Designing for Student Engagement in Online Higher Education: A Recent Review of Instructional Design, Interactive Pedagogies, and Learner Support

Student engagement in online higher education involves how learners participate in course activities, interact with others and sustain their effort over time. This review examines the relationship between instructional design, interactive pedagogies and learner support through a structured Scopus search and integrative thematic synthesis of 53 publications from 2023-2026. The evidence covered fully online and distance courses, emergency remote teaching, and online components of blended or campus-based courses. Clear navigation, accessible resources and explicit expectations helped students organise independent study and enter learning activities. Learner choice and flexible formats were valuable alongside guidance that clarified assessment requirements. Engagement in active and collaborative tasks varied with their purpose, intellectual demand, sequencing and coordination. Interactive tools supported practical application and peer exchange, while unclear roles and excessive participation requirements could reduce the perceived value of activities. Timely, specific feedback and responsive facilitation were associated with progress review, self-regulation and continued involvement. Learners valued personalised communication and opportunities to contribute, which they linked to belonging and feeling heard. Teaching presence was expressed through these practices, although its direct association with engagement varied across studies. Findings on gamification and analytics-based feedback varied across engagement dimensions and academic outcomes; greater activity or higher grades did not consistently indicate stronger engagement. Work commitments, language, digital readiness and scheduling demands shaped the accessibility and perceived value of participation opportunities. Online course design should therefore coordinate clear guidance and flexible access with purposeful activities, manageable participation requirements and feedback that students can apply before the next task. Evaluating behavioural, cognitive and affective engagement alongside learning outcomes can help instructors adjust these arrangements to their learners and educational context.

Student engagement, Online higher education, Instructional design, Interactive pedagogies, Learner support

1. Alshammari, S. H., & Alrehaili, T. A. (2025). The effect of teaching, social, and cognitive presence on student engagement in online courses: A structural equation modelling approach. Acta Psychologica, 258, 105183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al-Zahrani, A. M., & Alasmari, T. (2023). Learning analytics for data-driven decision making: Enhancing instructional personalization and student engagement in online higher education. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 13(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.331751 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Antonis, K., Lampsas, P., Katsenos, I., Papadakis, S., & Stamouli, S.-M. (2023). Flipped classroom with teams-based learning in emergency higher education: Methodology and results. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 5279-5295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11339-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Asghar, A. U. R., Aksoy, M., Graham, A. I., & Baseler, H. A. (2023). Developing research skills in medical students online using an active research study. BMC Medical Education, 23, 805. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04781-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Brown, V., Collins, T., & Braithwaite, N. S. J. (2023). Teaching roles and communication strategies in interactive web broadcasts for practical lab and field work at a distance. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1198169. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1198169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Büchele, S., Feiste, L., Müller, R., & Schürmann, M. (2025). Online self-assessments and student engagement: A causal analysis in university mathematics. Education and Information Technologies, 30(18), 26235-26260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13794-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chan, S. L., Fung, J. T. C., Wong, M. S., Cheng, C. C. W., Lee, J. J. J., Choi, H. R., Wan, W. H., Withrow, H., Sirirat, S.-I., Tse, W. H., Poon, R. P. W., Lam, C. F., Lam, H. C. Y., Chan, C. K., & Lin, C. C. (2025). Educational technology enhanced interprofessional e-learning for engaging cross-institutional and cross-border healthcare students: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 9, 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chandrasekaran, J., Anitha, D., & Uma, K. V. (2023). An effective instructional design to enhance learning outcomes of information security course in online mode. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 36(Special issue), 319-325. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2023/v36is2/23047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chen, C.-Y., Shi, X.-W., Yin, S.-Y., Fan, N.-Y., Zhang, T.-Y., Zhang, X.-N., Yin, C.-T., & Mi, W. (2024). Application of the online teaching model based on BOPPPS virtual simulation platform in preventive medicine undergraduate experiment. BMC Medical Education, 24, 1255. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06175-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cigdem, H., Ozturk, M., Karabacak, Y., Atik, N., Gürkan, S., & Aldemir, M. H. (2024). Unlocking student engagement and achievement: The impact of leaderboard gamification in online formative assessment for engineering education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(18), 24835-24860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12845-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cui, T., & Wang, J. (2024). Empowering active learning: A social annotation tool for improving student engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(2), 712-730. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13403 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. DeCaro, M. S., Isaacs, R. A., Bego, C. R., & Chastain, R. J. (2023). Bringing exploratory learning online: Problem-solving before instruction improves remote undergraduate physics learning. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1215975. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1215975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dennen, V., Choi, H., He, D., & Arslan, Ö. (2024). Course design, belonging, and learner engagement: Meeting the needs of diverse international students in online courses. TechTrends, 68(5), 922-935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00983-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ebrahim, S., Kinoo, S. M., Naidoo, M., & Van Wyk, J. M. (2024). The use of household items to support online surgical knot-tying skills training: A mixed methods study. BMC Medical Education, 24, 605. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05549-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Emerson, K. G. (2026). “It honestly made me want to work harder”: Student evaluation of using ungrading in an online asynchronous course. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 14, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.14.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fanshawe, M., Brown, A., & Redmond, P. (2025). Using an online engagement framework to redesign the learning environment for higher education students: A design experiment approach. Online Learning, 29(2), 269-297. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i2.4447 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Farooqi, S., & Naeem, F. (2023). Precedence and impact of flipped classroom on student engagement: Mediating study using SEM-PLS. Advanced Education, 11(23), 52-68. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.272234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Garrad, T.-A., & Nolan, H. (2023). Rethinking higher education unit design: Embedding Universal Design for Learning in online studies. Student Success, 14(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.2300 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Guo, Y., Wang, X., Gao, Y., Yin, H., Ma, Q., & Chen, T. (2024). Flipped online teaching of histology and embryology with design thinking: Design, practice and reflection. BMC Medical Education, 24, 388. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05373-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hoffman, D. L., Furutomo, F., Eichelberger, A., & McKimmy, P. (2023). Matters of frequency, immediacy and regularity: Engagement in an online asynchronous course. Innovative Higher Education, 48(4), 655-677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09646-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., Wan, X., & Fute, A. (2024). Enhancing student engagement in online education: The role of self-regulation and teacher support in Zambia. Discover Education, 3, 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00216-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Khan, S., Srivel, V., & Wong, M. (2025). Enhancing engagement in a learning management system through a raffle ticket system. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 13, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.13.27 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kipling, R. P., Stiles, W. A. V., de Andrade-Lima, M., MacKintosh, N., Roberts, M. W., Williams, C. L., Wootton-Beard, P. C., & Watson-Jones, S. J. (2023). Interaction in online postgraduate learning: What makes a good forum? Distance Education, 44(1), 162-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2150391 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kumi, R. (2023). Discussion forums and student engagement: A social network analysis perspective. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 21(4), 197-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12299 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lacey, M. M., Francis, N. J., & Smith, D. P. (2024). Redefining online biology education: A study on interactive branched video utilisation and student learning experiences. FEBS Open Bio, 14(2), 230-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.13767 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Li, L., Zhang, R., & Piper, A. M. (2023). Predictors of student engagement and perceived learning in emergency online education amidst COVID-19: A community of inquiry perspective. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 12, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100326 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Lopes, L. A. (2024). Creative challenge to stimulate student engagement in natural science education in distance learning. Pedagogical Research, 9(1), em0184. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/14054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mariam, M., Surjono, H. D., Wijanarka, B. S., & Maulana, I. (2026). Constructivist-based flipped classroom in e-learning: Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 8(2), e2026028. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2026028 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mohebi, L. (2023). Students’ online engagement and usage of discussion boards on Blackboard: A study from the UAE. Journal of Educators Online, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2023.20.3.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Morgan, A. (2024). Enhancing access in an online course using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Scenario-Based Learning (SBL). TechTrends, 68(5), 904-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00981-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Morrison, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2023). The role of feedback in building teaching presence and student self-regulation in online learning. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7(1), 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100503 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ojonuba, S. E., Türkmen, G., & Toker, S. (2025). Enhancing web development education with game-based and gamification learning: A study of engagement, motivation, and performance. IEEE Access, 13, 137048-137066. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3595510 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Peramunugamage, A., Ratnayake, U. W., Karunanayaka, S. P., & Jayawardena, C. L. (2024). Design of Moodle-based collaborative learning activities to enhance student interactions. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 19(1), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-06-2023-0079 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Pham, A. T., & Nguyen, T. B. (2025). Students’ perceptions of teaching presence in the virtual learning environment: A community of inquiry case study in Vietnam. Acta Psychologica, 261, 105810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105810 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Pradana, R. P., Pinem, A. A., & Handayani, P. W. (2024). Influence of gamification on student engagement in online discussions using self-determination theory. Journal of Educators Online, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2024.21.2.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Pujasari, R. S., Mujianto, J., Sukarno, & Astuti, P. (2025). Humanising online learning through social presence in higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 40(3), 633-670. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2025.40.3.25 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Rahimipour, M., Haghjoo, R., Mosalanejad, L., & Karimian, Z. (2025). Play to learn: Innovating embryology education through a web-based gamification platform, and evaluating its effects on medical students’ reaction, learning, and behavior. BMC Medical Education, 25, 1321. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07922-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Rainchuso, L., Eastwood, K., Freundlich, S., Mullikin, C., Speranzo, C., & Lewis, A. D. (2026). Strategies for fostering graduate students’ engagement in online education. Journal of Educators Online, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2026.23.1.13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Rudnák, I., Hamza, K. A., Alshaabani, A., & Garamvölgyi, J. (2024). Impact of students’ feedback on their engagement towards online classes during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(6), 3775-3786. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i6.28375 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Salahudeen, M. S., Baker, W., & Douglas, T. (2026). Towards better engagement: Barriers and solutions for active learning in an online postgraduate program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 90(1), 101912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101912 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Seymour, M. (2024). Enhancing the online student experience through the application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to research methods learning and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 2767-2785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11948-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Shehzad, N., & Charles, T. (2023). Exploring the impact of instructor social presence on student engagement in online higher education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep484. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sherifi, D., Jia, Y., Hunt, T. J., & Ndanga, M. (2023). Evaluation of a PlayPosit guided group project’s impact on student engagement in an undergraduate course. Discover Education, 2, 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00057-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Suartama, I. K., Sudarma, I. K., Sudatha, I. G. W., Sukmana, A. I. W. I. Y., & Susiani, K. (2024). Student engagement and academic achievement: The effect of gamification on case and project-based online learning. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 18(3), 976-990. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i3.21349 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Subiyantoro, S., Degeng, I. N. S., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2024). Developing gamified learning management systems to increase student engagement in online learning environments. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(1), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.1.2020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Tamayo-Cano, L. H., Pineda-Hoyos, J. E., & Riascos-Gómez, A. F. (2025). Virtual learning objects in online English programs: Addressing teacher-centric orientation and student engagement. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 30(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.358271 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Vilhunen, E., Vesterinen, V.-M., Äijälä, M., Salovaara, J., Siponen, J., Lavonen, J., Salmela-Aro, K., & Riuttanen, L. (2025). Promoting university students’ situational engagement in online learning for climate education. The Internet and Higher Education, 65, 100987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100987 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Wang, S., Yang, D., Zhao, W., Yan, X., Zhang, X., Gao, W., & Guo, J. (2025). The combination of a SPOC with evaluative interactive learning in dental adhesion education: A comparison with a lecture-based learning mode. BMC Medical Education, 25, 667. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07261-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Widiasih, W., Zakirman, Sukmaning Adji, S., Firmansyah, J., Ekawati, R., Sumardani, D., & Chaw, E. P. (2025). Enhancing student engagement in science practicum in distance higher education for quality education (SDG 4). Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 14(1), 102-117. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v14i1.13093 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., Hazzam, J., & Marder, B. (2023). Collaborative learning in online breakout rooms: The effects of learner attributes on purposeful interpersonal interaction and perceived learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2022-0412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Yildiz Durak, H. (2025). Impact of ML-LA feedback system on learners’ academic performance, engagement and behavioral patterns in online collaborative learning environments: A lag sequential analysis and Markov chain approach. Education and Information Technologies, 30(2), 2623-2644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12911-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Yunus, M., & Bachtiar. (2025). Beyond access: Reframing engagement, assessment, and feedback in open and distance learning at Universitas Terbuka. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(6), 562-587. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.6.26 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Zulpykhar, Z., Sadvakassova, A., Zhalgasbekova, Z., Zhantassova, Z., & Kadyrova, A. (2026). The role of cloud-based collaborative tools in fostering digital teamwork and engagement in undergraduate computer science courses. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 16(2), 413-421. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2026.16.2.2514 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study