Systematic review of retention and learning engagement in online learning from 2015-2025
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30iSI2.5893Keywords:
Learning engagement, retention, online learning, systematic reviewAbstract
This study aims to explore retention issues in online learning environments, with a primary focus on the role of learning engagement. Using the PRISMA approach, we analyzed 19 publications addressing engagement and retention in online learning environments from 2015 to 2025. In terms of publication productivity on this topic, 2019 was the most productive year, followed by 2020 and 2022. Regarding learning contexts, more than half of the studies were conducted in MOOC environments. Concerning influential factors of engagement and retention, instructor-related factors or instructional strategies were the most frequently examined, followed by learner-related individual factors and course characteristics. In terms of intervention strategies, games and gamification were the most frequently implemented in these studies, followed by asynchronous online discussions. Regarding types of engagement, multiple dimensions of engagement were most frequently examined, while behavioral engagement was the most studied as a single dimension. This study suggests that engagement is a critical factor in retention in online learning and also reveals an imbalance in the engagement literature with a need for more research on emotional engagement as well as more attention paid to engagement opportunities in various forms of blended learning. Future studies are suggested to explore underrepresented areas that might contribute to enhancing retention in online learning.
References
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., & Jordan, Z. (Eds.). (2024). JBI Manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01 https://synthesismanual.jbi.globalhttps://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
Barua, L., & Lockee, B. B. (2024). A review of strategies to incorporate flexibility in higher education course designs. Discover Education, 3, 127 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00213-8
Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions—A literature review. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621777
Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design (1st ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex
Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., Fors, U., & Knutsson, O. (2020). Engagement, disengagement and performance when learning with technologies in upper secondary school. Computers & Education, 149, Article 103783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103783
Boles, E., Cass, B., Levin, C., Schroeder, R., & Smith, S. (2010). Sustaining students: Retention strategies in an online program. EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/12/sustaining-students-retention-strategies-in-an-online-program
Bonk, C. J., Hansen, E. J., Grabner, M. M., Lazar, S., & Mirabelli, C. (1998). Time to "Connect": Synchronous and asynchronous case-based dialogue among preservice teachers. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 289-314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2015). MOOCs and open education around the world. NY: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315751108
Bonk, C. J. (2020). Pandemic ponderings, 30 years to today: Synchronous signals, saviors, or survivors? Distance Education, 41(4), 589-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821610
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., West, R. E., Archambault, L., & Spring, K. J. (2020). Academic communities of engagement: An expansive lens for examining support structures in blended and online learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 807–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09744-x
Bozkurt, A., et al. (2023). Openness in education as a praxis: From individual testimonials to collective voices. Open Praxis, 15(2), pp. 76–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.2.574
Bramer, W. M. (2016). Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(2), 143-145. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.009
Canessa, E., & Pisani, A. (2013). High school open on-line courses (HOOC): A case study from Italy. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16(1), 131-140. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2013/Canessa_Pisani.pdf
Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK ’13) (pp. 185–189). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460332
Cortes, K. (2021). Students’ perceptions of engagement in online courses and its effect on academic performance and retention rates [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Arizona State University.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(3), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18
*de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268
*Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway D (2020). Linking learner factors, teaching context, And engagement patterns with MOOC learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 688–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12437
Doo, M. Y., & Kim, J. (2024). Leaning engagement and learning achievement in online learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Distance Education, 45(1), 60-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2024.2303484
*Fan, S., Trimble, A., Kember, D., Muir, T., Douglas, T., Wang, Y., Masters, J., & Mainsbridge, C. (2024). Supporting engagement and retention of online and blended-learning students: A qualitative study from an Australian University. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51, 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00605-5
Fredricks, 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Gardner, K., & Leary, H. (2023). Online learning for first-generation and underrepresented minoritized students: A literature review using a model of student engagement. Online Learning, 27(1), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3392
*Gay, G. H. E., & Betts, K. (2020). From discussion forums to eMeetings: Integrating high touch strategies to increase student engagement, academic performance, and retention in large online courses. Online Learning, 24(1), 92–119. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.1984
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11, 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Higher Education Commission in Mauritius (2025, August). A blueprint on micro-credentials in higher education: From concept to execution. https://www.hec.mu/pdf_downloads/NCVTS_Blueprint/MC%20BROCHURE_08102025_Final01.pdf
*Hsu, W.-S. (2025). Analyzing student engagement and learning outcomes in a gamified blended cybersecurity course using LMS-based behavioral data. International Journal of Engineering Pedagocy (iJEP), 15(6), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v15i6.57015
*Huber, S. E., Cortez, R., Kiili, K., Lindstedt, A., & Ninaus, M. (2023). Game elements enhance engagement and mitigate attrition in online learning tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, Article 107948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107948
Jia, R. M., & Stern, C. (2026). The inclusion or exclusion of studies based on critical appraisal results in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: An analysis of practices. Research Synthesis Methods, 17(2), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.10042
*Kahn, P., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9484-z
Kim, P. (2024). Trends of AI in education and new competencies for the future at exploring the ethical use of AI TIP conference. YouTube. [Video]. https://youtube/DsUEhxlNku8?si=h2vXfm-P2zNfdg5o
Kim, P., & Chung, C. (2015). Creating a temporary spontaneous mini-ecosystem through a MOOC. In C. J. Bonk, Lee, M. M., T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 155-168). Routledge.
Kim, P., & Lee, J. (2020). Evolution of online learning environments and the emergence of intelligent MOOCs. In K. Zhang, C. J. Bonk, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, and opportunities (pp. 329-341). Routledge.
*Kuromiya, H., Majumdar, R., Miyabe, G., & Ogata, H. (2022). E-book-based learning activity during COVID-19: Engagement behaviors and perceptions of Japanese junior-high school students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00184-0
*Lan, M., & Hew, K. F. (2020). Examining learning engagement in MOOCs: A self-determination theoretical perspective using mixed method. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0179-5
Lee, J., Park, T., & Davis, R. O. (2022). What affects learner engagement in flipped learning and what predicts its outcomes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(2), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12717
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9207-0
Li, Z., Bonk, C. J., & Zhu, M. (2024). Community in the open: Supports, challenges, and impacts of local learning communities of K-12 adolescent MOOC learners from Nepal. Online Learning, 28(3), 497-523. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.3463
Martin, F. (2025). Systematic reviews in educational research: A practical guide for research synthesis. SAGE.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Martin, F., & Borup, J. (2022). Online learner engagement: Conceptual definitions, research themes, and supportive practices. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2089147
Martin, M., & Mhicil, M. N. G. (2025). Micro-credentials in Mauritius: towards a national framework for TVET and higher education UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54673/dplj5721 or https://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/publication/micro-credentials-mauritius-towards-national-framework-tvet-and-higher-education
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-29). Routledge.
Naidu, S. (2023). From open access to open science—open education in transition. Distance Education (2023), 44(4), 599–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2023.2278218
Newmann, F. M. (Ed.) (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. Teachers College Press.
*Ortega-Arranz, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Martínez-Monés, A., Gómez-Sánchez, E., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2019). To reward and beyond: Analyzing the effect of reward-based strategies in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 142, Article 103639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103639
*Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., Armellini, A., & Rodriguez Nieto, M. C. (2020). Learner engagement, retention and success: Why size matters in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 35(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2019.1665503
Paton, R. M., Fluck, A. E., & Scanlan, J. D. (2018). Engagement and retention in VET MOOCs and online courses: A systematic review of literature from 2013 to 2017. Computers & Education, 125, 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.013
Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007, Winter). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential learners’ perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3) 245-264.
Rad, H. S., Alipour, R., & Jafarpour, A. (2024). Using artificial intelligence to foster students’ writing feedback literacy, engagement, and outcome: A case of wordtune application. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5020–5040. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208170
*Rosser-Majors, M. L., Rebeor, S., McMahon, C., Wilson, A., Stubbs, S. L., Harper, Y., & Sliwinski, L. (2022). Improving retention factors and student success online utilizing the Community of Inquiry framework’s instructor presence Model. Online Learning, 26(2), 6-33. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i2.2731
Seery, K., Barreda, A. A., Hein, S. G., & Hiller, J. L. (2021). Retention strategies for online students: A systematic literature review. Journal of Global Education and Research, 5(1), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.5.1.1105
*She, M., Xu, Y., Li, Z., & Hu, D. (2025). Exploring the determinants on continuance participation of college students toward blended learning: The stimulating role of course characteristics and instructor support. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1522810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1522810
*Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2019). Students' engagement characteristics predict success and completion of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12340
Stein, J., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Essentials for blended learning: A standards-based guide. Routledge.
Tay, A. (2024, May 12). Why EXACTLY is Google Scholar bad for evidence synthesis, systematic reviews? Aaron Tay Substack. Available: https://aarontay.substack.com/p/why-exactly-is-google-scholar-bad-for
Torres-Gracia, C., Zamudio-Orozco, L., & Garcia, M. M. (2026). A qualitative examination of mentoring practices for first-generation, low income STEM students through a critical intersectionality lens. SAGE Open, 1-16. DOI: 10.1177/21582440261431861
Tucker, C. (2020). Balance with blended learning: Partner with your students to reimagine learning and reclaim your life. Corwin.
*Umer, R., Susnajac, A., Mathrani, A., & Suriadi, S. (2017). Prediction of students' dropout in MOOC environment. International Journal of Knowledge Engineering, 3(2), 19–27.
UNESCO (2022). The 2019 UNESCO recommendation on open educational resources (OER): Supporting universal access to information through quality open learning materials. UNESCO Digital Library, Paris. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383205.locale=en
Vayre, E., & Vonthron, A.-M. (2017). Psychological engagement of students in distance and online learning: Effects of self-efficacy and psychosocial processes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116656849
*Vo, H., & Ho, H. (2024). Online learning environment and student engagement: The mediating role of expectancy and task value beliefs. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(6), 2183–2207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00689-1
Wang, R., Cao, J., Xu, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). Learning engagement in massive open online courses. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1074435. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1074435
*Wang, W., Guo, L., He, L., & Wu, Y. J. (2019). Effects of social-interactive engagement on the dropout ratio in online learning: insights from MOOC. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(6), 621–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1549595
*Yang, H-H. & Lin, J-Y. (2023). Students’ persistence intention in MOOCs in the psychomotor domain: An extended 3P model of the teaching and learning perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1094138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1094138
*You, W. (2022). Research on the relationship between learning engagement and learning completion of online learning students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(01), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i01.28545
Zhu, M., Sari, A. R., & Lee, M. M. (2020). A comprehensive systematic review of MOOC research: Research techniques, topics, and trends from 2009 to 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1685-1710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09798-x
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Curtis J. Bonk, Meina Zhu, Min Young Doo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
