Article

Journal of Educational Computing

Psychological Research
0(0) 1–22
! The Author(s) 2016
Engagement of Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Students in Distance DOI: 10.1177/0735633116656849
jec.sagepub.com
and Online Learning:
Effects of Self-Efficacy
and Psychosocial
Processes

Emilie Vayre1 and Anne-Marie Vonthron1

Abstract
The aim of this study is to test a model of online learners’ engagement, which
integrates social support (from teachers, peers, and family members) and sense of
community as direct and indirect factors, with academic self-efficacy playing a med-
iating role. Survey results based on a questionnaire administered to 255 students
enrolled in an online university course confirm, but only partially, our hypothesized
model. Path analysis revealed that social support provided by teachers was the only
interindividual factor that influenced students’ engagement. Moreover, the sense of
community was also a significant direct predictor of online learners’ engagement.
Finally, self-efficacy functioned as a mediator only between the sense of community
and engagement.

Keywords
college/university, online courses, online learning, engagement, self-efficacy, social
support, sense of community

1
Department of Psychology (Work, Ergonomics, Guidance and Organizations Research Group, EA 4386,
Parisian Laboratory of Social Psychology), University Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, Nanterre Cedex,
France
Corresponding Author:
Emilie Vayre, Department of Psychology (Work, Ergonomics, Guidance and Organizations Research
Group, EA 4386, Parisian Laboratory of Social Psychology), University Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense,
200 Avenue de la République, 92001 Nanterre Cedex, France.
Email: evayre@u-paris10.fr
2 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Introduction
Since the end of the 1990s, European and French national policies have consid-
erably encouraged and financially supported the integration and use of infor-
mation and communication technologies in higher education in France.
Through successive action plans (the e-learning program of 2004–2006 and
Horizon 2020, and the Opening up Education and European Higher Education in
the World initiatives in 2013), the European Commission seeks to promote the
creation of virtual university campuses and the development of technological
innovations in e-learning (platforms, environments, pedagogical scenarios, soft-
ware, services, products, etc.). According to the European Commission, the goal
of these action plans is to improve the quality and the efficiency of education, to
attract new groups of people (e.g., adult learners who have family and work
responsibilities), to respond to new needs (e.g., learn throughout life, stimulate
career development, face personal and professional challenges, etc.), and, in the
end, to increase the employability of European people as well as European
competitiveness in the international market of training and work.
France’s political directions regarding information and communication tech-
nologies are clearly in line with the European approach. In higher education,
e-campuses, regional digital universities, thematic digital universities, and
MOOCs have successively appeared. Just recently, the France Digital
University law was adopted. It supplements the law of July 22, 2013 on
higher education and research that sought to place e-learning at the heart of
the university, in order to facilitate access to initial and continuing education as
well as student achievement.
However, certain studies in online learning have discovered that there are
obstacles for attaining these goals: The levels of dropout and failure of students
in online learning are cause for concern and are substantially higher than in
traditional learning environments (Hu & Hui, 2012; Park, 2007; Park & Choi,
2009). Yet, as Oncu and Cakir (2011) have highlighted, if we want to develop
online learning environments and improve their effectiveness, it is essential to
take students’ engagement into consideration. In fact, academic engagement is a
concept that generates constant interest, because it is recognized as promoting
students’ retention and success (test performance, attaining a diploma, acquisi-
tion of knowledge, or skills) while preventing boredom, disinterest, absenteeism,
and dropout (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Fredericks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008;
Lee, 2012; Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed, & McGregor, 2006).
Understanding and seeking to explain engagement in online learning thus
appears even more relevant since students enrolled in these courses have greater
responsibility for managing their activities and their progression in their study
program (Hu & Hui, 2012).
A second cause of concern recurs frequently in the literature on distance and
online learning: The relationship difficulties that are frequently experienced and
Vayre and Vonthron 3

recounted by students (lack of interaction and feedback, difficulty to initiate and

maintain communication, ambiguity of posted messages, technical problems
disrupting conversations, etc.). In this sense, a number of studies highlight the
need to reduce the feeling of isolation, disconnection, solitude, and the lack of
personal attention and support reported by students in online learning, as these
factors are recognized as some of the principal causes of dropout and failure in
e-learning (Contreras-Castillo, Favela, Pérez-Fragoso, & Santamarı́a-del-Angel,
2004; Faerber, 2002; Kim, Liu, & Bonk, 2005; Mullen & Tallent-Runnels, 2006;
Young, 2006). Even though these factors are reinforced by physical distance,
these observations concur with studies on traditional face-to-face learning that
show the significant and positive influence of relationships with others on motiv-
ation, perceived self-efficacy (SE) and competence, engagement, and the perse-
verance and success of secondary and university students (Appleton et al., 2006;
Lee, 2012; Osterman, 2000).
In light of these observations, the purpose of this article is to test an explana-
tory model of online students’ engagement that at the same time examines
intraindividual (perceived SE), interindividual (perceived social support), and
intragroup factors (feeling of belonging to a community). The findings from
the literature that guided the development of this research model are presented
in the following section.

Theoretical Framework
Academic Engagement
Academic engagement is a construct that has resulted in a great number of
studies in the field of education. Despite this interest, there is a lack of scholarly
consensus as to its definition (Brault-Labbé & Dubé, 2008; Wang, Willett,
& Eccles, 2011). However, even though there are considerable differences in
the indicators chosen and the way they are combined when studying this variable
(i.e., whether a unidimensional or multidimensional concept), certain similarities
emerge. For example, Fredricks et al. (2004) identified three components of
engagement that, according to the authors, are interdependent. The behavioral
component of engagement conveys the idea of action, participation, implication,
and persistence in academic activities as well as social activities. The emotional
component of engagement includes the positive and negative affects related to
others in the academic sphere (teachers, peers, etc.) as well as the inclination to
study. As for the cognitive component, it is based on the idea of investment and
refers to the efforts expended to understand complex ideas and concepts, develop
skills of self-regulation, and meta-cognitive strategies.
Taking an integrative approach, Brault-Labbé and Dubé (2008, 2009, 2010)
also consider engagement as a three-dimensional concept. The affective compo-
nent corresponds to enthusiasm. Enthusiasm refers to the interest or attraction
4 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

felt by an individual toward the object of engagement, as well as to the dyna-

mism and energy characterizing engagement. The behavioral dimension refers to
perseverance. This dimension is also associated with pursuing actions and
making effort that require engagement despite the obstacles encountered. The
cognitive component refers to reconciliation, which is defined as the ability to
understand and to accept that engagement implies giving up certain things and
the difficulties that one must put up with to fully benefit from the advantages
that engagement brings.
In face-to-face learning environments, Fredricks et al. (2004) report that
studies conducted with various groups (initial education students) show the
positive and significant influence of engagement (behavioral, affective, and cog-
nitive) on outcomes. Nonetheless, only the behavioral dimension of engagement
appears to be a significant predictor of the retention and dropout of students.
Similarly, Brault-Labbé and Dubé (2008, 2010) show that the psychological
engagement of students has a significant and positive effect on their quality of
life (well-being, the sense of purpose, frequency of positive emotional states) and
on their satisfaction in their studies. However, they also observe that persever-
ance was best able to predict students’ quality of life (meaning given to their
lives, life satisfaction, frequency of positive emotions) while enthusiasm was
more able to predict satisfaction in their studies.
In the context of online learning, even though the studies are less numerous
and are primarily focused on a unidimensional conception of the construct, the
results concur. Thus, engagement of online students is positively associated with
the quality of their learning, their satisfaction, their success, their retention,
and more broadly, their personal development (Hu & Hui, 2012; Oncu &
Cakir, 2011; Vayre, Vonthron, & Vannereau, 2014). Conversely, engagement
is negatively associated with the intention to dropout (Kim et al., 2005).
Finally, it is important to note that academic engagement is a psy-
chological process that plays a major role in students’ course of study, and
this is true regardless of the sociotechnical organization of the courses
considered.

Perceived SE
Similar to academic engagement, SE is a concept that has given rise to a large
amount of research. Bandura (1997) defines SE as an individual’s belief regard-
ing his or her ability to perform at a high level or to accomplish with success
an activity in a particular domain. According to social-cognitive theory, self-
percepts of efficacy are at the very foundation of human behavior and influence
the level of engagement in activities (among other things), the amount of energy
invested, and the efforts provided to reach goals that have been set, as well as the
level of perseverance when encountering obstacles or difficult situations
(Bandura, 1993, 1997, 2003).
Vayre and Vonthron 5

As for traditional learning, various studies have clearly shown that self-per-
cepts of competence, control, and efficacy influence the use of effective strategies
for problem resolution, investment in learning activities, and student engage-
ment (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Boudrenghien, Frenay, & Bourgeois, 2011;
Brown et al., 2008; Fredericks et al., 2004; Wang & Eccles, 2013). This was
true regardless of the component of the construct taken into consideration
(affective, cognitive, or behavioral). Belief in personal efficacy also predicted
the intention to persevere, the actual decision to remain in a course, as well as
performance and student success (Brown et al., 2008; Close & Solberg, 2008;
Diseth, 2011; Torres & Solberg, 2001; Vonthron, Lagabrielle, & Pouchard,
2007).
Research on SE in online learning has largely focused on the determinants or
the effects of perceived SE concerning the use of computers or the Internet. In
this sense, Hu and Hui (2012) have observed that personal efficacy when using a
computer fosters students’ engagement toward learning (on the behavioral
level). However, the study by Francescato et al. (2006), which deals specifically
with academic SE, shows that SE is associated with an increase in the acquisition
of knowledge and better performance. Moreover, Shen, Cho, Tsai, and Marra
(2013) show that students’ self-assessment about their capabilities to complete
an online course is significantly associated with online learning satisfaction.
Finally, Vayre et al. (2014) found that academic SE promotes e-learners’
academic engagement (affective, cognitive, and behavioral), retention, and
achievement.
In other words, whatever method of learning considered, perceived SE plays a
major role in the successful completion of a course of study, which explains the
focus of a great number of studies on this subject and the implementation of
programs that seek to reinforce these beliefs. According to Bandura (1977,
2003), four principal sources of information participate in the construction of
personal efficacy. The first refers to experiences of success and failure that inform
an individual on the skills that he or she possesses (with successes consolidating
SE beliefs). The second source is the physiological and emotional state of the
person: The activation of a negative state when doing activities may be inter-
preted as a sign of vulnerability and ineffectiveness that will give rise to anxiety
when the person is confronted again with similar activities. The final two sources
are of greater interest here, as they reveal the intervention of psychosocial
processes in the development of personal efficacy. Thus, vicarious experience
represents a third source of information. This refers to activities done by
others and that provide information about the results that come from under-
taking actions, making an effort, and mobilizing resources. Self-evaluation of
one’s own capacities, therefore, is based on a mechanism of modeling and social
comparison (among other things). Verbal persuasion is the final source of infor-
mation. It may take the form of positive evaluation, encouragement, or feedback
that highlights the performance and progress achieved (rather than shortcomings).
6 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

These evaluations and social stimulations support the development of

SE on the condition that they are realistic (not artificial) and that they
come from a person considered as an expert in the field, who is credible and
trustworthy.

Psychosocial Processes at Work in Distance and Online Learning

Several studies in face-to-face learning environments have already shown that
relations with others during learning (often termed social context) play a major
role in student engagement, whether they are teenagers at secondary school or
university students (Fredericks et al., 2004; Lee, 2012; Wang & Eccles, 2013;
Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006). The results, even though they do not systemat-
ically consider the three dimensions of engagement, generally indicate that social
support (from teachers, peers, friends, or family) as well as social integration
within a peer group and within a learning institution, foster engagement in
general as well as in its behavioral, emotional, and cognitive aspects. On the
contrary, a feeling of loneliness and isolation is more often associated with dis-
engagement and dropping out. Moreover, the results were strictly the same in
studies focusing specifically on online learning (in this case, students in higher
education).

Perceived social support. Since the end of the 1990s, studying the effects of
interpersonal relationships in technology-mediated learning has given rise to a
number of studies and continues to generate interest. Shin (2002) insists on
the fact that, more than a mere quantitative analysis (frequency) of social
interactions that seems to support the idea “the more the better,” it is indispens-
able to understand the nature of relationships in distance learning. Following
this line, a large number of studies have focused on analyzing perceived
social support in e-learning. They show that the online students who frequently
received messages they considered “personalized,” who felt emotionally
supported and respected by teachers, were also those who managed to cope
with difficult moments in the course of their education (periods of demotiv-
ation, doubt, lack of confidence) and persevere to the end of their degree
programs (Stein & Glazer, 2003). Taplin and Jegede (2001) and Castles (2004)
note, moreover, that social support from family members (partners, parents)
and others in academia (teachers and peers) is one of the most important per-
severance factors and promotes the success of students enrolled in online
learning.
The results of Park and Choi (2009) concur and suggest that family social sup-
port promotes student retention in online learning. Following this research, Kim
et al. (2005) and Paechter, Maier, and Macher (2010) show that the assistance,
advice, and information provided by teachers facilitate learning, increase student
engagement, and decrease the intention to dropout. Bradford and Wyatt (2010)
Vayre and Vonthron 7

reported that a lack of support and interaction with teachers led to low engage-
ment (lack of enthusiasm) of online students.
Finally, the study by Mullen and Tallent-Runnels (2006) shows that online
students who received strong emotional support from their teachers were also
those who had strong perceptions of academic efficacy, who were satisfied with
their education, and had higher perceptions of learning. Their study is particu-
larly interesting because it shows, in a comparative perspective, that online
students perceive less support from their teachers (than those enrolled in face-
to-face university courses), but that the link between social support, SE,
satisfaction, and the perception of learning is stronger in online learning pro-
grams. Relational processes thus appear to be particularly important in distance
and online education.
From this review of the literature, it should be noted that social support has a
positive effect on various aspects related to online students’ course of study
(such as engagement and perceived SE). In addition, in the literature various
other people are identified as significant (family members and others involved in
learning), even though some studies mention the specific importance of
social interactions with teachers and peers in online learning situations
(Kim et al., 2005).

The feeling of belonging to a community. In addition to research focusing on inter-

individual relationships with others in learning, some studies have paid particu-
lar attention to the concept of a sense of community experienced (or not) by
online students, even though such studies are less numerous than the former.
In a review of the literature focusing on the concepts of community and sense
of community and regardless of the technical system considered (face-to-face,
distance alone, and distance and online), Rovai (2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c,
2002d) characterizes the “classroom community” as having four key dimensions:
a certain state of mind associated with a group identity, mutual trust,
task-driven interaction and socioemotional-driven interaction, and the corres-
pondence between students’ expectations or goals and what the community can
contribute. The author further specifies that the feeling of belonging to
an (online) classroom community refers to a mutual recognition of belonging;
the development of friendly feelings, cohesion, and relationship ties; considering
the importance of each member of the community and more broadly the group
as a whole; mutual trust, being able to rely on each other, and caring for the
wellbeing of each person; being aware of having duties and obligations toward
each other (as well as to the educational institution); and finally, the shared hope
that the educational needs of each student will be met by engaging in shared
goals (Rovai, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Rovai, Wighting, & Lucking, 2004).
Some empirical studies focused on university online learning have examined
the effects of belonging to a community. They highlighted the fact that this
concept is strongly and positively related to students’ motivation, their
8 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

participation in technologically mediated discussions, as well as their level of

investment in collaborative online work (Rovai, 2001; Rovai & Barnum, 2003;
Wegerif, 1998). In their literature review, Bourdages and Delmotte (2001) also
mention the positive influence of group affiliation and social integration of
online students on their engagement in studying and perseverance. More
recently, Hu and Hui (2012) and Oncu and Cakir (2011) have shown that the
sense of belonging to a learning community is essential for supporting the
engagement of online learners. It also has a positive and significant effect on
the level of perceived learning, satisfaction, retention, and successful outcomes
(Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007; Rovai, 2002c, 2002d; Rovai & Barnum,
2003; Vayre, Dupuy, & Croity-Belz, 2011). Kim et al. (2005) also found that
the sense of belonging to a community was positively correlated with satisfaction
and negatively with intention to drop out. In addition, the results of
Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, and Shoemaker (2000) indicate that
the sense of belonging to a learning community protects online students from
isolation as well as stress.
Finally, although there are fewer studies on the effects of a sense of belonging
to an online learning community, this variable supports the engagement and the
perceived SE of online learners.

Research hypotheses. In light of the evidence from the literature, in which research
has focused on learning programs in general and online learning in particular,
this study posits that academic engagement, broken down into three components
(perseverance, enthusiasm, and reconciliation), will be positively influenced by
social support (from teachers, peers, and other family members) as well as by the
sense of belonging to a learning community. Moreover, academic SE is expected
to foster the engagement of online students. In other words, personal efficacy
should mediate between relationships with others and the engagement of online
students. Finally, this study posits that psychosocial processes will be signifi-
cantly correlated. Indeed, Osterman (2000), in his literature review, indicates
that many studies show positive and significant correlations between the sense
of belonging to a learning community, the development of social interactions
within that community, and social support (received as well as given).
Figure 1 presents the model of these hypotheses.

Method
Data Collection Methods
A survey was conducted in a French university department for distance and
online education. The online courses were only available for bachelor level
degrees in Humanities and Social Sciences. In general, students enrolled in
Vayre and Vonthron 9

Sense of
community
Perseverance
(engagement)

Academic
self-efficacy Enthusiasm
(engagement)
Teacher
social support
Reconciliation
Peer social
(engagement)
support

Family social
support

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the hypotheses.

these courses because they had work responsibility and, to a lesser extent, family
responsibility or health problem.
Lessons took place exclusively online, although some optional face-to-face
meetings were proposed during the academic year to students who were willing
and able to attend. After obtaining the teachers’ agreement, an online question-
naire was sent to the students, via the educational platform, 3 months after the
start of lessons. The survey answers were only available to researchers.

Participants
Two hundred and fifty-five adult online learners participated in this study. All
the levels of university studies (first year ¼ 127, second year ¼ 65, third year ¼ 63)
and the degree programs (Foreign Languages and Civilizations ¼ 58; Applied
Foreign Languages ¼ 29; History ¼ 83; Early Modern Letters and
Philosophy ¼ 52; Humanities ¼ 33) offered in the online learning platform
were represented in the sample. A majority of respondents were female
(75.30%), traditionally more represented in these kinds of degree programs.
As expected, a large proportion of students had jobs (70.65%). A slight majority
of online learners (40.4%) completed a High School Diploma (minimum
required) and about one third already completed a 2 or 3-year Bachelor
degree (31.2%) or a 4 or 5-year Master degree (28.4%). Their age varied from
18 to 68 years (M ¼ 31.60; SD ¼ 10.70). Just over half of them (55.30%) were
living in with a significant other, and about one-third of them had children
(30.60%).
10 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Measurements and Instruments

Academic engagement. Student engagement was measured by adapting1 the scale
of academic engagement developed by Brault-Labbé and Dube (2008). This
instrument contains 14 items for measuring the three dimensions of psycho-
logical engagement. Perseverance is evaluated through four items (e.g., “when
I’m overwhelmed in my course, I keep trying to do what I can”); enthusiasm by
six items (e.g., “when it comes to studying, I have energy to spare”); reconcili-
ation is measured by four items (e.g., “I fully assume responsibility for the
negative consequences of my engagement in this course”). Each proposal is
rated on a 6-point scale ranging from not at all characteristic of me to charac-
terizes me completely.
To organize and summarize the data, a principal component analysis (PCA)
was performed with rotation (varimax and Kaiser normalization). A three-factor
solution (eigenvalues greater than 1) was obtained that explains 66.25% of the
variance (Evrard, Pras, & Roux, 2003). Each factor was defined based on the
items whose correlation coefficient was greater than .300 (Dancey & Reidy,
2007). The three factors identified in the analysis strictly correspond to the
three dimensions of engagement defined by Brault-Labbé and Dubé (2008).
Thus, the first factor relates to perseverance (26.22% of the variance), the
second to enthusiasm (25.31% of the variance), and the third factor to recon-
ciliation (14.72% of variance). Based on these results, three scores (weighted2)
were calculated enabling the assessment of online students’ engagement toward
their education (see Table 1).

Academic SE. To measure academic SE, the scale developed by Vonthron et al.
(2007) was employed. Students had to indicate the extent to which the proposed
statements (eight items) matched their own beliefs on a 6-point scale ranging
from not at all to very much (e.g., “I feel unable to cope with all requirements of
this course,” “I believe I am able to resolve the difficulties that this course raises
for me”). The PCA results revealed only one factor that permeates all items
(correlations > .400) and explains 44.59% of the variance. This result is consist-
ent with the unidimensional structure of the scale created. Thus, a SE score
toward academic activities was calculated (see Table 1).

Perceived social support. This study seeks to understand both the nature of social
support as well as its potential sources. Three components of perceived social
support were identified (Caplan, 1974; House, 1981): practical, instrumental, or
material support that refers to practical help with goods and services; emotional
or psychological support which includes empathy, trust, a friendly request, and
feeling able to confide in others; and cognitive or informational support that
involves providing information or knowledge about the learning environment as
well as assessments or material relevant for self-assessment (in the form of tips,
suggestions, etc.).
Vayre and Vonthron 11

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Associated With Scores of Engagement, Self-efficacy,

Perceived Social Support, and a Sense of Belonging to an Online Learning Community.

M SD Median Minimum Maximum a

Perseverance (four items) 37.47 7.89 38 14 48 .86

Enthusiasm (six items) 37.95 7.23 38.67 10.67 48 .89
Reconciliation (four items) 39.79 6.37 40 16 48 .73
Academic SE (eight items) 34.68 6.47 35 19 48 .80
SS from teachers (three items) 28.36 11.99 29.33 8 48 .80
SS from peers (three items) 27.55 11.55 29.33 8 48 .81
SS from family (three items) 23.91 9.65 22.67 8 48 .73
SC (18 items) 33.72 5.97 33.78 16.89 46.22 .87
Note. SE ¼ self-efficacy; SS ¼ social support; SC ¼ sense of belonging to community.

In view of the literature, three categories of others were considered as sources

of social support in education: teachers, peers, and family members (partners,
siblings, parents, etc.). In total, the social support scale developed included nine
items (with a response scale in 6-points ranging from not at all agree to strongly
agree).
Three areas were identified in the PCA (correlations > .700). The first factor
includes items related to perceived social support (material, emotional, and cog-
nitive) from teachers (24.68% of the variance); the second factor loads the three
items of social support from peers in the course (23.84% of the variance); and
the last factor includes three items of social support from family members
(21.54% of the variance). Thus, three scores of perceived social support from
three differentiated sources have been calculated (see Table 1).

Sense of belonging to a community. The sense of belonging to an online learning

community was measured using the index developed by Rovai (2002a; Rovai
et al., 2004). This instrument consists of 20 items (response format used in the
French version is a 6-point scale3 ranging from not at all agree to strongly agree).
It captures the sense of community in two subdimensions (10 questions for
each). The feeling of connectedness refers to the feeling of being connected to
each other within the learning community (“in this course, I feel that I can rely
on others,” “in this course, I feel reluctant to speak openly”). The feeling of
learning, however, refers to the feelings of community members about creating
and meeting educational objectives (“in this course, I feel uneasy exposing gaps
in my understanding,” “I feel that my educational needs are not being met”).
Results from factor analysis (Rovai, 2002a; Rovai et al., 2004) confirmed these
two subscales are latent dimensions of sense of belonging to the community.
According to Rovai (2002a), the items nonetheless reflect, at a more general
level, the overall learning community construct.
12 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

The PCA conducted for this study offered a single-factor solution that loads
18 items (correlations > .300) and explained 54.08% of the total variance
(two items were excluded from the general factor analysis). In this way, an over-
all score of sense of belonging to the community was calculated (see Table 1).

Results
The objective of this study is to assess the extent to which perceived social
support, a sense of belonging to a community, and academic SE enable us to
explain online students’ engagement.

Preliminary Analyses
Prior to testing the theoretical model (see Figure 1), the potential effects of
sociodemographic and situational characteristics on students engagement, SE,
perceived social support, and sense of belonging to a community were assessed.
Overall, gender, age, marital status, children, and employment status had no
significant influence on each variable included in the model. One significant
effect was found: The older students were, the more they were enthusiastic
about their learning (R ¼ .169, p < .01; F(1,254) ¼ 7.424, p < .01). However, the
explanatory power of this variable was low (R2 adj. ¼ .03).
Moreover, given that the analyses were based on a technique of structural
equation modeling, we verified that there was a significant relationship between
the psychological variables integrated into our model. As indicated by the cor-
relation matrix (see Table 2), social support from family members was not sig-
nificantly associated with the engagement and SE of online students. Although

Table 2. Correlations Between Engagement, Social Support, Self-efficacy, and Sense of

Community Associated With Online Learning.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Perseverance –
2. Enthusiasm .765** –
3. Reconciliation .654** .683** –
4. Academic self-efficacy .510** .529** .519** –
5. SS from teachers .231** .358** .297** .272** –
6. SS from peers .176** .258** .209** .175** –
7. SS from family –.027 .007 –.060 .054 .123* .131* –
8. Sense of community .290** .425** .291** .357** .473** .475** .073 –
Note. SS ¼ social support.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Vayre and Vonthron 13

the literature shows the influence of this variable on online learners’ engagement
(Appleton et al., 2006; Castles, 2004; Lee, 2012; Osterman, 2000; Park & Choi,
2009), it was not included in the initial model.

Initial and Final Models

Path analyses were performed using the software Amos 21 through the max-
imum likelihood estimation. The fit of the initial model (and as will be seen later,
of alternative models) to the data collected was evaluated based on the following
indices: the relative chi-square value (2/df or CMIN/df), the comparative fit
index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index
(AGFI), and the root mean square error of approximation index (RMSEA). The
criteria used to evaluate the level of adequacy were CMIN/df < 3 (Kline, 1998),
CFI  .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), GFI  .95 (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, &
Müller, 2003), AGFI  .90 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), RMSEA < .06 (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). The results of the first analysis clearly showed that the initial
model did not correspond to the data (see Table 3).
An alternative model was thus developed (see Figure 2) because the data did
not fit the initial model well and the betas of some of the explanatory variables
were nonsignificant4 (p > .05; insignificant paths have been removed). Fit indices
reveal that the data fit the alternative model well (see Table 3).
It was also observed that students who had high SE were also those who had
a high level of perseverance, enthusiasm, and reconciliation (see Figure 2).
Perceived social support from teachers also promoted the engagement of
online students, broken down into its three components. The sense of belonging
to a community also played a significant and positive role on engagement, but
only related to enthusiasm. It was, however, the only factor that influenced SE
(R2 adj. ¼ .14). Finally, the results indicate that the factors considered in the
alternative model explain a significant proportion of the variance of psycho-
logical engagement of online learners (R2adj:perseverance ¼ .25; R2adj:enthusiasm ¼ .32;
R2adj:conciliation ¼ .28).

Table 3. Summary of Fit Indices: Adjustment of the Initial Model and the
Alternative Model Selected.

CMIN/df CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA

IM 32.089 .72 .93 .02 .35

FM 1.692 .99 .99 .96 .05
Note. CFI ¼ comparative fit index; GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit index; AGFI ¼ the adjusted good-
ness-of-fit index; RMSEA ¼ the root mean square error of approximation index; IM ¼ initial
model; FM ¼ final model.
14 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Sense of Perseverance
community β = .14** β = .47** (engagement)

β = .37**
Academic self- β = .42** Enthusiasm
β = .49**
efficacy (engagement)

β = .47**
β = .19**
Teacher social β = .11* Reconciliation
support β = .17** (engagement)

Figure 2. Alternative model selected (*p < .05; **p < .01).

The effects of each variable included in the alternative model were checked by
bootstrapping (1,000 samples and confidence intervals at 95%) which enabled us
to eliminate hypotheses of (multi)-normality and overcome the limited size of
our sample. In other words, we have verified that the calculated confidence
intervals exclude the value 0.

Mediating Effect of SE in the Final Model

Given that the model finally selected (see Figure 2) suggests that academic SE
partially mediates between the sense of belonging to the learning community and
enthusiasm, other alternative models were tested. Indeed, as Holmbeck explains
(1997), three models should be estimated to determine the nature of mediation:
The first model takes into account the direct effect of the factor (sense of com-
munity) on the dependent variable (enthusiasm) in the absence of a mediator
(SE); a second model including the direct and indirect effects of the factor on the
dependent variable (partial mediation); and a third model in which the direct
effect of the factor on the dependent variable is removed, leaving only its indirect
effect (total mediation).
Using this procedure, three models were evaluated: The first (M0) employed
the final model without the mediation of SE between the sense of community and
enthusiasm. The second (M1) corresponded strictly to the final model (partial
mediation of SE). The last (M2) used the final model without the direct effect
of the sense of community on enthusiasm. While for each model evaluated, the
relationships between the sense of community or SE and enthusiasm were always
significant, models 0 and 2 did not have satisfactory goodness-of-fit with the data
(see Table 4). Thus, we concluded that this was a partial mediation, as the direct
effect of the sense of community significantly improved the fit of the final model.
The same procedure was strictly followed to check the nature of the
mediating effects of SE between the sense of community and the other two
Vayre and Vonthron 15

Table 4. Summary of the Models’ Fit Indices: Goodness-of-Fit of Models (Final and
Alternative) Specifying the Nature of Self-efficacy Mediation Between Sense of Community
and Engagement in Online Learning.

CMIN/df CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA

SC–SE –perseverance
M0 21.518 .65 .92 .45 .28
M1 2.904 .98 .99 .93 .06
M2 (FM) 1.692 .99 .99 .96 .05
SC—SE—enthusiasm
M0 9.345 .81 .95 .76 .18
M1 (FM) 1.692 .99 .99 .96 .05
M2 3.057 .95 .98 .92 .09
SC—SE—reconciliation
M0 19.525 .68 .92 .49 .27
M1 2.528 .98 .99 .93 .08
M2 (FM) 1.692 .99 .99 .96 .05
Note. SC ¼ sense of belonging to community; SE ¼ self-efficacy; M0 ¼ no mediation; M1 ¼ partial mediation;
M2 ¼ total mediation; FM ¼ final model; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit index;
AGFI ¼ the adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA ¼ the root mean square error of approximation index.

components of engagement. While some models approached an acceptable fit to

the data (see Table 4), as mentioned earlier in connection with the development
of the final model, the direct effects of the sense of belonging to a community on
perseverance and reconciliation were not significant (betas p > .05).
To verify the results, the significance of the direct and indirect effects of
the sense of belonging to an online learning community was examined by
bootstrapping. The results demonstrate the partially mediating role of personal
efficacy toward academic activities (direct and indirect effects of the sense
of community on enthusiasm ¼ p < .01). The results confirm, moreover,
that SE is a total mediator of the relationship between the sense of belong-
ing to the community and perseverance and reconciliation (direct effects of
a sense of community ¼ p > .05; indirect effects of the sense of community ¼
p < .01).

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test the following hypotheses: (a) that perceived
social support from three distinct sources (teachers, peers, family) as well as the
sense of a learning community positively influence academic engagement
(broken down into three components); (b) that SE toward academic activities
16 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

fosters the engagement of online students; and (c) that SE mediates between the
psychosocial processes considered and the engagement of online students.
Results from preliminary analyses and causal path analyses (technique of
structural equation modeling) confirm, but only in part, these hypotheses.
Contrary to what some studies have asserted (Castles, 2004; Park & Choi,
2009), here the perceived social support from family members had no significant
relationship to SE or engagement in online learning. As for social support from
peers, although it correlates positively and significantly with SE and engage-
ment, and some studies have emphasized its positive effects (Castles, 2004;
Kim et al., 2005; Taplin & Jegede, 2001), it has not been included in the final
model as a significant predictor of engagement or of SE.
However, this study postulated, based on previous research, that the feeling
of belonging to an online learning community fosters the engagement of online
students (Bourdages & Delmotte, 2001; Hu & Hui, 2012; Oncu & Cakir, 2011).
Nevertheless, these conclusions should be qualified, as the sense of community
did not act directly on online students’ persistence and reconciliation.
Furthermore, the explanatory model finally chosen shows that the sense of
community helps to build academic SE. SE mediates (partially or totally)
between the sense of belonging to the learning community and the different
components of engagement. This result is important since few studies have
examined the relationship between these two processes, yet they are recognized
as having a major impact on retention and successful outcomes in distance and
online learning (Francescato et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2007;
Rovai, 2002c, 2002d; Rovai & Barnum, 2003; Vayre et al., 2011; Vayre et al.,
2014).
In addition, this study confirms and expands existing work that measures the
direct and positive influence of SE on engagement (Bandura & Locke, 2003;
Boudrenghien et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2008; Fredericks et al., 2004; Hu & Hui,
2012; Vayre et al., 2014; Wang & Eccles, 2013).
Furthermore, the complex modeling of the relationship between sense of
community, SE, and engagement to online learning in this study stresses the
importance of understanding engagement as a multidimensional concept, which
is necessary if we want to better understand the factors involved (Brault-Labbé
& Dubé, 2010; Fredericks et al., 2004).
Finally, these findings are consistent with those from previous studies about
the positive effects of social support from online teachers on student engagement
(Bradford & Wyatt, 2010; Kim et al., 2005; Stein & Glazer, 2003; Taplin &
Jegede, 2001). These results thus reinforce the recommendations made in the
early development of online learning programs, regarding the need for teachers
to fulfill multiple roles as a resource person, facilitator, mediator, and reference
person, duties that are more extensive than those required in face-to-face class-
rooms (Albero, 2003; Conceição, 2006; Marchand & Loisier, 2004). It should be
noted, however, that perceived social support provided by teachers in online
Vayre and Vonthron 17

learning does not explain academic SE, which is contrary to the results obtained
by Mullen and Tallent-Runnels (2006). Perceived social support (whatever the
source) thus cannot be associated with the psychosocial processes identified by
Bandura (1977, 2003) as participating in the construction of SE.

Conclusions
In terms of research, three main results of this study can be identified. First, SE
fosters the engagement of online students regardless of the component con-
sidered (perseverance, enthusiasm, or reconciliation). Knowing that engagement
is positively associated with success as well as retention in online learning (Hu &
Hui, 2012; Kim et al., 2005; Oncu & Cakir, 2011), and that failure as well as
dropouts are major concerns in online learning programs (Hu & Hui, 2012; Park
& Choi, 2009; Vayre et al., 2014), the scope of this first result is significant.
Second, the sense of community has a direct positive effect on enthusiasm and
also plays an important role regarding SE in online education. It is therefore
necessary to continue and deepen research on the psychosocial processes at the
intragroup level in online learning programs (as relationships at the interper-
sonal level are more frequently studied). Third, among the three sources con-
sidered, only social support from teachers can explain academic engagement
(regardless of the component examined). Teachers are therefore paramount fig-
ures in distance and online education. Finally, this research contributes know-
ledge and understanding to extant e-learning literature.
In practical terms, if we wish to promote the engagement of online students
and ultimately enhance their retention and success, we must develop and manage
sociopedagogical learning environments that enable students to increase their
sense of community and SE while ensuring that they provide social support. In
other words, we need to support online students in their mastery of knowledge
and skills, allow them to experience situations of success (rather than failures) by
implementing appropriate pedagogical activities (optimal level of requirements,
achieving intermediate objectives, etc.), establish close relationships with them,
support them in their educational path (in material, cognitive but also emotional
terms), highlight their progress (feedback, social interactions, and positive sanc-
tions), design and regulate educational activities in small groups, and encourage
them to participate in online discussions and exchanges (Bandura, 1993, 2003;
Rovai, 2002b).
While the results of this study have theoretical and practical implications,
they need to be considered in the light of some limitations. We did not have a
sufficiently large and diverse sample to analyze our measurement model.
Therefore, replication in other French online learning environments is war-
ranted to confirm its reliability and validity. In addition, we collected our data
among students from a single university, taking online course within Humanities
and Social Sciences. Whether these findings could be generalized to other
18 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

student samples in different online learning setting and pursuing studies in other
fields still remains to be examined in future research.
Finally, this research represents a point of departure for ongoing investiga-
tions of the effects of (socio-)psychological processes on e-learners’ engagement.
Indeed, more studies are needed to identify and deepen understand how different
predictors contribute to student engagement in online learning environments,
and how academic engagement enhances e-learners’ retention and success.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

Notes
1. We have slightly reformulated a couple of items containing specific Quebec French
words or expressions and changed the term “studies” to “course.”
2. To facilitate the reading and understanding of the descriptive statistics that relate to
each of the scores presented, they were all weighted to vary from 8 to 48.
3. We preferred respondents to make a definite choice rather than choose neutral pos-
ition on the scale, provided it does not affect the instrument’s reliability.
4. Paths between peer social support and academic self-efficacy, peer social support and
academic engagement, family social support and academic self-efficacy, family social
support and academic engagement were not significant.

References
Albero, B. (Ed.). (2003). Self-learning in higher education. Paris, France: Hermès Science
Lavoisier.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive
and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument.
Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2003). Self-efficacy. The feeling of personal efficacy. Bruxelles, Belgium: De
boeck université.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.
Boudrenghien, G., Frenay, M., & Bourgeois, E. (2011). Transition from highschool to
university: Educational project’s representation and motivation. L’Orientation
Scolaire et Professionnelle, 40(2), 125–155.
Vayre and Vonthron 19

Bourdages, L., & Delmotte, C. (2001). Persistence in distance education at university.

Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 16(2), 23–36.
Bradford, G., & Wyatt, S. (2010). Online learning and student satisfaction: Academic
standing, ethnicity and their influence on facilitated learning, engagement, and infor-
mation fluency. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 108–114.
Brault-Labbé, A., & Dubé, L. (2008). Academic engagement, over-engagement and
under-engagement at college: Toward a better understanding of students’ well-
being. Revue des sciences de l’e´ducation, 34(3), 729–751.
Brault-Labbé, A., & Dubé, L. (2009). Toward a better understanding of psychological
engagement: Theoretical review and integrative model. Les cahiers internationaux de
psychologie sociale, 1(81), 115–131.
Brault-Labbé, A., & Dubé, L. (2010). Academic engagement, well-being and self-deter-
mination among university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42(2),
80–92.
Brown, S., Tramayne, S., Hoxha, D., Telander, K., Fan, X., & Lent, R. (2008). Social
cognitive predictors of college students’ academic performance and persistence: A
meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 298–308.
Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health: Lectures on concept
development. New York, NY: Behavioral Publications.
Castles, J. (2004). Persistence and the adult learner. Factors affecting persistence in Open
University students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 166–179.
Close, W., & Solberg, S. (2008). Predicting achievement, distress, and retention among
lower-income Latino youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 31–42.
Conceição, S. (2006). Faculty lived experiences in the online environment. Adult
Education Quarterly, 57(1), 26–45.
Contreras-Castillo, J., Favela, J., Pérez-Fragoso, C., & Santamarı́a-del-Angel, E. (2004).
Informal interactions and their implications for online course. Computers & Education,
42(2), 149–168.
Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without Maths for psychologists. Bruxelles,
Belgium: De Boeck.
Diseth, A. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientations and learning strategies as mediators
between preceding and subsequent academic achievement. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(2), 191–195.
Evrard, Y., Pras, B., & Roux, E. (2003). Market: Studies and research in marketing. Paris,
France: Dunod.
Faerber, R. (2002). The learning group in distance education: Its characteristics in a
virtual environment. In F. Laroze & T. Karsenti (Eds.), La place des TICE en forma-
tion initiale et continue à l’enseignement: Bilan et perspectives [The role of ICT in
teacher education initial and continuing training: results and prospects]
(pp. 99–128). Sherbrooke, QC: CRP, Université de Sherbrooke.
Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M. E., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P.
(2006). Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face
and computer-supported university contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2),
163–176.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement:
Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research,
74(1), 59–109.
20 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community
development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2000.tb00114.x
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the
study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric
psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 599–610.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6(1), 1–55.
Hu, P. J.-H., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-
mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision
Support Systems, 53, 782–792.
Kim, K.-J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online
learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education,
8(4), 335–344.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the
effects of student engagement on college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher
Education, 79, 540–563.
Lee, J.-S. (2012). The effects of the teacher–student relationship and academic press on
student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational
Research, 53, 330–340.
Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community matter?
An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in
online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24.
Marchand, L., & Loisier, J. (Eds.). (2004). Online learning practices. Montréal, QC:
Chenelière Education.
Mullen, G. E., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2006). Student outcomes and perceptions of
instructors’ demands and support in online and traditional classrooms. The Internet
and Higher Education, 9(4), 257–266.
Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and
methodologies. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1098–1108.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences
in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction.
Computers & Education, 54(1), 222–229.
Park, J. (2007). Factors related to learner dropout in online learning. In F. M. Nafukho,
T. H. Chermack & C. M. Graham (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Academy of Human
Resource Development Annual Conference (pp. 1–8). Indianapolis, IN: AHRD.
Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out
or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217.
Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study.
Educational Technology Research and Development Journal, 49(4), 33–48.
Vayre and Vonthron 21

Rovai, A. P. (2002a). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.

The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211.
Rovai, A. P. (2002b). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16.
Rovai, A. P. (2002c). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education
classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(1), 41–56.
Rovai, A. P. (2002d). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning and persistence
in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332.
Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of stu-
dent interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1),
57–73.
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Lucking, R. (2004). The classroom and school commu-
nity inventory: Development, refinement and validation of a self-report measure for
educational research. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(4), 263–280.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of
structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit meas-
ures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Shen, D., Cho, M.-H., Tsai, C.-L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning
experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and
Higher Education, 19, 10–17.
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of transactional presence.
Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 17(2), 121–137.
Stein, D., & Glazer, H. R. (2003). Mentoring the adult learner in academic midlife at
distance education university. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1),
7–23.
Taplin, M., & Jegede, O. (2001). Gender differences in factors influencing achievement of
distance education students. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance
Learning, 16(2), 133–154.
Torres, J. B., & Solberg, S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration, and
family support in Latino college student persistence and health. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59(1), 53–63.
Vayre, E., Dupuy, R., & Croity-Belz, S. (2011). University online learners’ evaluative
behaviors: Effect of sense of community. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations,
17, 517–532.
Vayre, E., Vonthron, A.-M., & Vannereau, J. (2014). Effects of training motives, self-
efficacy beliefs and engagement on e-learners’ retention, failure and achievement.
L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 43(3), 263–288.
Vonthron, A.-M., Lagabrielle, C., & Pouchard, D. (2007). Professional training main-
tenance: Effects of motivational, cognitive and social factors. L’orientation Scolaire et
Professionnelle, 36(3), 401–420.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and aca-
demic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimen-
sional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23.
Wang, M. T., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement:
Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity.
Journal of School Psychology, 49(4), 465–480.
22 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.
Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65–77.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L.
(2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent
engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 911–933.

Author Biographies
Emilie Vayre is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Paris Ouest
Nanterre la Défense. Her research focuses on factors and consequences of
ICT uses in training or work contexts.

Anne-Marie Vonthron is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Paris

Ouest Nanterre la Défense. Her research interest is in the area of career transi-
tions success.