagement process of the students through their experiences and expectations. The research also utilized a second data source, where the textual and visual data collected from the student-related pages of the official websites of the universities was utilized to add credibility to the research through the use of triangulation. For data analysis, interviews were analyzed by using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), while documentary materials were examined through Rose’s (2002) visual analysis framework. The data analysis was conducted in two phases, where the within-case analysis of the data collected from the two universities was conducted, followed by the cross-case analysis of the data to look for similarities and differences between the four cases. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings of this study indicate that student engagement has a complex structure composed of six dimensions in universities. As far as the (1) environment of the university is concerned, there has been a significant gap between the expectations of the students when entering the university and what they actually experience. Regarding (2) academic engagement, the students have often complained about their curriculum, which is highly theory-oriented. The university is seen as merely an extension of their secondary education, providing no platform for intellectual growth. (3) Social engagement is also influenced by the students' perception of the lack of a dynamic campus. The students see their campus as lifeless. They point to their student clubs that are formally established but not actively used. In addition, those campuses that are far from the city centers also impact the students negatively in their ability to form relationships. Regarding (4) psychological engagement, the students find themselves with challenges of homesickness and pressure from their peers. The students' psychological well-being is affected negatively due to their anxiety about the future. (5) Economic pressures emerge as an important factor that hinders engagement. In this case, the increasing costs of living have resulted in an unstable environment even in meeting basic needs such as food and shelter. In addition, the state dormitories' physical conditions and the level of satisfaction with the quality and sufficiency of the provided food also have negative effects on the students' well-being. Finally, concerning (6) political engagement, the findings reveal an environment where the level of student voice is restricted. In this case, the students often feel that they are not included in the decision-making process. In summary, the findings indicate that although the students are formally included in the system, they often experience difficulties in becoming real stakeholders of their universities. References Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey Bass. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37, 58-71. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. Lawson, M., & Lawson, H. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. Marginson, S. (2022). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), 492–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2061438. OECD. (2024). Education at a glance 2024: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19991487. Rose, G. (2002). Visual metholodogies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Sage. State Planning Organization (2017). İllerin ve bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması SEGE-2017. https://www.kalkinmakutuphanesi.gov.tr/dokuman/illerin-ve-bolgelerin-sosyo-ekonomik-gelismislik-siralamasi-arastirmasi-sege-2017/1970. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. | ||