The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-3162.htm

Social interaction and Social distance

during the
effectiveness of the online pandemic
COVID-19
learning – A moderating role
of maintaining social distance
during the pandemic COVID-19 Received 17 September 2020
Revised 12 November 2020
Accepted 10 December 2020
Hasnan Baber
Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University,
Daejeon, Republic of Korea

Abstract
Purpose – The pandemic of COVID-19 has pushed most of the classroom learning to an online environment
with which most of the people were not familiar. This study aims to investigate the importance of social
interaction on the effectiveness of online learning during the pandemic when social distancing norms are
in place.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses the partial least square (PLS) structural equation
modeling (SEM) approach, a nonparametric method based on total variance, using the SmartPLS software 3.0.
The data were collected using the snowball sampling technique from the students who were learning online due
to the pandemic COVID-19 and asked them to forward the survey link in their network.
Findings – The results suggested that social interaction has a positive significant impact on the effectiveness
of online learning. However, this effect is reduced in the presence of social distance norms as people give more
importance to continuous learning and to saving lives rather than socializing in the online environment.
Originality/value – The study will be helpful for instructors and educational institutes to formalize the
strategies to enhance social interaction in online learning and analyze their pedagogy to improve effectiveness.
Keywords Social interaction, Effectiveness, Online, Learning, Social distance, COVID-19, Pandemic
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Online learning is a wider method of learning that offers new prospects for learning and
teaching in various fields of education, far from the offline classroom setting (Rodrigues et al.,
2019). In short, online learning is an Internet-based learning process (Riahi, 2015). Shabha
(2004) defined online learning as “an e-learning method where a student can learn at any time
or location over the Internet.” Nguyen (2015) stated that physical “brick and mortar”
classroom may not maintain its status of monopoly as the place of learning due to the shift
toward online learning. The shift toward remote learning is gaining high momentum after the
closure of schools, colleges and universities due to the spread of COVID-19 infection
worldwide. Remote or distance learning is possible through technology tools like the Internet,
applications, video calling and learning management systems (Ash and Davis, 2009). Basilaia
and Kvavadze (2020) stated that the transition from traditional to remote learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic was successful, although to ensure the quality and effectiveness of
learning, further research is required.
The effectiveness of learning is a vital concern for online learning. With the help of the
Internet, online learning has gained popularity, and many researchers, academicians and
educators are interested in improving and enhancing student learning outcomes, particularly
in higher education (Kim and Bonk, 2006; Pape, 2010; Gray and DiLoreto, 2016; Hsu et al., Asian Education and Development
Studies
2019). This effectiveness holds more weightage when most of the educational institutes all © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-3162
over the world shift to online learning. Online learning was existing long time before and was DOI 10.1108/AEDS-09-2020-0209
AEDS the point of study for many researchers. The sudden shift toward online education amid the
pandemic COVID-19 has raised concerns over the quality of learning, effectiveness, learning
outcomes and student satisfaction. Online learning has provided enough time for instructors
to prepare the lectures; however, there is a lack of quick interaction between an instructor and
learner. Swan (2003) referred to learning effectiveness in the online environment as the goal to
be at least equivalent to the learning through the institute’s other modes of delivery and in
particular face-to-face and classroom-based learning. Navarro and Shoemaker (2000)
suggested that student learning outcomes in an online learning environment were better
than or at least as good as offline learning and students were satisfied with this learning.
Zulfikar et al. (2019) studied the effectiveness of online learning and suggested that
discussions initiated by the students are more effective than discussions started by the
instructors. Xu and Ebojoh (2007) stated that learners in online learning are often frustrated
and uncomfortable with the method of delivering lectures. Now the case is different;
instructors did not get enough time to prepare lectures for online delivery, and the frustration
might have increased due to the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown. Bao (2020) recommended
that this shift of online learning is sudden due to the outbreak of COVID-19, so learners’
anxiety levels need to be taken care of in order to guarantee the effectiveness of online
learning.
Various studies proposed the definition of interaction in online learning. The most
commonly used definition of interaction in online learning is Moore’s (1989), mentioned in the
study of Alqurashi (2019), Abrami et al. (2011) and Su et al. (2005), which states that
interaction in online learning can take place in following forms: instructor–learner, learner–
learner and content–learner. So, interaction refers to the process of constructing a meaningful
exchange of information and ideas among more than two people. In online learning,
interaction refers to psychosomatic perception toward the overall process of building a
pedagogically significant exchange of constant communication between more than two
people. Many studies have been focused on enhancing interaction in various learning
environments between instructors and learners (Saba, 2000; Shin and Chin, 2004; Woo and
Reeves, 2007). Interaction plays an imperative part in collaborative learning; however, being a
silent learner can also benefit online learners (Shukor et al., 2015). Inclusion and equal
opportunity in interaction and discussions have been the crucial part of higher education
learning (Wright and Horta, 2018). Tu and Corry (2002) propose that in an online learning
community, three aspects hold vital importance – instruction, social interaction and
technology. Interaction is the central core of learning experience and a key factor for the
positive student learning outcome (Garrison and Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Cho and Kim, 2013;
Kuo and Feng 2013; Kuo et al., 2014; Alqurashi, 2019). Interaction helps to build knowledge
and empower learners (Holland, 2019), and it offers the platform for members of a society,
representing a mode of associated living, to share their values and interests of each other
(Tang and Tsui, 2018).
The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced schools to close to minimize the damage
of spread in schools and colleges. There are several benefits of social distancing during the
pandemic. Social distancing measures save the lives of people and provide time for
implementing strategies to control spread (Thunstr€om et al., 2020). Greenstone and Nigam
(2020) substantiated the economic benefits of social distancing during the COVID-19
pandemic. Lewnard and Lo (2020) stated that politicians and administration of the state must
play an important role to implement social distancing and should not favor anyone who
violates this rule. Uscher-Pines et al. (2018), while explaining the benefits of maintaining social
distance, suggested that schools should be closed during the pandemic to maintain social
distance so that the spread will be slow down COVID-19. Kleczkowski et al. (2015) suggested
that social distancing must be imposed all over, which includes closing all educational
institutes and workplaces and canceling all congregating events. Earn et al. (2012) suggested
an effective strategy to minimize the spread and stated that more than 50% of transmission Social distance
can be reduced among the school-going children by the closing of schools during the during the
pandemic influenza.
The effectiveness of online learning has been the point of study even before the start of the
pandemic
COVID-19 pandemic; however, such online courses are designed properly for the learners COVID-19
who are mentally and technically ready for such a learning environment. The sudden shift
toward online learning has raised concern over the effectiveness of these courses which were
designed for traditional classrooms. The study is aimed to investigate that barriers to social
interaction in online learning may lead to barriers against the effectiveness of online learning.
The perceived benefits of social distancing, which have forced online learning, can play a
mediating role in the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Literature review
The e-learning approach is cost-effective and learner-centered, and it is flexible learning,
anytime and anywhere, which fits it to the global audience (Zhang et al., 2004). Neumann
(1998) pointed out some of the benefits of online learning which include self-paced and
regulated studies of learners and reuse of material by the instructor. In order to have an
effective online course and enhance learner’s performance, there is a need to design courses as
per the requirement of learners and courses (Munro, 2005). Swan (2003) stated that in the
beginning, educators and researchers were doubtful about its effectiveness, and some still
believe the same. However, various researchers found online learning as effective as face-to-
face learning in offline classrooms. For example, Johnson et al. (2000) found no difference in
the quality of learning through course projects and final grades of students who took the
same course in the online and offline environment. The same results were suggested by
Freeman and Capper (1999) and Arbaugh (2000) when applying the comparative
performance of the business students. Several studies have been focused on online
learning effectiveness, and they found no significant difference between online and offline
learning in various courses and contexts (Lean et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). As learners and
instructors are isolated from each other due to time and space differences, advanced
technologies have made it possible to have interactions through live classes and content
sharing through the learning management system (LMS). The isolation of a learner in an
online learning is considered inevitable; however, it can be reduced by enhancing the online
interaction by the educators engaged (McInnerney and Roberts, 2004). Interaction is one of
the success factors which support online learning pedagogy to increase student learning
outcome and satisfaction (Razali et al., 2020). Alqurashi (2019) stressed the interaction
between learner–learner, which includes socialization, answering student questions, sharing
and discussing ideas, group activities and content-related interaction, has a better impact on
student satisfaction and eventually effectiveness of online learning. Baber (2020) conducted a
cross-country study and found interaction as the most important determinant of student-
perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the COVID-19
pandemic.

2.1 Theoretical framework

2.1.1 Social interaction and the effectiveness of online learning. Despite the research
suggesting the effectiveness of online learning at par with traditional learning, the problems
of student frustration and feeling of isolation need to be addressed (Gouseti, 2011; Altinay,
2017). Hirumi (2002) critically suggested that interactions in online learning are not effective
and do not nurture social interaction among learners to help them learn better. Hwang and
Song (2018) emphasized considering a particular learning theory to analyze the potential of
AEDS fostering social interaction in the online environment. Past studies have recognized
interaction as an important element of learning in both environments–online and offline
(Jung et al., 2002; Woo and Reeves, 2007; Kang and Im, 2013; Lasfeto, 2020). Interaction is a
process of exchanging information and knowledge with instructors and other learners.
Therefore, interaction plays an important role in the development and affects the learners’
learning outcome (Swan, 2003; Mehall, 2020). The establishing of social bonds has important
socio-affective and cognitive benefits for learning (Harasim et al., 1995). Neumann (1998)
suggested that the effectiveness of online learning can be enhanced by improving the
interaction between students and online course coordinators to assess concerns occurring in
the delivery methods. Several studies focused on the interaction between learners and
instructors found that learners who were more satisfied with increased interaction also
perceive better learning outcomes than learners who experienced less interaction during the
learning (Kreijns et al., 2002; Eom et al., 2006; Eom and Ashill, 2016; Baber, 2020). Many
studies suggested that interaction is the most important factor in online learning for
determining the learners’ perceived outcome (Fredericksen et al., 2000). Student satisfaction
has been also found significantly influenced by the interaction between the instructor and
learners (Eom et al., 2006; Eom and Ashill, 2016). Eom et al. (2006) contradicted the above
results and found no empirical relationship between the interaction and perceived learning
outcomes. Kang and Im (2013) found that social intimacy linked with social interaction
negatively influences learners’ perceived learning achievement in this study, and the reason
may be Korean conservative culture. The results were contradicting. Jung et al. (2002)
discovered that personal and private interaction like social intimacy in the beginning and
during the online course has a positive impact on the learners’ learning outcome.
2.1.2 The moderating role of perception of maintaining social distance. Social distance is
defined as the psychological separation between different individuals and/or groups, as in
contrast to physical distance, and is generally treated as a factor of social relations (Aron et al.,
1992). However, social distance can be a good representative of physical distance also (Buchan
et al., 2006). Both distances produce the same kind of effect psychologically and behaviorally
(Trope and Liberman, 2010; Maglio et al., 2013). The spread of COVID-19 is through droplet
transmission, so without the measures of social distancing, the spread will rise and maybe
uncontrollable (ur Rehman et al., 2020). Social distancing predominantly affects social
preferences (Cartwright and Xue, 2020). The primary goal of maintaining social distance is to
slow down the coronavirus spread; however, it distances people from the infected ones who
are still asymptomatic to minimize the damage (Kayes et al., 2020). Social distancing is a
compulsion for those who are non-infected, thus defying their desire for socialization (Stewart
et al., 2015). There are many good effects of social distancing; however, social distancing
enforces huge costs on society due to reduced economic activity (Thunstr€om et al., 2020).
Hodges et al. (2020) studied remote learning during the pandemic COVID-19 and suggested
that social support is necessary for online learning and even more when people are socially
isolated. Saxena et al. (2020) found the negative moderating influence of perceived benefits of
maintaining the social distance between “empathy” and e-learning quality during the
COVID-19. So far, studies have found interaction as a key factor in effective online learning;
however, it will be interesting to analyze the mediating role of maintaining social distance
amid the pandemic COVID-19 between social interaction and the effectiveness of online
learning.

3. Method and results

3.1 Data collection
The data were collected from various colleges and universities of India which are operating
online during the lockdown period. The data were collected through snowball sampling from
the students who were learning online due to the pandemic COVID-19 and asked them to
forward with their network. The sample population is mostly aged 18–20 years (51%), followed Social distance
by those aged 20–22 (30%), as the target population of the students were undergraduates during the
admitted in different streams of courses. Around 63% of respondents were male and the rest
were female. Due to the network concentration, most of the respondents were studying in the
pandemic
management courses (28%) followed by science (22%), social science (20%), arts (19%) and COVID-19
commerce (10%), as shown in Table 1. Most of the respondents have never been exposed to
online learning; however, some students had enough experience of online learning.
The data were analyzed using the partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM) through SmartPLS software 3.0. The research framework has three constructs: lack of
social interaction, maintaining social distancing and barrier to the effectiveness of online
learning which were adapted and modified from Muilenburg and Berge (2005), Kleczkowski
et al. (2015) and Muilenburg and Berge (2005) and (Chang, 1999), respectively. The factor
loadings, alpha value, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) are shown
in Table 2. All the values of factor loadings met the minimum criteria of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019).
Only item 3, that is, lack of social interaction, has a value slightly less than 0.7, which is
acceptable. The values of reliability measurements – Cronbachs’ alpha and composite – are
also above the threshold level of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019). To check the validity of data,
convergent validity measurement was checked through the average variance extracted
(AVE), and all the values are above the minimum level of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2019).
It is important to measure the divergent validity of each construct to be sure that
constructs that were supposed to be different from each other are actually different. Fornell–
Larcker criteria for divergent validity were established as the correlations between the
constructs are lower than the square of the AVEs, as shown in Table 3 (0.430 and
0.465 < 0.829) and (0.301 < 0.806) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The HTMT ratio further
sanctions divergent validity as all values shown in Table 4 are below the acceptable of value
0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015).

3.2 Results
The results signify the positive relationship between the lack of social interaction and
barriers to the effectiveness of online learning (β: 0.368, p < 0.000) as shown in Table 5. The
value of R2 is 0.310, which means 31% of the variance in barriers to effectiveness in online

Variable Range (value) Frequency Percentage

Age 16–18 1 0.5

18–20 108 51.2
20–22 63 29.9
22–24 20 9.5
24–26 16 7.6
Above 26 3 1.4
Gender Male 134 63.5
Female 77 36.5
Area of study Science 46 21.8
Management 60 28.4
Commerce 21 10.0
Arts 40 19.0
Social Science 43 20.4
Other 1 0.5
Online learning experience Never 107 50.7
Little 83 39.3 Table 1.
Enough 21 10.0 Demographic statistics
AEDS Factor Cronbach Composite
Measurement items loadings** alpha reliability AVE

Lack of social interaction 0.886 0.916 0.687

There is a lack of interaction/communication 0.837
among students in the online classroom
Online learning seems impersonal and isolated as 0.752
compared to traditional classroom
I am afraid of feeling isolated in the online 0.665
classroom
There is a lack of social context cues in the online 0.777
classroom
There is a lack of student collaboration in the 0.904
online classroom
I will prefer to learn in person than online 0.877
classroom as there is no social interaction
Perception of maintaining social distancing 0.894 0.917 0.650
If I were to engage in social distancing (e.g. not 0.961
going to school), I would lessen my chance of
developing the infection of COVID-19
I am encouraged by engaging in social distancing 0.900
during the pandemic of COVID-19 because I feel it
is a necessity to do it
I feel confident in my ability to engage in social 0.958
distancing during the pandemic of COVID-19
Barrier to effectiveness of online learning 0.934 0.958 0.883
I cannot learn in the online classroom as compared 0.861
to the traditional classroom
Learning in an online classroom is not so effective 0.793
as compared to the traditional classroom
The online learning approach cannot substitute 0.787
the traditional classroom approach
I do not feel comfortable and confident in online 0.875
learning as compared to the traditional classroom
I learn better through traditional classroom 0.824
Table 2. compared to the online learning approach
Measurement model Note(s): **All factor loadings are statistically significant at a 5% level

1 2 3
Table 3.
Fornell–Larcker (1) Lack of social interaction 0.829
criteria for divergent (2) Perception of maintaining social distancing 0.430 0.806
validity (3) Barrier to effectiveness of online learning 0.465 0.301 0.940

1 2 3

Table 4. (1) Lack of social interaction

HTMT ratio for (2) Perception of maintaining social distancing 0.430
divergent validity (3) Barrier to the effectiveness of online learning 0.504 0.290
learning is explained by the lack of social interaction. The moderating effect of perception of Social distance
maintaining social distance is significantly having a moderate effect on the barriers to during the
effectiveness in online learning (β: 0.186, p < 0.000), as shown in Table 6. The results suggest
that lack of social interaction is one of the barriers in the effectiveness of online learning, and
pandemic
moderating the role of people’s perception of maintaining social distance suggests that lack of COVID-19
social interaction does not result in the barrier of effective online learning during the
pandemic of COVID-19. Figure 1 represents the estimated PLS-SEM model with path
coefficients and p values.

4. Discussion
Online learning effectiveness, quality, learning outcomes and student satisfaction have
been the focus of many past studies. Those online learning programs and courses were
fully planned and designed for learners who prefer to join online rather than traditional
classrooms, whatsoever the reason. The sudden shift to online learning has opened the
points of discussion regarding the preparedness of learners and the effectiveness of the
learning. The interaction between learners and instructor-learner has proven to be vital for
both the online and offline environment. In an online environment, this interaction holds
more importance because the learners feel isolated and far from the social existence of the
classroom. However, until now, this isolation was intended and expected in the online
courses. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced educational institutes all around the world to
suspend the classwork and continue the learning activities online. It is the first time most
of the instructors and learners are experiencing such an environment. Therefore, the
effectiveness of this sudden online learning has to be investigated. The results suggest
that a lack of social interaction has a positive influence on the barriers to effective learning.
This implies that social interaction still holds importance in the effective delivery of online
learning, which is in line with the findings of Kang and Im (2013), Swan (2003), Mehall
(2020), Eom et al. (2006), Eom and Ashill (2016) and Lasfeto (2020). During the lockdown,
people were forced to stay back in their homes and thus were away from social interactions
with the outside world. Online learning was an opportunity for learners to socialize with
their peers, learners and instructors and hence constitute an important part of learning.
One of the drawbacks of online learning is that learners do not get private space with their
peer learners and hence may hinder the extension of social interaction. Fortunately, the
Zoom platform, which is used by most organizations online, has a provision of breakout
rooms which may provide the space for learners to discuss and share their ideas. The

Original T p F R
sample (O) Values Values Square Square
Table 5.
Lack of social interaction → barrier to the 0.368 8.793 0.000 0.180 0.310 Estimated path
effectiveness of online learning relationships

Original T p F R
sample (O) Values Values Square Square

Lack of social interaction * perception of 0.186 4.125 0.000 0.050 0.343

maintaining social distancing → barrier to the Table 6.
effectiveness of online learning Moderation effect
AEDS PMSD1 PMSD2 PMSD3

0.961 (0.000) 0.900 (0.000) 0.958 (0.000)

LSI1
BEOL1
Perception of
LSI2 Maintaining Social 0.334 (0.000)
0.837 (0.000) Distancing 0.861 (0.000) BEOL2
0.752 (0.000) 0.792 (0.000)
LSI3 BEOL3
0.665 (0.000) 0.792 (0.000)
0.368 (0.000)
0.777 (0.000) 0.874 (0.000)
LSI4 0.904 (0.000) BEOL4
0.821 (0.000)
Lack of social Barrier to
0.877 (0.000)
interaction effectiveness of
LSI5 online learning BEOL5
0.186 (0.000)
LSI6

Figure 1.
Path coefficients Moderating Effect
1

instructors should use this feature of the Zoom platform to enhance the social interaction
in the online classroom, which will eventually lead to higher effectiveness of online
learning.
Social distancing is a new norm until there is a vaccine for COVID-19. The perception of
maintaining social distance is very important for its implementation. People who perceive
that social distance is important for slowing down the spread and lowering down the chances
of getting infected will implement it strictly. The perception of maintaining social distance
will have a moderating impact on the barriers to the effectiveness of online learning. The
results suggest that the perception of maintaining social distance reduces the effect of lack of
social interaction on the barriers to effectiveness on online learning. The reason may be that
people know the situation around, and continuous learning through online means is enough
for them. The moderating role of maintaining social distancing reduces the importance of
social interaction. Learners do not consider interaction as important during the COVID-19
pandemic. They may be happy with continuous learning online, saving their time and staying
home safe instead of interacting in online learning. They may also be happy with the
arrangement and newness of the environment, which makes social interaction less important
for them for effective learning.

5. Social implications
The study focused on social interaction in online learning and found that social interaction is
an essential component of effective online learning. This study will help academicians and
instructors to foster the environment of interaction in their online classes. Students perceive
interaction as part of their learning and expect some kind of socialization with their peers and
instructors. Social intimacy is a part of social interaction where a person feels comfortable
sharing their ideas and thoughts with the people around. Instructors should make sure that
they provide an ecosystem of social intimacy where every member of the classroom should
feel comfortable in sharing ideas. As online learning pushes people to isolation, an interaction
may help them to feel connected with people around them and become part of the socialized Social distance
culture in the classroom. during the
pandemic
6. Practical implications COVID-19
The study is helpful for policy-makers of the nation and educational institutes to understand
the perception of maintaining social distance among the students. No study so far in my
knowledge has examined this perception. The students perceive that maintaining social
distance is good for their health and well-being, and decision on the reopening of school
should be based on the perceived safety of students. In some countries, primary and
secondary schools have opened, taking all measures to control the spread and maintain social
distances. Until a decision is made to reopen colleges and universities in most countries, it is
important to maintain a highly interactive environment in the online classroom to reduce the
anxiety and frustration of being away from friends and the classroom. Online learning does
not allow private interaction among students, which may lead to boredom and dissatisfaction
in this setting. However, activities that encourage social interactions and private
conversations among students should be encouraged, keeping the spirit of learning intact.

7. Conclusion
Online learning has turned out to be a close substitute for traditional classroom learning, and
educational institutes did not take too much time shift to this environment amid the pandemic
crisis. The shift was sudden and not fully planned; however, the learning did not stop. The
effectiveness of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis when students are
feeling socially isolated as well as social distancing anxiety was the focus of this study. The
study found that lack of social interaction is one of the barriers to effective online learning,
and hence instructors should make sure they have an interactive environment in the
classroom. This is not only making online learning effective but also releasing the anxiety of
social isolation during the lockdown. However, the moderating effect of perception about
maintaining social distance reduces the effect of social interaction on the effectiveness of
online learning. Students perceive that social interaction is less important for effective
learning when they fear catching infection outside and continuing learning online is more
important. Future research can focus on understanding the various activities which can
foster interaction in the online environment. Instructors need to be creative to bring topics
that can help students interact with each other and also learn at the same time.

References
Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Bures, E.M., Borokhovski, E. and Tamim, R.M. (2011), “Interaction in
distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice”, Journal
of Computing in Higher Education, Vol. 23 Nos 2-3, pp. 82-103.
Alqurashi, E. (2019), “Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning
environments”, Distance Education, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 133-148.
Altınay, Z. (2017), “Evaluating peer learning and assessment in online collaborative learning
environments”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 312-320.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000), “Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based
MBA courses”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Aron, A., Aron, E.N. and Smollan, D. (1992), “Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of
interpersonal closeness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 4, p. 596.
Ash, K. and Davis, M.R. (2009), “E-Learning’s potential scrutinized in flu crisis”, Education Week,
Vol. 28 No. 31, pp. 1-12.
AEDS Baber, H. (2020), “Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online
learning during the pandemic of COVID-19”, Journal of Education and E-Learning Research,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-292.
Bao, W. (2020), “COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: a case study of Peking
university”, Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 113-115.
Basilaia, G. and Kvavadze, D. (2020), “Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Georgia”, Pedagogical Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-9.
Buchan, N.R., Johnson, E.J. and Croson, R.T. (2006), “Let’s get personal: an international examination
of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences”,
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 373-398.
Cartwright, E. and Xue, L. (2020), “Lie aversion, anonymity and social distance: are people more
willing to lie using a mobile phone?”, Anonymity and Social Distance: Are People More Willing
to Lie Using a Mobile Phone (unpublished).
Chang, V. (1999), “Evaluating the effectiveness of online learning using a new web based learning
instrument”, Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum.
Cho, M.H. and Kim, B.J. (2013), “Students’ self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning
environments”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 69-75.
Earn, D.J., He, D., Loeb, M.B., Fonseca, K., Lee, B.E. and Dushoff, J. (2012), “Effects of school closure on
incidence of pandemic influenza in Alberta, Canada”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 156
No. 3, pp. 173-181.
Eom, S.B. and Ashill, N. (2016), “The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and
satisfaction in university online education: an update”, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 185-215.
Eom, S.B., Wen, H.J. and Ashill, N. (2006), “The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes
and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation”, Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 215-235.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 382.
Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W. and Swan, K. (2000), “Factors influencing faculty
satisfaction with asynchronous teaching and learning in the Suny learning network”, Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 245-278.
Freeman, M.A. and Capper, J.M. (1999), “Exploiting the web for education: an anonymous
asynchronous role simulation”, Educational Technology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-116.
Garrison, D.R. and Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005), “Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning:
interaction is not enough”, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 133-148.
Gouseti, A. (2011), “Online communication and collaboration: a reader”, Evaluation and Research in
Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 159-160, doi: 10.1080/09500790.2010.547016.
Gray, J.A. and DiLoreto, M. (2016), “The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and
perceived learning in online learning environments”, International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. n1.
Greenstone, M. and Nigam, V. (2020), “Does social distancing matter?”, University of Chicago, Becker
Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper, (2020-26).
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Harasim, L.M., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995), Learning Networks: A Field Guide to
Teaching and Learning Online, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity Social distance
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. during the
Hirumi, A. (2002), “A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning
pandemic
interactions”, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 141-160. COVID-19
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A. (2020), “The difference between emergency
remote teaching and online learning”, Educause Review, 27 March, available at: https://er.
educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-
learning (accessed 16 June 2020).
Holland, A.A. (2019), “Effective principles of informal online learning design: a theory-building
metasynthesis of qualitative research”, Computers and Education, Vol. 128, pp. 214-226.
Hsu, H.C.K., Wang, C.V. and Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019), “Reexamining the impact of self-
determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment”, Education
and Information Technologies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 2159-2174.
Hwang, S. and Song, H. (2018), “Effective social interaction in online learning”, National Teacher
Education Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 41-46.
Johnson, S.D., Aragon, S.R. and Shaik, N. (2000), “Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and
learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments”, Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C. and Leem, J. (2002), “Effects of different types of interaction on learning
achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction”, Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 153-162.
Kang, M. and Im, T. (2013), “Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning
outcomes in online learning environment”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 292-301.
Kayes, A.S.M., Islam, M.S., Watters, P.A., Ng, A. and Kayesh, H. (2020), “Automated measurement of
attitudes towards social distancing using social media: a Covid-19 case study” (unpublished).
Kim, K.J. and Bonk, C.J. (2006), “The future of online teaching and learning in higher education”,
Educause Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 22-30.
Kleczkowski, A., Maharaj, S., Rasmussen, S., Williams, L. and Cairns, N. (2015), “Spontaneous social
distancing in response to a simulated epidemic: a virtual experiment”, BMC Public Health,
Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 973.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A. and Jochems, W. (2002), “The sociability of computer-supported
collaborative learning environments”, Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-22.
Kuo, Y.F. and Feng, L.H. (2013), “Relationships among community interaction characteristics,
perceived benefits, community commitment, and oppositional brand loyalty in online brand
communities”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 948-962.
Kuo, Y.C., Walker, A.E., Schroder, K.E. and Belland, B.R. (2014), “Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and
self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses”, The
Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 20, pp. 35-50.
Lasfeto, D. (2020), “The relationship between self-directed learning and students’ social interaction in
online learning environment”, Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 34-41.
Lean, Q.Y., Ming, L.C., Wong, Y.Y., Neoh, C.F., Farooqui, M. and Muhsain, S.N.F. (2018), “Validation of
online learning in pharmacy education: effectiveness and student insight”, Pharmacy
Education, Vol. 18, pp. 135-142.
Lewnard, J.A. and Lo, N.C. (2020), “Scientific and ethical basis for social-distancing interventions
against COVID-19”, The Lancet. Infectious diseases, Vol. 20 No. 6, p. 631.
AEDS Maglio, S.J., Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2013), “Distance from a distance: psychological distance
reduces sensitivity to any further psychological distance”, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, Vol. 142 No. 3, p. 644.
McInnerney, J.M. and Roberts, T.S. (2004), “Online learning: social interaction and the creation of a
sense of community”, Journal of Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 73-81.
Mehall, S. (2020), “Purposeful interpersonal interaction in online learning: what is it and how is it
measured?”, Online Learning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 182-204.
Moore, M.G. (1989), “Editorial: three types of interaction”, American Journal of Distance Education,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1080/08923648909526659.
Muilenburg, L.Y. and Berge, Z.L. (2005), “Student barriers to online learning: a factor analytic study”,
Distance Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Munro, R.A. (2005), “Understanding the buzz around E-learning: ‘searching for faster/better/cheaper
learning-effectiveness of E-learning techniques’”, ASQ World Conference on Quality and
Improvement Proceedings, American Society for Quality, Vol. 59, p. 131.
Navarro, P. and Shoemaker, J. (2000), “Performance and perceptions of distance learners in
cyberspace”, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 15-35.
Neumann, P.G. (1998), “Risks of e-education”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 136-137.
Nguyen, T. (2015), “The effectiveness of online learning: beyond no significant difference and future
horizons”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 309-319.
Pape, L. (2010), “Blended teaching and learning”, The Education Digest, Vol. 76 No. 2, p. 22.
Razali, S.N., Ahmad, M.H. and Noor, H.A.M. (2020), “Implications of learning interaction in online
project based collaborative learning”, Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience,
Vol. 17 Nos 2-3, pp. 681-688.
Riahi, G. (2015), “E-learning systems based on cloud computing: a review”, SCSE, pp. 352-359.
Rodrigues, H., Almeida, F., Figueiredo, V. and Lopes, S.L. (2019), “Tracking e-learning through
published papers: a systematic review”, Computers and Education, Vol. 136, pp. 87-98.
Saba, F. (2000), “Research in distance education: a status report”, The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Saxena, C., Baber, H. and Kumar, P., (2020), “Examining the moderating effect of perceived benefits of
maintaining social distance on e-learning quality during COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, doi: 10.1177/0047239520977798.
Shabha, G. (2004), “An assessment of the effectiveness of e-learning on university space planning and
design”, Facilities, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, p. 79.
Shin, N. and Chan, J.K. (2004), “Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education”,
British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 275-288.
Shukor, N.B.A., Tasir, Z. and van der Meijden, H.A.T. (2015), “An examination of online learning
effectiveness using data mining”, Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 275-288.
Stewart, E.A., Martinez, R. Jr, Baumer, E.P. and Gertz, M. (2015), “The social context of Latino threat
and punitive Latino sentiment”, Social Problems, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 68-92.
Su, B., Bonk, C.J., Magjuka, R.J., Liu, X. and Lee, S.H. (2005), “The importance of interaction in web-
based education: a program-level case study of online MBA courses”, Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Swan, K. (2003), “Learning effectiveness online: what the research tells us”, Elements of Quality Online
Education, Practice and Direction, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-47.
Tang, H.H.H. and Tsui, C.P.G. (2018), “Democratizing higher education through internationalization:
the case of HKU SPACE”, Asian Education and Development Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 26-41.
Thunstr€om, L., Newbold, S.C., Finnoff, D., Ashworth, M. and Shogren, J.F. (2020), “The benefits and Social distance
costs of using social distancing to flatten the curve for COVID-19”, Journal of Benefit-Cost
Analysis, pp. 1-27. during the
Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2010), “Construal-level theory of psychological distance”, Psychological
pandemic
Review, Vol. 117 No. 2, p. 440. COVID-19
Tu, C.H. and Corry, M. (2002), “Research in online learning community”, E-journal of Instructional
Science and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 1.
ur Rehman, I., Khan, H.R., e Zainab, W., Ahmed, A., Ishaq, M.D. and Ullah, I. (2020), “Barriers in Social
Distancing during COVID-19 pandemic-Is a message for forced lockdown”, Journal of Medical
Research and Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. e000222-e000222.
Uscher-Pines, L., Schwartz, H.L., Ahmed, F., Zheteyeva, Y., Meza, E., Baker, G. and Uzicanin, A. (2018),
“School practices to promote social distancing in K-12 schools: review of influenza pandemic
policies and practices”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 406.
Wang, Y., Ma, J., Kremer, G.E. and Jackson, K.L. (2019), “An investigation of effectiveness differences
between in-class and online learning: an engineering drawing case study”, International Journal
on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-98.
Woo, Y. and Reeves, T.C. (2007), “Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: a social constructivist
interpretation”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Wright, E. and Horta, H. (2018), “Higher education participation in ‘high-income’ universal higher
education systems”, Asian Education and Development Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 184-204.
Xu, H. and Ebojoh, O. (2007), “Effectiveness of online learning program: a case study of a higher
education institution”, Issues in Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 160.
Zhang, D., Zhao, J.L., Zhou, L. and Nunamaker, J.F. Jr (2004), “Can e-learning replace classroom
learning?”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 75-79.
Zulfikar, A.F., Muhidin, A., Suparta, W., Trisetyarso, A., Abbas, B.S. and Kang, C.H. (2019), “The
effectiveness of online learning with facilitation method”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 161,
pp. 32-40.

About the author

Hasnan Baber is working as an assistant professor at Endicott College of International Studies,
Woosong University, South Korea. He has published around three dozen research articles through
reputed publication houses like Elsevier, Sage, Springer, Elsevier, Emerald, IGI and others. His areas of
research are online learning, crowdfunding, FinTech, service quality and Islamic finance. He has
presented numerous research papers and articles at various international conferences. He is also serving
as an advisory and editorial board member of various reputed publishing houses. Hasnan Baber can be
contacted at: h.baber@endicott.ac.kr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com