Is it the same, socially? Fully online learning and its impacts on social identification, academic performance and confidence

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesised relationships between identification, norms, learning approach and outcomes, drawn from Smyth et al. (2019).

Table 1. Means and comparisons of key variables across participant categories.

		Basic demographics									Situation during COVID-19 isolated learning
		Gender			First language			Year group			Location			Living situation				Engage in paid work				Interaction with others
	Total sample	Male	Female		English	Other		Y1	Later year		Local	Interstate		Alone	With peers	With family		F2F	Online	No		Low	High
N (%)		37	60		87	10		68	29		48	47		7	18	69		25	7	65		37	60
Mean	Mean (SD)			p			p			p			p				p				p			p
Social Identification	4.08 (0.53)	4.17	4.07	.39	4.11	4.01	.56	4.20	3.90	.01*	4.04	4.17	.22	3.83	4.04	4.17	.16	3.90	4.31	4.16	.06	4.07	4.13	.62
Deep learning norms	3.79 (0.53)	3.86	3.77	.42	3.79	3.93	.39	3.87	3.64	.04*	3.76	3.84	.44	3.86	3.76	3.81	.90	3.59	3.96	3.87	.03*	3.84	3.78	.60
Deep learning approaches	3.31 (.046)	3.37	3.39	.81	3.37	3.44	.65	3.47	3.18	.002**	3.39	3.36	.76	3.18	3.23	3.45	.06	3.32	3.54	3.39	.48	3.42	3.35	.40
Proportion of lecture recordings watched		51%	57%	.21	55%	44%	.11	57%	43%	.02*	55%	54%	.91	45%	48%	56%	.36	55%	68%	52%	.12	54%	55%	.85
Life Satisfaction	3.67 (.74)	3.73	3.89	.24	3.84	3.70	.50	3.91	3.64	.05	3.78	3.87	.49	3.57	3.85	3.88	.45	3.71	4.16	3.84	.26	3.65	3.94	.03*
Wellbeing	3.44 (.61)	3.49	3.41	.52	3.43	3.50	.75	3.47	3.37	.48	3.47	3.40	.55	3.41	3.45	3.45	.99	3.42	3.88	3.40	.15	3.35	3.49	.26
Academic confidence	3.24 (0.76)	3.35	3.21	.35	3.27	3.13	.57	3.36	3.02	.04*	3.13	3.40	.06	2.81	2.98	3.38	.03*	3.19	3.00	3.32	.48	3.21	3.29	.65
MCQ Z	–	0.24	0.10	.61	0.15	0.33	.68	.15	.26	.74	0.13	.21	.76	−.71	.17	.23	.21	0.11	0.27	0.17	.95	.28	.12	.55
SAQ Z	–	0.10	0.14	.86	.05	.74	.06	.04	.50	.14	.03	.20	.49	−.53	.16	.17	.36	0.19	0.13	0.10	.94	.22	.07	.54
Total summative assessment Z	–	0.01	0.14	.61	.05	.71	.21	.08	.34	.34	−.4	.18	.34	−.59	.03	.14	.25	0.12	−0.20	0.10	.79	.28	−.03	.19

*Denotes significant difference at the p < .05 level.

**Denotes significant difference at the p < .01 level

Table 2. Zero-order correlations among key variables.

	Social Identification	Deep learning norms	Deep learning approaches	Proportion of lecture recordings accessed	Life Satisfaction	Wellbeing	Academic confidence	MCQ Z	SAQ Z
Deep learning norms	.35**	–
Deep learning approaches	.28**	.28**	–
Proportion of lecture recordings accessed	.02	.01	.04	–
Life Satisfaction	.51**	.21*	.16	.09	–
Wellbeing	.23*	.17	.03	−.01	.59**	–
Academic confidence	.21*	.20*	.46**	−.07	.27**	.18	–
MCQ Z	−.01	.03	.16	.16	−.23	−.04	.26	−
SAQ Z	−.10	−.03	−.01	.31*	.04	.01	.18	.47**	–
Total summative assessment Z	−.09	−.02	.07	.31*	−.08	−.02	.24	.78**	.92**

*Denotes significant relationship at the p < .05 level.

**Denotes significant relationship at the p < .01 level

Table 3. Simple moderation model (PROCESS Model 1, N = 102).

Outcome: learning approach R^2= 0.11, F(3,98) = 3.85, p = 0.01
	β	SE	t	p	CI
Constant	3.37	0.04	81.78	<0.001	[3.29,3.45]
Social identification	0.14	0.08	1.70	0.09	[−0.02,0.30]
Deep learning norms	0.17	0.08	2.15	0.03	[0.01,0.33]
Identification × Norms	0.01	0.13	0.04	0.97	[−0.25,0.26]

Table 4. Moderated-mediation model (PROCESS Model 7, N = 48).

	Outcome: learning approach R^2= 0.19, F(3,44) = 3.46, p = 0.02					Outcome: standardised total grade R^2= 0.01, F(2,45) = 0.30, p = 0.75					Outcome: standardised SAQ grade R^2= 0.10, F(2,45) = 0.23, p = 0.79					Outcome: standardised MCQ grade R^2= 0.03, F(2,45) = 0.59, p = 0.56
	β	SE	t	p	CI	B	SE	t	p	CI	B	SE	t	p	CI	B	SE	t	p	CI
Constant	0.04	0.06	0.57	0.57	[−0.09,0.16]	0.14	0.11	1.25	0.22	[−0.09,0.36]	0.15	0.13	1.19	0.24	[−0.10,0.40]	0.16	0.14	1.15	0.26	[−0.12,0.43]
Social identification	0.03	0.16	0.20	0.84	[−0.28,0.34]	−.16	0.27	−0.62	0.54	[−0.70,0.37]	−0.20	0.30	−0.68	0.50	[−0.81,0.40]	−0.07	0.33	−0.21	0.83	[−0.73,0.59]
Deep learning norms	0.35	0.12	2.86	0.01	[0.10,0.59]	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Identification × Norms	0.09	0.25	0.37	0.72	[−0.42,0.60]	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Deep learning approach	–	–	–	–	–	0.13	0.24	0.53	0.60	[−0.36,0.62]	0.02	0.27	0.62	0.95	[−0.53,0.57]	0.32	0.30	1.08	0.29	[−0.28,0.92]

Table 5. Moderated-mediation model (PROCESS Model 7, N = 100).

	Outcome: learning approach R^2= 0.11, F(3,96) = 3.78, p = 0.01					Outcome: confidence R^2= 0.22, F(2,97) = 9.85, p < 0.001
	β	SE	t	p	CI	B	SE	t	p	CI
Constant	0.02	0.04	0.47	0.64	[−0.06,0.10]	3.22	0.07	47.44	<0.001	[−1.05,1.74]
Social identification	0.12	0.08	1.51	0.13	[−0.04,0.29]	0.15	0.13	1.10	0.28	[−0.04,0.49]
Deep learning norms	0.19	0.09	2.23	0.03	[0.21,0.36]	–	–	–	–	–
Identification × Norms	−0.03	0.14	−0.19	0.85	[−0.30.0.25]	–	–	–	–	–
Deep learning approach	–	–	–	–	–	0.80	0.17	4.71	<0.001	[0.29,0.91]

Smyth, L., Mavor, K. I., & Platow, M. J. (2019). Social identification and academic performance: Integrating two existing models of tertiary student learning. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 39(3), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1524853

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar